Germline genome editing under scrutiny

Societal and Ethical Impacts of Germline Genome Editing: How Can We Secure Human Rights?

Geneva Statement on Heritable Human Genome Editing: The Need for Course Correction

A CRISPR Moratorium Isn't Enough: We Need a Boycott

The Human Right to Science and the Regulation of Human Germline Engineering

The last frontier in genome editing (if it exists) is germline. The special issue of The Crispr journal on bioethics contains an article of special interest and proposes a third process for evaluating individual and societal harms: a Human Rights Impact Assessment.

Human germline alteration is possible, due in part to democratization of genetic tools required for genome editing, and international scientific and legislative bodies are developing frameworks to manage the ramifications of this technology. Common among these frameworks are two pillars: public engagement and foundational principles. These components are necessary for respecting the autonomy of individuals and for fair processes and respecting diverse values.

However, they are not sufficient for protecting the most vulnerable members of society who may not even be in a position to participate in democratic processes. We propose implementing a HRIA, which captures concerns of public health and offers an opportunity to evaluate and anticipate the societal impact of GGE iteratively as the technology advances, public sentiments evolve, and cultural contexts shift. We recognize that this will raise new challenges of how such assessments are shared and implemented and how they can be enforced. We urge regulatory bodies and policy makers to consider this assessment approach in helping to establish robust regulatory frameworks necessary for the global protection of human rights.

And the Geneva Statement on Heritable Human Genome Editing says:

No decision about whether to pursue heritable human genome modification can be legitimate without broadly inclusive and substantively meaningful public engagement and empowerment. Such deliberations may be challenging and messy. They will take time and organizing them will necessitate creativity, hard work, and significant human and financial resources. The course correction proposed here is essential to these efforts.
We must in the meantime respect the predominant policy position against pursuing heritable human genome modification, if we are to prevent individual scientists or small committees from making this momentous decision for us all. This will preserve time to cultivate an informed and engaged public that can consider and discuss the societal consequences of altering the genes of future generations and make wise, democratic decisions about the shared future we aspire to build. 

I agree.

PS. CRISPR in 2020  Two major reports on germline editing, from the National Academies/Royal Society and the World Health Organization, will be released in 2020. We hope the reports will coordinate, with all the voices of CRISPR being heard, so we can build consensual and broadly acceptable frameworks to ensure we use CRISPR responsibly, especially regarding usage in human embryos for germline editing. The public has asked for it, and the community has been working on it. The science versus society gap will be bridged.

Digital health next to you

Bringing health care to the patient: An overview of the use of telemedicine in OECD countries 

Benchmarking deployment of eHealth among general practitioners

EHEALTH TREND BAROMETER: ANNUAL EUROPEAN EHEALTH SURVEY 2019

Several reports have been recently released. I would like to highlight the first one by the OECD, it reviews the current state of telemedicine and explains what works. In my opinion we do need an assessment of cost effectiveness of telemedicine, otherwise technology driven change is not enough.

Telemedicine services have the potential to improve effectiveness, efficiency and equity in health care, helping policy makers respond to increasing patient demands and needs. However, telemedicine interventions can also introduce new risks and amplify existing inequalities. In order for countries to maximise the benefits and limit the risks, telemedicine services need to improve the quality of care and provide clear benefits for patients. Telemedicine programmes that do not have benefits for patients are not worth pursuing and detract attention from other more effective interventions.

Josep Segú - Central Park

Health services research as a data science

Health Services Evaluation
Health Services Information: Key Concepts and Considerations in Building Episodes of Care from
Administrative Data
Assessing health systems

The provision of relevant, accurate, and timely performance information can play a pivotal role in ensuring the health system is able to deliver effective and efficient health services. Through its capacity to secure accountability in the health system, to determine appropriate treatment paths for patients, and to plan for future service patterns and structures, information can be used to identify and implement potential improvements in service delivery

AI in clinical decision making

International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening

Artificial intelligence is capable of surpassing human experts in breast cancer prediction. You can check it in Nature:

 To assess its performance in the clinical setting, we curated a large representative dataset from the UK and a large enriched dataset from the USA. We show an absolute reduction of 5.7% and 1.2% (USA and UK) in false positives and 9.4% and 2.7% in false negatives. We provide evidence of the ability of the system to generalize from the UK to the USA. In an independent study of six radiologists, the AI system outperformed all of the human readers: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for the AI system was greater than the AUC-ROC for the average radiologist by an absolute margin of 11.5%. 

If AI outperforms radiologists, than there is no argument to delay its implementation.
Powered by Google.

How to distort priority setting?

Biases distorting priority setting

Why priority setting in health care has so poor outcomes while relevant systems are well developed and readily available? You just have to read this article to understand it.

It starts to identify some rational and structural explanations for the discrepancy between theoretical efforts and practical outcomes in priority setting. However, even if these issues are addressed, practical priority setting may still not obtain its goals. This is because a wide range of irrational effects is hampering priority setting: biases.

Table 1. Overview of various biases and potential implications for priority setting and at which level they may be most prominent.

Bias	Potential Implications	Level
Identifiability and Singularity effect	Undermining principles	Micro
Rejection Dislike	Hamper disinvestment	Micro, meso
Failure Embarrassment effect	Overuse	Micro (primarily)
Prominence Effect (Opportunity Cost Neglect)	Non-warranted use	All
Status Quo Bias	Overuse, Underuse	All
Endowment Effect	Overuse, Underuse	Micro (primarily)
Loss Aversion	Hamper disinvestment	All
Aversion to Risk / Ambiguity	Overuse	Micro, meso
Availability Heuristics	Overuse	Micro, meso
Sacred Values and Taboo trade-offs	Undermining principles	All
Progress bias	Overuse	All
Adoption Addiction	Overuse	Micro, macro
Complexity bias	Undermining principles, overuse	Micro, meso, macro
Extension bias	Overuse	All
Asymmetry of risks and benefits	Overuse	Micro (primarily)
Positive cognitive feedback loops	Undermining principles, overuse	Micro, meso, macro
Prestige bias	Undermining principles, overuse	Micro (primarily)
Imperative of Action	Undermining principles, overuse	Micro (primarily)
Technology Placebo Effect	Undermining principles, overuse	Micro (primarily)
Imperative of Knowledge	Overuse	Micro
Competency Effect	Overuse	Micro
Multiple Replacements	Overuse	Micro
White Elephants	Overinvestment	Micro
Boys and Toys Effect	Unwarranted use	Micro

Episode based payment systems (2)

Value-based provider payment: towards a theoretically preferred design

The details of a payment system methodology are clearly described in this article. I was not surprised to confirm that the proposals we made two decades ago were in the same direction: two-part payment, fix and variable. Unfortunately nowadays we have a retrofuture system that nobody knows exactly how incentives really work. Of course, this is the first best for a discretionary behaviour by a resource allocator. This is a clear step in the wrong direction that started a decade ago. Without proper incentives, efficiency suffers, and to be clear this means less efficient healthcare for the patients. Unfortunately again, nobody cares about it.

The main contribution of this paper is twofold. Inspired by the societal debate on what
stakeholders in health care should ideally strive for, as well as by existing definitions of value, we first described and further specified the concept of value, facilitating the specification of requirements in the design of VBP. We conclude that, in this respect, value is ideally conceptualised as a multifaceted concept, comprising not only high quality of care at the lowest possible costs but also efficient cooperation, innovation and health promotion. Second, starting from these value dimensions, we derived various design features of a theoretically preferred VBP model. We conclude that in order to stimulate value in a broad sense, the payment should consist of two main components that must be carefully designed. The first component is a risk-adjusted global base payment with risk-sharing elements paid to a multidisciplinary provider group for the provision of (virtually) the full continuum of care to a certain population. The second
component is a relatively low-powered variable payment that explicitly rewards aspects of value that can be adequately measured.

The time to fix the current mess has arrived.

Jordi Sàbat

Episode based payment systems

Unraveling the Complexity in the Design and Implementation of Bundled Payments: A Scoping Review of Key Elements From a Payer’s Perspective

After per case based payment systems (DRGs) everybody was waiting for a comprehensive system to measure health services activities. And instead of focusing on episodes, what happened is that bundling was the new frame. Unfortunately, after all these years bundling has not provided the answer because the scope of measurement is related to several diseases and it is not holistic.
When everybody was asking for an alternative to fee-for service, the answer was in my opinion "patient focused episodes of care", but the US government decided otherwise and protected the interests of those that leverage fee-for-service.
Therefore, now it is the time to fix this mistake and take the right  road. In this article you'll find some issues to consider when you have to design a payment system. It still talks about bundling, forget it, substitute it by episodes and it will be fine.

Our framework provides a structured overview of the principal, literature‐based elements of the design and implementation of bundled payment contracts from a payer's perspective. We identified 53 elements that involve all procurement phases and relate to actors on all levels of the health care system. A better understanding of these elements can help payers and other actors devise a strategic approach and reduce the complexity of implementing these contracts. Compared with traditional FFS models, bundled payment contracts introduce an alternative set of financial incentives that affect the entire health care system, involve almost all aspects of governance within organizations, and demand a different type of collaboration among organizations. This is what makes the design and implementation of bundled payment contracts complex and is why they should not be strategically approached by payers as merely the adoption of a new contracting model but, rather, as part of a broader transformation to a more sustainable value‐based health care system, based less on short‐term transactional negotiations and more on long‐term collaborative relationships between payers and providers.