This event has reached capacity. If you would like to be added to the waitlist, please contact Nicole at nicoletf@stanford.edu.
Please note: All research in progress seminars are off-the-record. Any information about methodology and/or results are embargoed until publication.
Scientific progress depends on providing adequate incentives to scientists to trying out new ideas. However, when an idea is new it may be risky for scientists to incorporate them in their work since most new ideas do not turn out to be useful. In this talk, I will discuss new ways to measure whether biomedical scientist are trying out new ideas in their published work. Then, I will use these methods to ask whether NIH-funded biomedical work is more likely to try out recent the newest ideas than non-NIH funded published work.
An Indian businessman approached Stanford Medicine in 2005 with an outlandish proposition: Help us build an ambulance system across the sprawling South Asia nation, which is home to 10 percent of the world’s traffic deaths.
S.V. Mahadevan, MD, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Stanford Medicine, was skeptical the nonprofit GVK EMRI (Emergency Management and Research Institute) could truly pull it off.
They only had 14 ambulances in the world’s second most populous nation.
Today the system has expanded to a fleet of nearly 10,000 ambulances, manned by some 20,000 medical professionals who ply the roads in cities and rural villages to provide access to emergency care to 750 million people — three-quarters of India’s population — according to a story in Stanford Medicine magazine last year.
“It’s hard to fathom what this system has done in 10 years,” said Mahadevan, founder of Stanford Emergency Medicine International, which has provided medical expertise to GVK EMRI over the last decade, helping to train the EMTs who now belong to the largest ambulance service in the developing world.
“It could be regarded as one of the most important advances in global medicine in the world today," he said.
Yet up until now there has been no analytical research on the impact of the ambulance service. Though EMRI says its 911-like service has saved more than 1.4 million lives in its first decade, there has been no published research to back up that claim.
Now, research by Stanford Health Policy scholars published in the October edition of the health policy journal, Health Affairs, indicates EMRI’s system has had a significant impact on saving the lives of newborns and infants, one of the most challenging health dilemmas plaguing India today.
Focusing on the first two states served by GVK EMRI — with a combined population of 145 million — their results show that the organization’s services have reduced infant and neonatal mortality rates by at least 2 percent in high-mortality areas of the western state of Gujarat. There were similar effects statewide in the southeastern state of Andhra Pradesh.
Image
"I've worked on various issues related to women and children's health in Asia for many years, and one of the most frustratingly stubborn problems is preventable infant and maternal deaths,” said Kimberly Singer Babiarz, a research scholar at Stanford Health Policy and lead author of the paper.
“With our modern medical knowledge, childbirth should not be so risky and newborns should not be dying at such high rates,” said Babiarz.
India has 28 maternal neonatal or infant deaths per 1,000 live births, according to the World Bank, making it one of the highest in the world. The global average is 19.2 deaths per 1,000 births; the rate drops to 4 in North America.
“These issues are particularly compelling to me as a mother,” Babiarz said. “It's wonderful to find a model that has found some success in connecting mothers and their infants with high-quality and timely emergency care when it is most needed.”
The authors used electronic service records from GVK EMRI, matched to population-representative surveys from the International Institute for Population Sciences, and their own survey that they conducted in Gujarat in 2010 through the Collaboration for Health System Improvement and Impact Evaluation in India. The combined surveys include information on over 16,000 live births.
The public-private nonprofit provides its services free of charge and most of its beneficiaries are the poorest of the poor. Each state contributes to the ambulance system, as does the federal government. It also depends on private philanthropy among some of India’s wealthiest industrialists.
The School of Medicine in 2007 signed a formal agreement to develop an educational curriculum and train the initial group of 180 skilled paramedics and instructors. Over the years, the Stanford instructors have learned to tailor the curriculum to local needs.
About one-third of the toll-free calls to 108 — an auspicious number in India — are from women in labor. Deliveries have traditionally been done at home, particularly in rural villages, where women often die of complications. So the Stanford team has since designed a special obstetrics curriculum and helped create the country’s first protocols for obstetric care.
Grant Miller, an associate professor of medicine, core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy and senior author of the study, has worked on many health policy projects in India over the years. The results aren’t always hopeful.
Miller and his fellow authors note, however, that further research on emergency medical services in other Indian states and by other providers is still needed.
“We need to do a lot more work — but these results suggest that something important has happened,” he said. “With the release of more population-representative data from more states, we’re eager to expand our analysis to the rest of the country.”
Many people dread dealing with health insurance. Choosing the right plan, navigating benefits and understanding premiums, copays and deductibles can leave you frustrated and confused. Even in economic research, health insurance markets pose some of the most challenging questions.
Intrigued by the shifting dynamics of the industry and inspired partly by her own experience of finding health care coverage during graduate school, Polyakova has joined a small group of health economists who are at the forefront of examining the increasing complexities surrounding the provision of medical insurance.
Changes under the Affordable Care Act have deepened the connection between public and private players, Polyakova says. There’s a rise in health care plans that are publicly funded but privately run. And many people using public plans, like Medicare, are supplementing their coverage with private add-on insurance.
The intertwined relationship raises a host of policy challenges, which Polyakova outlines in this detailed policy brief.
“We're moving toward this world where we think competition in health insurance is good because that somehow increases efficiencies and provides consumers with choices that they like,” Polyakova says. “But on the other hand, there has been a lot of debate on whether health insurance is the right place to have choice.”
Polyakova, an assistant professor of health research and policy at the School of Medicine, joined Stanford in 2014. Her ongoing economic research looks at the impact of government policies in social insurance on consumer behavior, insurer behavior and market outcomes, including risk protection and redistribution.
By investigating the design of health insurance systems, Polyakova’s work could inform policymakers on the extent the government should facilitate competition among insurers that are providing social insurance benefits, or the steps public and private insurers can take to reduce risks and costs for consumers. Her early forays have gained recognition.
For her doctoral thesis on Medicare Part D — the prescription drug component of the federal health insurance program — Polyakova won the 2015 Ernst-Meyer Prize, which recognizes original research about risk and health insurance economics. She also received the John Heinz Dissertation Award from the National Academy of Social Insurance in 2015.
Her findings included evidence of substantial inertia among enrollees, despite significant changes in about 40 plans under Medicare Part D.
“If no one actually ever reacts to changes in products,” Polyakova says, “it could defeat the purpose of having competition.”
Polyakova continues to drill into details where answers may lie. Her empirical research in progress ranges from examining new ways of calculating risk to the effects of word choice in insurance plan descriptions.
“Policies are labeled silver, gold, platinum — theoretically to simplify the plans. But in reality, those simplifications may lead people to choose plans that are not the best for them,” she says. “Assessing the implications of their choices for the overall efficiency of the health insurance system is tricky”
The health care system appeared much more straightforward in Germany, where she worked for a year after graduating in 2008 from Yale with a bachelor’s degree in economics and mathematics.
Then while attending graduate school at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Polyakova went through the hassles of figuring out the health insurance system and how insurers reimburse medical providers. She recalls thinking, “Why is this so complicated?”
Polyakova turned her focus to health economics after taking some courses with MIT Professor Amy Finkelstein, a pioneer in the field who became Polyakova’s primary advisor.
The efficiency of publicly-subsidized, privately-provisioned social insurance programs depends on the interaction between insurer behavior and public subsidies. We study this interaction within Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) markets. Using a structural model of supply and demand, we find: consumers purchase too few and too socially-costly PDP plans; insurers price near marginal cost; the primary driver of welfare is the opportunity cost of government spending on other Medicare programs; and the current subsidization policy achieves a level of total welfare close to that obtained under an optimal in-kind subsidy, but is far from the social planner's first-best solution.
Standard theory suggests that optimal consumer cost-sharing in health insurance increases with the price elasticity of demand, yet publicly-provided drug coverage typically involves uniform cost-sharing across drugs. We investigate how private drug plans set cost-sharing in the context of Medicare Part D. We document substantial heterogeneity in the price elasticities of demand across more than 150 drugs and across more than 100 therapeutic classes, as well as substantial heterogeneity in the cost-sharing for different drugs within privately-provided plans. We find that private plans set higher consumer cost-sharing for drugs or classes with more elastic demand. Our findings suggest that benefit design may be more efficient in privately rather than publicly provided insurance.
As he explained during the recent Rosenkranz Prize Symposium, Stefano M. Bertozzi used this slogan to promote health reform in the Mexico City prison system. By encouraging inmates to step up and get themselves tested for HIV and other chronic illnesses, Bertozzi, dean and professor of health policy and management at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, was able to decrease the spread of illnesses in Mexican prisons and the surrounding communities.
The Rosenkranz Prize Symposium celebrated research projects that—like Bertozzi’s—address the health care needs of the world’s most vulnerable populations. With support from the Rosenkranz Prize for Health Care Research in Developing Countries, Stanford scholars have stepped up to tackle health issues in regions in need.
Since 2010, the award has funded six young Stanford researchers who aim to improve health in developing countries. The symposium celebrated their achievements.
The award honors the work of Dr. George Rosenkranz who spent his career reducing health disparities around the globe. Rosenkranz, who was the first to synthesize cortisone and the active ingredient in the first oral contraceptive, also celebrated his 100th birthday at the symposium.
Producing research that will increase care for vulnerable populations globally is the ultimate goal of the Rosenkranz Prize.
Andrés Moreno-Estrada, the 2012 winner, has used the award to study genetics in Latin American and Caribbean populations, aiming to increase knowledge of potential genetic illnesses. He said, “The Rosenkranz Prize is a clear, important step forward to demonstrate that we can do cutting edge science in developing countries that is of international relevance.”
Other winners include Eran Bendavid, Sanjay Basu, Marcella Alsan, Jason Andrews and Ami Bhatt. Their projects range from the effect of AIDS relief efforts on health care delivery to the treatment of diabetes in India to low-cost diagnostic tools for regions lacking infrastructure.
“I can’t think of a better way to celebrate (my father’s) birthday than listening to the bright future of science,” said Ricardo T. Rosenkranz, son of Dr. George Rosenkranz and a prize donor. “We can’t wait to hear what the next Rosenkranz Prize winners tell us.”
Dr. George Rosenkranz celebrated his 100th birthday at the symposium. The first to synthesize cortisone as well as the active ingredient in the first oral contraceptive, Rosenkranz spent his life reducing health disparities around the globe.
An independent panel of medical experts has updated 20-year-old guidelines for evaluating cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, in an effort to help everyone from policymakers to patients make more informed decisions about tests and treatments.
Released in a special communication in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the panelists spent more than three years building on the work of the 1996 Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, originally convened by the U.S. Public Health Service. They developed recommendations by consensus.
The new recommendations are intended to guide decision-makers in using new methods for analyzing evidence, reporting standardized results, incorporating both health-care system and societal perspectives, as well as weighing ethical issues in the use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).
“Some people question the use of economic analyses in health care, but cost-effective analysis is a way to ensure that we are proving high-value care,” said Stanford Health Policy’s Douglas K. Owens, a professor of medicine and senior investigator of the VA Palo Alto Heath Care System, who sat on the panel.
“If we do interventions without understanding their value, we may well spend money on something that may not really be worth it,” said Owens. “Cost effectiveness analysis is one approach to understanding how we can help control health-care costs and provide high-value health care.”
Image
The panel was led by co-chairs Gillian D. Sanders, Professor in the Department of Medicine and a member of both the Duke Clinical Research Institute and the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, and Peter J. Neumann, Director, Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at the Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies at Tufts Medical Center and Professor of Medicine at Tufts University.
Sanders said CEA could help inform decisions about how to apply new or existing medical tests, therapies, and prevention techniques so that decision-makers use health-care resources wisely.
“As health-care costs continue to rise at unsustainable rates, these recommendations provide a framework for comparing the relative value of different health-care interventions, and help decision-makers across the spectrum from policymakers to patients sort through alternatives and decide what tests and treatments make sense,” she said.
Neumann noted that in the 20 years since the original panel’s report, the field of cost-effectiveness analysis has advanced, as has the need to deliver health-care efficiently.
“Updating the guidelines provides an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of cost-effectiveness analysis and to provide guidance for the next generation of practitioners and consumers,” he said.
Primarily funded by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the panel recommends several key changes to the guidelines, while confirming other principles from the first panel, including:
Broadening the scope and number of reference cases in a cost analysis, which describe standard methodology that should be followed to ensure quality analysis by creating comparable measurements. The panel is recommending that all CEAs should not report two reference cases: one based on a health-care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective.
Using an “impact inventory” that lists the health and non-health effects of a health-care intervention to ensure that all consequences are considered, including those to patients, caregivers, social services and others outside the health-care sector. This tool also allows analysts to look at categories of impacts that may be most important to stakeholders.
Measuring health effects in terms of quality adjusted life years, a common measure used by health researchers that includes both the quality and quantity of life lived.
Including both costs reimbursed by third-party payers and those paid for out-of-pocket by patients in health-care sector analyses.
Including a reporting checklist and guidelines for transparency that includes assumptions in any analysis and the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
The complete report of the so-called Second Panel will be published in October.
The panelists noted that the field of CEA has emerged dramatically since the last guidelines 20 years ago. For example, the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, which establishes national immunization policy recommendations on behalf of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now uses CEA in its calculations.
“The need to deliver health-care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health, have only increased,” the Second Panel authors wrote in the JAMA paper.
Health-care spending in the United States comprised 13 percent of GDP in 1995; today it approaches 18 percent. And the total national health expenditures have tripled during that period, jumping to more than $3 trillion in 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
“The goal of the Second Panel is to promote the continued evolution of CEA and its use to support judicious, efficient, and fair decisions regarding the use of health-care resources,” the experts wrote in the JAMA article.
Imagine there’s a new pill on the market. It promises you a one in 200 chance of avoiding a heart attack, stroke, heart failure or death over the next year — if you take it religiously.
It also promises a one in 60 chance of landing you in the hospital for some serious complication: Maybe you passed out. Maybe the pill affected your kidney function. Maybe you developed a severe electrolyte imbalance.
Would you take it? How would you decide?
This question is confronting some patients with hypertension as well as their health-care providers who, like me, help manage their blood pressure. The “pill” is not a pill per se, but a treatment strategy.
In November of 2015, researchers published results of a large NIH-sponsored trial known as SPRINT, which compared two systolic blood pressure treatment targets for hypertensive adults: a higher, conventional target of 140 mm mercury compared to a more stringent target of 120. Participants in the trial were older, did not have diabetes, and were generally at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease. They were prescribed commonly used blood pressure medications, which were carefully adjusted by investigators to achieve target blood pressures.
The trial demonstrated a large relative benefit: Those in the lower target group had about a 25 percent reduction in the rate of cardiovascular disease or death. The absolute benefit, though, was small, with only about one in 200 patients avoiding cardiovascular disease or death as a result of treatment. The trial also showed that complications in the lower target group were relatively common.
As a physician, I’d love to be able to tell the patient in my exam room whether she will be the lucky one out of 200 who will benefit. That dream is still a few years off. I can, though, answer a related question. If I treat a large group of patients, on the whole, will my patients benefit? Or will the harms of treatment outweigh the benefits? And if the treatment is overall beneficial, what investment will we need to achieve this gain in health?
Image
To answer this question, I teamed up with a group of researchers at Stanford. Our team included experts in cost-effectiveness analysis as well as students developing clinical and analytic expertise in this area. We used data from SPRINT along with other published sources to project the expected benefits, harms and costs from targeting a lower or higher blood pressure over the course of a lifetime.
Results of our study were published this week in JAMA Cardiology. We found that targeting a lower blood pressure results in a substantial net benefit, even after accounting for harms from common, serious adverse events. This net benefit, though, doesn’t come free: An investment of about $23,777 is required for every year of life gained from this strategy.
Is $23,777 “worth it?” It’s a hard question to answer and it depends, in part, on who is paying. But in the spectrum of medical interventions that we routinely use here in the United States, this would be considered a good deal, a bargain even.
So should we go all in? Should we push stringent blood pressure targets for everyone?
No. There are a number of other considerations. SPRINT answered a specific question about hypertension treatment in a specific group of patients. Whether other groups of patients, like those at lower risk of cardiovascular disease, would benefit is unclear. There were also methodological quirks that have left the trial open to criticism.
But if we believe that the findings from SPRINT are generally correct, a lower blood pressure target seems to provide significant health gains for a reasonable cost in patients who are at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
Ilana B. Richman, MD, is a VA Health Services Research and Development Fellow at Stanford Health Policy.
Sex differences in mortality vary over time and place as a function of social, health, and medical circumstances. The magnitude of these variations, and their response to large socioeconomic changes, suggest that biological differences cannot fully account for sex differences in survival. Drawing on a wide swath of mortality data across countries and over time, we develop a set of empiric observations with which any theory about excess male mortality and its correlates will have to contend. We show that as societies develop, M/F survival first declines and then increases, a “sex difference in mortality transition” embedded within the demographic and epidemiologic transitions. After the onset of this transition, cross-sectional variation in excess male mortality exhibits a consistent pattern of greater female resilience to mortality under socio-economic adversity. The causal mechanisms underlying these associations merit further research.
This event has reached capacity. Please join us to watch the live-stream at this link.
The symposium will focus on the key questions that impact health through the year 2020. How could the 2016 election affect health care in the U.S.? How will payment reform affect health systems, physicians and patients? Are the insurance exchanges viable? What challenges pose the biggest threat to global health? Experts from Stanford and beyond address these topics and more as they discuss the future of health policy.
Lloyd Minor, Dean, Stanford University School of Medicine
Image
Minor, MD, is a scientist, surgeon and academic leader. He is the Carl and Elizabeth Naumann Dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine, a position he has held since December 2012. Minor leads more than 1,500 faculty and 1,000 students at the oldest medical school in the West and has made precision health — the prevention of disease before it strikes — a hallmark of research, education and patient care at Stanford Medicine.
Bob Kocher,a partner at the Silicon Valley venture capital firm, Venrock
Bob Kocher
Kocher, MD, is a partner at Venrock who focuses on healthcare IT and services investments and is a consulting professor at Stanford University School of Medicine. He served in the Obama Administration as special assistant to the president for health care and economic policy and was one of the key shapers of the Affordable Care Act.
David Entwistle, President and CEO, Stanford Health Care
Image
Entwistle joined Stanford Health Care as its President and CEO in July, bringing extensive executive experience at leading academic medical centers. Most recently he served as CEO of the University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics, the only academic medical center in the Intermountain West region. While serving at UUHC, Entwistle received the Modern Healthcare “Up and Comers Award,” for significant contributions in health-care administration, management or policy.
Chris Dawes, President and CEO, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
Image
Christopher G. Dawes became President and Chief Executive Officer of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford in 1997 after five years of service as Chief Operating Officer. Under his guidance, the hospital, research center and regional medical network has been ranked as one of the best in the nation, as an industry leader in patient safety and innovation in providing a full complement of services for children and expectant mothers.
Panelists:
Marcella Alsan, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
Marcella Alsan’s research focuses on the relationship between health and socioeconomic disparities with a focus on infectious disease. Another vein of research focuses on the microfoundations of antibiotic overuse and resistance. She received a BA degree in cognitive neuroscience from Harvard University, a master’s degree in international public health from Harvard School of Public Health, a medical degree from Loyola University, and a PhD in economics from Harvard University. She is board-certified in both internal medicine and infectious disease. She trained at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, completing the Hiatt Global Health Equity Residency Fellowship in internal medicine. She combined her PhD with an Infectious Disease Fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital. She currently is an infectious disease specialist at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Palo Alto.
Laurence Baker, Chair of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University
Laurence Baker is an economist interested in the organization and economic performance of the U.S. health-care system, and his research has investigated a range of topics including financial incentives in health care, competition in health-care markets, health insurance and managed care and health-care technology adoption. Baker is a past recipient of the ASHE medal from ASHEcon and the Alice Hersch Award from AcademyHealth. He received his BA from Calvin College, and his MA and PhD in economics from Princeton University.
Eran Bendavid, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
Eran Bendavid is an infectious diseases physician. His research interests involve understanding the relationship between policies and health outcomes in developing countries. He explores how decisions about foreign assistance for health are made, and how those decisions affect the health of those whom assistance aims to serve. Dr. Bendavid is also a disease modeler, and uses that skill to explore issues of resource allocation in low and middle-income countries with cost-effectiveness analyses. His recent research projects include an impact evaluation of the US assistance program for HIV in Africa, and an exploration of the association between drug prices, aid and health outcomes in countries heavily affected by HIV.
Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
Jay Bhattacharya’s research focuses on the constraints that vulnerable populations face in making decisions that affect their health status, as well as the effects of government policies and programs designed to benefit vulnerable populations. He has published empirical economics and health services research on the elderly, adolescents, HIV/AIDS and managed care. Most recently, he has researched the regulation of the viatical-settlements market (a secondary life-insurance market that often targets HIV patients) and summer/winter differences in nutritional outcomes for low-income American families. He is also working on a project examining the labor-market conditions that help determine why some U.S. employers do not provide health insurance.
M. Kate Bundorf, Associate Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
M. Kate Bundorf is a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. She received her M.B.A. and M.P.H. degrees from The University of California at Berkeley and her Ph.D. from The Wharton School. She was a Fulbright Lecturer and Visiting Professor at Fudan School of Public Health in Shanghai, China in 2009 and 2010. Her research, which focuses on health insurance markets, has been published in leading economics and health policy journals and has received funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She received the 13th Annual Health Care Research Award from The National Institute for Health Care Management in 2007.
David Chan, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
David Chan is a physician and economist whose research focuses on productivity in US health care. His research draws on insights from labor and organizational economics. He is particularly interested in studying what drives physician behavior, how this explains differences in productivity in health care delivery, and what the implications are for the design of health care. He is the recipient of the 2014 NIH Director’s High-Risk, High-Reward Early Independence Award to study the optimal balance of information in health information technology for patient care. David Chan is also an investigator at the Department of Veterans Affairs and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Kathryn M. McDonald, Executive Director of the Center for Health Policy and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University
Kathryn McDonald, MM, is the Executive Director of the Center for Health Policy (CHP) and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (PCOR) and a senior scholar at the Centers. She is also Associate Director of the Stanford-UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center (under RAND). Her work focuses on measures and interventions to achieve evidence-based patient-centered healthcare quality and patient safety. Mrs. McDonald has served as a project director and principal investigator on a number of research projects at the Stanford School of Medicine, including the development and ongoing enhancement of the Quality and Patient Safety Indicators for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She has authored numerous peer reviewed articles and government reports, including several with wide enough followership to merit recent updates: Care Coordination Measures Atlas, Closing the Quality Gap, and Patient Safety Practices.
Michelle Mello, Professor of Law and of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University
Michelle Mello is Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and Professor of Health Research and Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine. She conducts empirical research into issues at the intersection of law, ethics, and health policy. She is the author of more than 150 articles and book chapters on the medical malpractice system, medical errors and patient safety, public health law, research ethics, the obesity epidemic, pharmaceuticals, and other topics. From 2000 to 2014, Dr. Mello was a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, where she directed the School’s Program in Law and Public Health. In 2013-14 she completed a Lab Fellowship at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics. Dr. Mello teaches courses in torts and public health law. She holds a J.D. from the Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in Health Policy and Administration from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, an M.Phil. from Oxford University, where she was a Marshall Scholar, and a B.A. from Stanford University. In 2013, she was elected to the National Academy of Medicine (formerly known as the Institute of Medicine).
Grant Miller, Associate Professor of Medicine, Stanford University
Grant Miller is Director of the Stanford Center for International Development, an Associate Professor of Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine, a Core Faculty Member at the Center for Health Policy/Primary Care and Outcomes Research, a Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). His primary interests are health economics, development economics, and economic demography. As a health and development economist based at the Stanford Medical School, Dr. Miller’s overarching focus is research and teaching aimed at developing more effective health improvement strategies for developing countries. His agenda addresses three major interrelated themes. (1) First, what are the major causes of population health improvement around the world and over time? (2) Second, what are the behavioral underpinnings of the major determinants of population health improvement? (3) Third, how can programs and policies use these behavioral insights to improve population health more effectively?
Douglas K. Owens, Director of the Center for Health Policy and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University
Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS, is the Henry J. Kaiser, Jr., Professor at Stanford University, where he is a professor of medicine. He is director of the Center for Health Policy in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and director of the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (PCOR) in the Department of Medicine. He is a general internist and associate director of the Center for Innovation to Implementation at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. A past member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, he has helped lead the development of national U.S. guidelines on screening for HIV, hepatitis C, hepatitis B, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and use of aspirin and statins to prevent cardiovascular disease.
Maria Polyakova, Assistant Professor of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University
Maria Polyakova, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Health Research and Policy at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Her research investigates questions surrounding the role of government in the design and financing of health insurance systems. She is especially interested in the relationships between public policies and individuals’ decision-making in health care and health insurance, as well as in the risk protection and re-distributive aspects of health insurance systems. She received a BA degree in Economics and Mathematics from Yale University and a PhD in Economics from MIT.
David M. Studdert, Professor of Medicine and of Law, Stanford University
David M. Studdert is a leading expert in the fields of health law and empirical legal research. His scholarship explores how the legal system influences the health and well-being of populations. A prolific scholar, he has authored more than 150 articles and book chapters, and his work appears frequently in leading international medical, law and health policy publications. Professor Studdert has received the Alice S. Hersh New Investigator Award from AcademyHealth, the leading organization for health services and health policy research in the United States. He was awarded a Federation Fellowship (2006) and a Laureate Fellowship (2011) by the Australian Research Council. He holds a law degree from University of Melbourne and a doctoral degree in health policy and public health from the Harvard School of Public Health.
Polyakova, an assistant professor of health research and policy at the School of Medicine, joined Stanford in 2014. Her ongoing economic research looks at the impact of government policies in social insurance on consumer behavior, insurer behavior and market outcomes, including risk protection and redistribution.
Bob Kocher
