La confiança quan els sistemes de salut són fràgils

Public Health, Public Trust and American Fragility in a Pandemic Era The Critical Role of Health Care Professionals

Confiança (2)

Trust in Medicine, the Health System & Public Health

Segueixo llegint Daedalus i em trobo un article de Bob Blendon sobre confiança en el sistema de salut. Ell és el gran expert. Fa dècades que publica sobre aquest tema i en aquest article resumeix la situació dels darrers 40 anys. Explica com ha disminuït la confiança als USA, com el declivi ha estat més intens que a altres institucions, i com els esforços per millorar no han donat resultats. En un gràfic:

Observeu l'impacte de la pandèmia l'any 2020-2021. Canvia la tendència momentàniament per als demòcrates a 50% mentre republicans 36%. 

Els autors expliquen que és diferent la confiança en el sistema de la confiança en el propi metge, està clar. Expliquen que la confiança en els líders polítics ha minvat substancialment en la mesura que no enfoquen les qüestions clau de política sanitària, deixant de banda la pandèmia. Als USA preocupen qüestions diferents que aquí, allà el cost els serveis i de la farmàcia és el que els afecta més.

Després entra al detall del perquè de la desconfiança, situant al capdamunt al govern en general i als científics mèdics en particular, tot això banyat per la polarització.

Com es pot recuperar la confiança? Dona algunes pistes genèriques. Però pel que fa a la polarització política assenyala sobretot estratègies comunicatives força clares i la importància del professionalisme en salut pública per tal d'evitar la politització dels càrrecs públics.

En resum, que es un article que malgrat està enfocat als USA serveix plenament per aquí aprop. El missatge és clar, generar confiança és un procés que no s'acaba mai, però cal posar-hi els fonaments i la persistència necessària. El que està passant per aquí aprop és just el contrari (min 45).

La carpeta del ministre de sanitat

Health Ministerial Meeting. Better policies for resilient health systems

Cada any al mateix temps que hi ha la trobada de Davos, es reuneixen el ministres de salut de l'OCDE. I si algun dia us nomenen ministre, us tocarà anar-hi i us donaran una carpeta amb l'informe que adjunto que repassa els grans temes del moment. Estudieu-lo amb deteniment. Aquest any aquestes eren les qüestions:

Working lunch on climate change and health 

1 The future of digital health after COVID-19 

2 Bolstering public health: Healthy populations for more resilient health systems 

3 Strengthening mental health resilience 

4 The future of pharmaceutical policy 

5 Investing in resilience: The health and social care workforce

Primer de tot un dinar, per parlar del temps (vull dir del clima i la salut) i després temes coneguts dels que darrerament han sortit informes específics i que ja hem explicat en aquest blog. 

Aquest gràfic resumeix la petjada de l'assistència sanitària en el clima, i mireu quins Estats tenen la taxa d'emisions més alta:

Crec que no se'n parla prou. I després, trobareu aquest altre gràfic sobre els preus dels nous medicaments (als USA):

Per tal que ens fem la idea del que ve, i del que hem parlat repetidament.

I finalment la relació entre el nombre de treballadors socials i sanitaris i l'excés de mortalitat a la pandèmia:

Jutgeu vosaltres mateixos, la gràfica ho diu tot. Mireu on es troba cada país, i qui hi ha al quadrant inferior de la dreta, i qui no hi és.

PS . I aquesta era l'agenda. Catalunya no hi era a la reunió, la Gemma Galdón si, i què hi feia? (parlava, de què? no ho sé). Si voleu veure-ho, ho trobareu aquí. 

PS. I aquestes són les conclusions, on diuen al que es comprometen (ben poca cosa):

WE COMMIT to:

●improve the performance, people-centredness, and resilience of our health systems, through mutual learning and continuous improvement;

●strengthen trust in the use of AI and digital technologies, including improving health data governance globally by strengthening the dissemination and uptake, in particular in other international fora, of the OECD Recommendation on Health Data Governance; and improving health literacy; and

●use artificial intelligence in health systems in a way that is responsible, people-centred and sensitive to ethical concerns; and identify areas where health-specific regulation may be needed.

IA pertot arreu (6)

Collective action for responsible AI in health

AI IN HEALTH: HUGE POTENTIAL, HUGE RISKS

 Repasso el darrer informe de l'OCDE sobre Intel·ligència Artificial i Salut. Veig que hi ha un bon resum de barreres, riscos, oportunitats i resultats potencials. Fa temps que parlem del mateix. Ara bé no veig una explicació clara de que cal fer col·lectivament per reduir els riscos.

En destacaré un risc molt important, que la IA contribueixi a crear una medicina de "caixa negra". Diu:

AI solutions may not be explainable, impacting accountable evidence-based decision-making: The “black box” nature of AI algorithms can lead to difficulty in understanding the rationale behind specific AI driven outputs. This difficulty in understanding can grow to a lack of trust in solutions when coupled with the risk of AI solutions being trained on biased data. While it is difficult to fully articulate the underlying mathematics in an easy-to-consume manner, it is important to develop guidance for explainability of AI solutions to ensure that sufficient information is provided to establish trust in outcomes. Where appropriate, sufficient transparency should be provided to both the users of AI algorithms (e.g. health providers) as well as those impacted by its outcomes (e.g. patients). This should be communicated in language that is appropriate and consumable for the target audience while respecting intellectual property and preventing breaches of privacy. Transparency into the demographic data used in AI models will allow AI users to evaluate the appropriateness of the model in a given clinical context.

Aquesta observació l'he feta també en escrits anteriors però no hi ha resposta clara sobre com reduir aquest risc, només algunes idees elementals, i el temps va passant i la IA es va implantant. L'informe, malgrat això, és un bon resum a tenir en compte.

Que hem de fer amb les portes giratòries?

The Revolving Door In Health Care Regulation

Miro l'article de Health Affairs que parla de portes giratòries als USA i em trobo que el 15% dels alts càrrecs nomenats ve del sector privat i que després de deixar el càrrec un 32% van cap al sector privat. Dada interessant, perquè mostra com es valora dins el sector privat haver passat per un càrrec públic.

Aquí habitualment parlem de portes giratòries a la sortida, però molt poc a l'entrada. Recordem el cas més bèstia de com Coca Cola va aconseguir posar una executiva seva de directora de l'Agència de Seguretat Alimentària, sense escrúpols, als ulls de tothom. I no va passar res. I és que la llei parla de dos anys d'incompatibilitat a la sortida, però no he sabut veure res de conflictes d'interès a l'entrada, més enllà de declarar-los. Doncs això, els declares i ja està.

I aquesta afirmació de l'article m'interessa,

Note that the mere existence of a revolving door is not surprising or necessarily problematic. There is a persistent differential between government pay rates and private-sector compensation, particularly in growth areas such as biopharmaceuticals and information technology. Younger workers may want exposure to a range of work settings before committing to a particular career path, and experienced workers may seek new professional challenges.

i la conclusió del darrer paràgraf serveix per al nostre país també:

The risks posed to the functioning of and public trust in HHS warrants study into how these government-industry flows are affecting agency decision making, especially in offices with the highest net exit rates. Where there exist vulnerabilities, analysis can focus on how current laws and regulations can be refined or better enforced. Given the complexity and subtlety of mechanisms of industry influence, regulation of the revolving door will require innovative legal and regulatory strategies

PS. El que sap què hem de fer amb les portes giratòries és l'Ildefonso Hernàndez, aquí hi ha presentació breu de la seua tesi. Algú hauria de fer-li cas.

Eggleston al KBR a Barcelona

La priorització de les llistes d'espera

 Managing surgical waiting lists through dynamic priority scoring

De ben poc serveix que els ciutadans tinguin cobertura obligatòria d'assegurança del risc d'emmalaltir si a la pràctica no hi ha possibilitat d'accedir als serveis en el temps i forma acurats. Les llistes d'espera són la mostra evident i contrastada de que hi ha un problema gros, molt gros. I sabem que el primer motiu pel qual la gent paga voluntàriament una assegurança privada és perquè hi ha dificultats d'accés a l'assegurança obligatòria pública. I ja hem arribat al 31% de la població.

Ja fa tretze anys que es va publicar un document sobre priorització de les llistes i onze d'aquest. També fa onze anys que el Parlament va demanar que hi hagués un temps garantit d'accés, i el 2015 es va publicar un decret que diu:

Els criteris que han de regular l’establiment de la priorització d’accés dels pacients per a les prestacions sanitàries que tenen establert un termini de referència són els següents:

a) L’impacte de la malaltia sobre la qualitat de vida, incloent-hi aspectes com l’afectació de la vida diària, la qualitat de vida, el dolor, la dependència i la càrrega per a la família.

b) Els riscs associats a la demora en la realització de la prestació, entre els quals s’inclouen la gravetat potencial de la malaltia, el risc de desenvolupar comorbiditat o complicacions greus, la reducció de l’efectivitat de la intervenció o de la prognosi desprès de la intervenció, a mesura que augmenta el temps d’espera.

c) L’efectivitat clínica de l’actuació, tenint en compte el grau de millora que la intervenció aconsegueix en temps real.

d) L’ús i consum de recursos sanitaris durant l’espera a causa de l’estat dels pacients.

e) Els criteris que estableixi el Departament de Salut derivats del consens de les societats científiques.

D'acord, necessitem criteris. Després es mostren al decret els processos amb garantia: oncològics, cirurgia cardíaca i cataractes, i altres intervencions amb termini de referència. Però no hi ha cap requeriment de transparència sobre l'aplicació d'aquests criteris.

Vull saber quant pacients estan esperant i miro el juliol 2023 i aquesta és la situació de la llista d'espera d'intervencions:

- Intervencions amb termini de referència: 153.431 pacients esperant

- Intervencions oncológiques: 2.201 pacients esperant

- Cataractes i pròtesis genoll i maluc: 30.795 pacients esperant

-Cirurgia cardíaca: 238 pacients esperant

Només per intervencions quirúrgiques hi ha 186.665 pacients esperant per ser atesos. Massa gent (2,5% de la població). El nombre de persones en llista espera a desembre del 2003 era de 66.567 (1% de la població).

L'any passat al mateix mes de juliol hi havia 177.856 pacients. En un sol any hem assolit una fita notable, augmentar la llista d'espera en un 5% més de pacients esperant per una intervenció quirúrgica. No hem trencat la tendència i això hauria de preocupar a tothom, però malauradament la letargia de la política sanitària fa que no passi absolutament res. 

A més a més caldria afegir-hi també, les llistes d'espera de proves diagnòstiques i consultes externes. I ens enduríem una altra nefasta sorpresa.

Cal fer-nos algunes preguntes. I a la pràctica com es prioritza? els criteris s'apliquen amb objectivitat? Però sobre això no en sabem res. L'altre dia llegia un article que em va semblar encertat perquè introdueix la priorització dinàmica i la formalitza en un model. Posa ordre a les idees i permet una aplicació ordenada del problema d'accés. A les conclusions diuen:

Under the DPS system, all stakeholders can place more confidence in the appropriateness of patients’ assigned priority. The system increases equity across all patient categories and provides consistent processes for clinicians to assess clinical need, while also including an effective and efficient means of implementation. As such, it is intended that implementation of the DPS system will increase public trust and confidence in the systems used to prioritise elective surgeries. Features of the DPS system could also be extracted to suit the needs of individual healthcare systems. For example, clinical factor selection forms may be used independently of the DPS system and could be an effective tool to aid current prioritisation practices, providing an objective metric for waiting list staff to gauge the severity of patients and better inform prioritisation decisions.

Doncs això, transparència i confiança en els criteris de priorització, això és el que cal, més enllà d'una solució estructural a un problema estructural d'accés. És a dir planificar millor l'oferta i millorar la gestió dels serveis.

 

Joan Miró

Per una nova societat d'obligacions recíproques

Can We Be Happier? Evidence and Ethics

La pregunta de si podem ser més feliços, motiu del comentari del llibre d'avui, hauria de ser posterior a la de saber si som feliços ara. I com sempre anem a petar al problema de la mesura. L'economista Richard Layard porta molts anys explicant que podem mesurar la felicitat, i que hi ha dos components, la satisfacció amb la vida que té cadascun de nosaltres (felicitat experimentada) i la felicitat creada, fruit de la interacció social amb els altres. I diu:

We need to replace the harsh culture in which we judge our lives by our success compared with others. That is a zero-sum game – the total of relative success can never be changed, however hard each person tries to improve their own position. Instead, we need a goal for each of us which can lead to progress for all. That goal has to be the positive-sum activity of contributing to a happier society.

If we want a happier society, we have to aim at it explicitly. We will never achieve a happier society as a by-product. And it is a single overarching concept that we need if we are to displace the false idol of GDP. A dashboard of wellbeing indicators is certainly better than nothing, but it has been tried for half a century by the ‘social indicators’ movement with relatively little success.

Més endavant recupera els 10 factors que contribueixen a la felicitat:

Curiosament, tant que parlem de desigualtat, la referida a la renda diu que només explica menys del 2% de les diferències en la felicitat. És el que diu, jo no ho puc contrastar. En canvi el més important a tenir en compte són les privacions, allò al que no es pot accedir. I es carrega plenament la jerarquia de necessitats de Maslow.

Entre països, allò que explica la variació en el nivell de felicitat són bàsicament sis factors que expliquen el 76%:

• trust (the proportion of people who think ‘most people can be trusted’)
• generosity (the proportion who have donated money to a charity in the present month)
• social support (the proportion who have relatives or friends they can count on to help them whenever they need them)
• freedom (the proportion who are satisfied with their freedom to choose what they want to do with their life)
• health (years of healthy life expectancy)
• income (GDP per head)

És el que diu. A la majoria de països la felicitat va augmentar entre 1980 i 2007, després hi ha hagut recorreguts diversos i el creixement econòmic no és garantia de més felicitat.

I el llibre parla dels mestres, dels metges, dels polítics, funcionaris, científics, economistes i tots aquells que poden contribuir a la felicitat i els ofereix una agenda per a l'acció.

There is no objective reason why so many lives in the West should be so stressful. We ourselves have created the stress by our goals, and the way our institutions respond to them. If we change our goals, we really can produce a happier society.

Future generations will be shocked by many of the unthinking and unskilful features of life today. They will be shocked at the neglect of mental illness, at the stresses imposed on our children, and at the common assumption that everyone is an egotist.

So the world happiness movement can indeed bring in a better, gentler culture and do it fast. But what happens will ultimately depend on each one of us. We can all be heroes in the happiness revolution

Llibre recomanable, amb alguns biaixos que es poden descomptar des de l'inici (com una èmfasi excessiva en la salut mental i el mindfulness). En Martin Wolf deia que no li agrada massa això de que la felicitat estigui al capdamunt de l'agenda política. Jo crec que el que cal és afavorir les condicions per a un alt nivell de satisfacció amb la vida, i no sé si la paraula felicitat ajuda o distreu, potser més el segon. Estic convençut que una societat amb menor stress és possible. Totes aquelles decisions i accions individuals i col·lectives que hi contribueixin seran benvingudes en una nova societat d'obligacions recíproques.

PS. Malauradament no hi surt Catalunya als rankings de felicitat que publica Layard. Miraré de trobar material si és que n'hi ha.

PS. Sobre les diferències de renda i la felicitat: "There have been thousands of surveys in hundreds of countries and they typically find that, holding all else constant, a person with double your income will be 0.2 points happier than you are. Similarly, a person whose income is one half of yours will be 0.2 points less happy"

PS. El concepte de societat d'obligacions recíproques és de Collier.

En qui confiar per obtenir informació sanitària?

Trust In US Federal, State, And Local Public Health Agencies During COVID-19: Responses And Policy Implications

Necessitem confiar per viure dignament. I sobretot, sobretot en l'àmbit de la salut. Això ja ho vaig dir fa temps. Però en temps de pandèmia, quan la incertesa s'agreuja encara necessitàvem confiar més. I quan s'ha fet la pregunta als USA, la resposta es resumeix en aquest gràfic de sota. Malauradament no tinc disponible una enquesta similar propera, i valdria la pena tenir-la per així entendre les implicacions i com millorar.

PD. Martin Wolf sobre la crisi bancària.

PD. Sobre el Silicon Valley Bank, The New Yorker es pregunta, ningú va veure que el seu logo era un boomerang?:

The roots of good governance (3)

 High Performance Boards: Improving and Energizing your Governance

Contents:

Part I: The Four Pillars of Board Effectiveness 1

Joanne Marker and Board Service 3

Chapter 1 The Four Pillars of Board Effectiveness 9

The First Pillar: People Quality, Focus, and Dedication 11

The Second Pillar: Information Architecture 14

The Third Pillar: Structures and Processes 15

The Fourth Pillar: Group Dynamics and Board Culture 17

Chapter 2 Governance Challenges around the World 20

Scientific Lessons from Natural Selection 22

What is Transformational Leadership? 23

Should We Trust Leaders? 24

The Governance DNA 26

Chapter 3 The Successful Director: Values and Character 28

Duty of Care 30

Duty of Loyalty 32

Integrity: A Key Characteristic of Board Directors 32

Chapter 4 The First Pillar: People Quality, Focus, and Dedication 35

Quality 35

Focus 38

Dedication 41

Chapter 5 The Second Pillar: Information Architecture 45

How Complete is Your Information? 46

Chapter 6 Board Structures and Processes 50

Processes 51

Committee Structure 52

Board Secretary 53

Lead Director or Vice Chair 55

Chapter 7 Group Dynamics and Board Culture 56

Understanding Group Dynamics 57

Coalitions Within a Board Are Inevitable – and they Feed into Politics 60

Boards Fall into Traps 63

Drawing Strength from the Board’s Potential 66

Developing Self-Awareness 67

Board Culture 69

Part II: Board Failures and Challenges 77

Chapter 8 Four Areas of Board Failure 79

Chapter 9 Risks and Ensuring the Right Board Risk-Philosophy 82

Chapter 10 A Board Member’s Practical Guide to Risk Thinking 85

The Physical Health Check: Technical Risks 86

The Mental Health Check: Behaviours 89

The Strategic Risk Check 93

The Governance Risk Check 94

Chapter 11 Elements of Advanced Risk Techniques for Board Members: From Quants to Cyber 97

The Why and How of Quantitative Risk Assessment for Boards 98

Integration of Risks 101

The Outcome of Risk Assessment 102

Cyber Risk 104

Chapter 12 Crisis Management 107

Crisis as a Turning Point 110

There is Work to Be Done In Peaceful Times 111

Communication Principles 111

Another Powerful Weapon: Gathering Information 113

A Crisis Will Shed Light On Boardroom Fissures 115

Procedure vs. Authenticity 117

Communicate Your Way to Rebuilding Trust 118

Chapter 13 The Four Tiers of Conflicts of Interest 120

Tier-I Conflicts: Individual Directors vs. Company 122

Tier-II Conflicts: Directors vs. Stakeholders 124

Tier-III Conflicts: Stakeholders vs. Other Stakeholders 131

Conflicts of Interest within a Group of Stakeholders 135

Tier-IV Conflicts: Company vs. Society 136

Chapter 14 High-Level Fraud and Active Board Oversight 141

Why Does High-Level Fraud Happen? 143

Injustice 147

Lax Oversight 148

Problematic Culture 149

Financial Illiteracy 151

How to Create an Effective Oversight Environment 152

Preventing Injustice: Broaden the Notion of Conflict of Interest 152

Preventing Lax Oversight: Build Appropriate Frameworks 153

Preventing Toxic Behaviours: Create a Positive Culture 156

Strengthen Board Oversight Expertise with Special Focus on Legal, Compliance, Risk, Fraud, and Financial Reporting 159

Tools For Anti-Fraud Activities: Assessment, Prevention, Detection, and Investigation 160

Assessment 161

Prevention 161

Detection 161

Investigation 162

Part III: Board Best Practices 165

Chapter 15 The Board as a Strategic Asset 167

Five Definitions of Strategy 168

Clarifying the Board’s Role 171

Taking Context into the Mapping Process 174

The Impact of Context on Strategic Views and Roles of the Board 175

The Board’s Ultimate Strategic Significance 176

Chapter 16 A Primer on Finance Essentials for Directors 177

Reading Financial Reports 178

Understanding Ratios to Analyse Operating Strategies 179

Interpreting Between the Lines of Financial Statements 181

How to Identify Red Flags in Financial Statements 182

Implementing Desired Capital Structure 184

Understanding Valuation Fundamentals 185

Making Better M&A Decisions 187

Overseeing Risk 189

Joanne Marker and Board Values at Comfre 193

Chapter 17 Board Leadership and Values 197

Quality Boards Live and Breathe Integrity 198

Which and Whose Values? 199

Board Values vs. Organisational Values 202

Family Values in Business 203

Chapter 18 The Intricacies of Subsidiary/Holding Governance 204

Structures 206

Culture 208

Chapter 19 Fostering Entrepreneurship from the Board 210

‘Best Practice’ Governance vs. Entrepreneurship 211

Boards Should Actively Encourage Entrepreneurship 212

Chapter 20 The Board’s Oversight Framework for M&As 217

Creating a Deal-Making Mindset 218

Seeing the Bigger Picture 220

Staging Deals with Maximum Precision 220

Integration 225

Confronting Litigation Involving M&As 226

Joanne Marker Confronts Failing Board Culture 229

Chapter 21 The Chair–CEO Relationship 233

The Role of the Chair 233

Chairs are Increasingly Active 237

Chair–CEO Dynamics – the Hallmarks of a Productive Relationship 238

Tests of the Chair–CEO Relationship 240

The Ideal Attributes of a Chair 242

Chapter 22 The Board–Management Relationship 244

Supervision 244

Support 246

Blurring the Board–Management Relationship 247

Writing Governance Codes is Easier Than Changing Behaviours 248

Chapter 23 Effective Diversity 251

Diversity is Good . . . But Why; and When? 251

Diversity as a Considered Choice 252

Gender 253

Culture 255

Personality 256

Age 257

Social Background 259

We Have Embraced Diversity . . . Now What? 260

The Chair’s Role in Building and Nurturing Diversity 262

Chapter 24 The Talent Pipeline 265

The Board’s Responsibility for Talent Management 265

The New Talent Dynamic: Culture, Values, Community 268

Chapter 25 Boards and Social Media 272

JP Morgan’s Failed Foray into Twitter Q&A 273

Why Boards Should Understand Social Media 274

What Boards Should Do 276

Chapter 26 Boards and Investors 279

The Move toward Increasing Shareholder Engagement 281

Chapter 27 Managing Stakeholders 283

Shareholders vs. Stakeholders: A Definition 284

How to Identify a Company’s Key Stakeholders 285

The Board Can Be Instrumental in Shaping the CEO–Stakeholders Conversation 285

Anticipating Stakeholders’ Influence and Impact 286

Chapter 28 Stewardship from the Board 289

Building Upon a Rich Cross-Disciplinary Legacy of Thought 291

Psychological, Organisational, and Cultural Influences on Stewardship 291

Steward Leaders Build on their Unique Strengths to Drive Stewardship 292

Steward Leaders Deliver Long-Lasting, Meaningful, and Inclusive Impact 293

Becoming a Steward Leader: What it Takes 295

Stewardship Risks 297

Boards Are Key to Fostering Stewardship 297

Conclusion 299

Professionalism, current challenges (2)

 Medical Professionalism In An  Organizational Age: Challenges And Opportunities

This article aims to start a dialogue on how these changes may affect the key responsibilities of medical professionalism: putting patient interests first, maintaining and enhancing physicians’ medical  competence, and sustaining trust in the doctor-patient relationship. We identify several potentially effective strategies. They include policies to promote an institutional culture committed to professionalism and to enlarge physicians’ role in institutional leadership. We also address how the principles of professionalism might guide physician compensation formulas, policies governing transparency, and best practices for strengthening the relationships between physicians and newly empowered patients.

 

Pandemethics (2)

 Pandemic Bioethics

Contents:
Chapter 1 Historical Epidemics
The Spanish Flu of 1918
Cholera
Plague
Smallpox
Yellow Fever
Malaria
Chapter 2 Modern Viral Pandemics
Polio
Asian Flu of 1957 and Hong Kong Flu of 1968
Ebola
Swine Flu of 1976
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
SARS1
Swine Flu of 2009
Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)
Zika
Other Viral Diseases Affecting Humans
Chapter 3 The Medical Nature of SARS2
Disputed Origins of SARS2
The Clinical Course of COVID-19
Transmission and Immunity
Chapter 4 Policies for Containment
Quarantine as a Preventive Allocation Strategy
Four Models of Fighting Pandemics
Successes and Failures around the World
Intermittent Lockdowns, Denial, and the American Confusion
Chapter 5 Who Should Live When Not All Can?
Ethical Theories as Guides
Historical Background: The God Committee and Social Worth
A Relevant Digression: “Sickest First” Allocation and UNOS
Enter Bioethicists
Saints and Sacrifice
Covid, Cognitively Challenged Patients, and Rights of Disabled Persons
Unexpected Allocation Issues
Chapter 6 Developing Vaccines
A Brief History of Vaccines
Kinds of Vaccines
Ethical Issues in Developing Vaccines
Speeding Up Development of Experimental Vaccines
Other Problems with Vaccine Trials
Politics and Vaccines for Covid
Chapter 7 Allocating Vaccines
Success with Quick Production of Vaccines
The CDC and the States
Ability to Pay and Access to Vaccines
Allocation Priorities
Vaccination Complexities
Mandatory Vaccinations
Global Vaccine Distribution
Possible Bad Scenarios
Chapter 8 Acts and Omissions, the Trolley Problem, and Prisoner’s Dilemmas
Acts vesus Omissions
The Trolley Problem
Prisoner’s Dilemmas and Vaccination Uptake
Chapter 9 Liberty and Privacy
Philosophical Positions on Liberty
Problems of Contact Tracing
Controlling Pandemics versus Protecting Privacy
Privacy of Genetic Information Collected during Testing in Pandemics
Chapter 10 Status Certificates
Defining Key Terms
What Is the Purpose of Status Certificates?
Benefits of Status Certificates
Problems with Status Certificates
Chapter 11 Structural Inequalities and Vulnerable Groups
Who Is Most Vulnerable in a Pandemic?
Differences in Efforts to Control Infection in Different Vulnerable Groups
Chapter 12 Leadership during Pandemics
Leadership and the Virtue of Trust
The WHO’s Leaders Made Mistakes
Donald Trump and American Leadership
Judgment of US Leaders during the Pandemic
Chapter 13 The Future
The Future of COVID-19
Lessons to Learn
More Pandemics Will Come
What Will Happen Next?

Pharma, big pharma (9)

 Devalued and Distrusted: Can the Pharmaceutical Industry Restore its Broken Image?

Starting with "4 Secrets that Drug Companies Don't Want You to Know," Devalued and Distrusted provides a fact-based account of how the pharmaceutical industry works and the challenges it faces. It addresses such critical issues as:

• Why pharmaceutical R&D productivity has declined
• Where pharmaceutical companies need to invest their resources
• What can be done to solve core health challenges, including cancer, diabetes, and neurodegenerative diseases
• How the pharmaceutical industry can regain public trust and resuscitate its image

Our understanding of human health and disease grows daily; however, converting science into medicine is increasingly challenging. Reading Devalued and Distrusted, you'll not only gain a greater appreciation of those challenges, but also the role that the pharmaceutical industry currently plays and can play in solving those challenges.

 

Against black box medicine (2)

 Time to reality check the promises of machine learningowered precision medicine

Both machine learning and precision medicine are genuine innovations and will undoubtedly lead to some great scientific successes. However, these benefits currently fall short of the hype and expectation that has grown around them. Such a disconnect is not benign and risks overlooking rigour for rhetoric and inflating a bubble of hope that could irretrievably damage public trust when it bursts. Such mistakes and harm are inevitable if machine learning is mistakenly thought to bypass the need for genuine scientific expertise and scrutiny. There is no question that the appearance of big data and machine learning offer an exciting chance for revolution, but revolutions demand greater scrutiny, not less. This scrutiny should involve a reality check on the promises of machine learning-powered precision medicine and an enhanced focus on the core principles of good data science—trained experts in study design, data system design, and causal inference asking clear and important questions using high-quality data.

Data & Society

 A Primer on Powerful Numbers: Selected Readings in the Social Study of Public Data and Official Numbers

This publication is intended to be a non-exhaustive syllabus organized around a series of teachable or debatable claims concerning  the influence institutions of authority have on how data and numbers are created, as well as how that information is used by the datafied state to make fundamental decisions about democratic policy and process. 

Official numbers are the foundation upon which modern societies trust data. An official number is different from any other number because it’s given with authority and always there for the taking. Official data sets come out of bureaucratic and corporate offices and are imbued with the authority of those in power.

Six key arguments that center on the authority of data:

1. Modern societies are built to trust in official numbers (they even let official numbers make key decisions);
2. Official numbers are made, not found;
3. We forget that official numbers have to be made even when things are going well;
4. Institutions make public data and they make data public;
5. Official numbers are political; and
6. Consensus on official numbers requires work.

 

 

Digital health futures

 The Lancet and Financial Times Commission on governing health futures 2030: growing up in a digital world

The governance of digital technologies in health and health care must be driven by public purpose, not private profit. Its primary goals should be to address the power asymmetries reinforced by digital transformations, increase public trust in the digital health ecosystem, and ensure that the opportunities offered by digital technologies and data are harnessed in support of the missions of public health and UHC. To achieve these goals, we propose four action areas that we consider game-changers for shaping health futures in a digital world.

First, we suggest that decision makers, health professionals, and researchers consider—and address— digital technologies as increasingly important determinants of health. Second, we emphasise the need to build a governance architecture that creates trust in digital health by enfranchising patients and vulnerable groups, ensuring health and digital rights, and regulating powerful players in the digital health ecosystem. Third, we call for a new approach to the collection and use of health data based on the concept of data solidarity, with the aim of simultaneously protecting individual rights, promoting the public good potential of such data, and building a culture of data justice and equity. Finally, we urge decision makers to invest in the enablers of digitally transformed health systems, a task that will require strong country ownership of digital health strategies and clear investment roadmaps that help prioritise those technologies that are most needed at different levels of digital health maturity.

 Neus Martin, Galeria Barnadas

On how risk shifting affects trust

 Trusting Medicine

A book that explains that shifting financial risk onto doctors in a profit-making system seriously damages patient trust. In addition this undermines overall social capital, which in turn has been linked to health outcomes.

The relationship between value and values

 Value(s). Building a Better World for All

This book focuses on four major crises-the Global Financial Crisis, the Global Health Crisis, Climate Change and the 4th Industrial Revolution– and proposes responses to each. Quite a complicated issue. Therefore, my suggestion is to skip the first 2 parts, and go straight to chapter 14. And a key message:

Purpose, values and trust are not natural concepts for economists. The classic economic view, developed by Nobel laureate Ronald Coase, is that a company is a network of contracts in which everyone – owners, managers and workers – responds rationally to incentives. According to Coase’s The Nature of the Firm, the boundaries of the firm are defined by the differences in costs of providing a good or service through the market or a firm.48 Market transactions bear the costs of searching and gathering information, as well as of bargaining, policing and enforcement. Internalising these transactions within firms saves cost but at the expense of span of control, complexity and diseconomies of scale. The boundary of the firm is determined by the balance of these factors, with those activities that can be performed more efficiently and best done by command and control occurring within firms and the rest mediated through markets.

A strict interpretation of this approach misses how shared purpose can reduce transaction costs allowing activities outside the firm to become shared investments that advance the firm’s purpose, reinforcing its profitability and creating shared value. Shared purpose can alter the boundary of the firm (while increasing its ability to create value) by lowering transaction costs in market relationships as well as by making larger and more complex corporate entities possible. Confidence in shared purpose reduces the need for costly, fully complete contracts with suppliers and customers. At the same time, clarity of purpose within organisations, reinforced by strong internal culture, can lead to a type of continuous innovation that turns good companies into great ones.

This is important because, not for the first time, simple theoretical economic models can be poor guides to business in practice. A contractual model is only as good as the contracts, which in practice can be incomplete, difficult to enforce and subject to default. The assumption that human incentives will be solely guided by contractual terms is belied by the realities of people’s behaviours in a wide range of economic circumstances. Moreover, different parties have different time horizons and interests, which frustrate the achievement of optimal outcomes. As Martin Wolf argues, ‘If the rationale for the corporation is to substitute relational contracts, and so trust, for explicit contracts, and so enforcement, one cannot ignore this in deciding what businesses are for and who should control them.’49

The crucial insights of principal–agent theory are not limited to the need to align incentives of shareholders and management but extend to similar challenges between directors, management and employees as well as between companies and their suppliers and communities. When time horizons differ, there will always be incentives for one party to promise one thing and then renege. As we saw in Chapter 4, this is one of the classic motivations for delegated authority to central banks. And even that elegant solution has its limitations, underlining the importance of a shared mission and values.

A strong corporate culture is part of the solution to the problems of incomplete contracts and imperfect incentives. A strong corporate culture encourages stakeholders to internalise the behaviours firms want to create and sustain. In particular, purpose is indispensable to a culture of integrity. As we have seen, trust cannot be achieved merely by asserting rules and following protocols, but rather it is earned by multiple social interactions that reinforce behaviours and values. What are variously termed moral sentiments, social memes or behavioural cascades matter.

Thus purpose operates on a number of planes. First, internally, it creates the necessary social capital within the firm to underwrite foundations of value creation: tightly functioning teams, and high employee participation and engagement. Second, externally, it operates as a means of generating focus on customer service and alignment. The company’s external focus relates to the traditional purpose of a company: to serve its customers.50 If a firm does this well, it generates customer loyalty, and with time the consumer will become a stakeholder, reinforcing trust, good faith and fair dealing. Third, purpose operates as a social narrative, in communities and societies beyond the firm, helping to create and sustain the firm’s social licence to operate. At the highest level, purpose captures the moral contribution of companies to the betterment of the world now and in the future.

A firm is more than a nexus of contracts. However, how do we define it precisely is still unknown.

Digital health transformation

 Empowering the health workforce to make the most of the digital revolution

From the OECD report on digital health trasnformation: 

To address these issues to successful digital transformation, governments will need to provide the necessary political leadership and implement a range of policy actions to support three main objectives:

1. building trust in the benefits of digital transformation among health workers and patients while minimising any risks;

2. advancing expertise and skills needed for effective use of digital health technologies;

3. adapting the organisation of health service delivery and the related legal and financial

frameworks.

 

The narrative behind vaccine hesitancy

 VACCINE HESITANCY. Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science

The message:

The dominant framework that currently shapes scholarly and popular discourses on the problem of vaccine hesitancy employs a war metaphor to capture the intractability of the problem. The war metaphor also entrenches an “us” (science) versus “them” (publics) division that is not conducive to engagement and resolution. The “war on science” metaphor described a scientized (chapter 4) captured in three popular explanations for vaccine hesitancy: public misunderstanding of science (chapter 1), the influence of cognitive biases on the publics’ reasoning about vaccines (chapter 2), and antiexpertise and science denialism among the publics (chapter 3). All three narratives point to the publics as the problem (and even the enemy), with little attention to “us,” the courageous defenders of science. Yet, as I have shown, the scientizing force of “evidence-based everything” and the linear model of science-to-policy contribute to antagonizing science-publics relations

Take care... 

Genethics in practice

 The ethics of genomic medicine: redefining values and norms in the UK and France

This paper presents a joint position of the UK-France Genomics and Ethics Network (UK-FR GENE), which has been set up to reflect on the ethical and social issues arising from the integration of genomics into routine clinical care in the UK and France. In 2018, the two countries announced enhanced cooperation between their national strategies, Genomics England and Plan France Médecine Génomique 2025, which offers a unique opportunity to study the impact of genomic medicine and relevant policies in different national contexts. The paper provides first insights into the two national strategies and the norms, values and principles at stake in each country. It discusses the impact of genomic medicine on established relationships and existing regulations, and examines its effects on solidarity and trust in public healthcare systems. 

A must read for neighbour countries that have forgotten their homework.