A new federal proposal would ban smoking in public housing homes — a move that could impact some 1.2 million households across the nation.

Cigarette smoking kills 480,000 Americans each year, making it the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development announced last week that the proposal is intended to protect residents from secondhand smoke in their homes, common areas and administrative offices on public housing property.

“We have a responsibility to protect public housing residents from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, especially the elderly and children who suffer from asthma and other respiratory diseases,” said HUD Secretary Julián Castro in a statement, adding the proposed rule would help public housing agencies save $153 million every year in health-care, repairs and preventable fires.

Stanford Law School professor Michelle Mello, who is also a professor of health research and policy and a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy, has researched and written about this issue extensively, including in this article in The New England Journal of Medicine.

We asked Mello about her views on the federal smoking ban proposal.

What would be the greatest benefit to banning smoking in public housing?

There are lots of benefits, but to me the greatest benefit is to the 760,000 children living in public housing. Although everyone knows that secondhand smoke exposure is extremely toxic, not everyone knows how much children in multiunit housing are exposed — even when no one in their household smokes. Research shows that smoke travels along ducts, hallways, elevator shafts, and other passages, undercutting parents' efforts to maintain smoke-free homes. Also, chemicals from cigarette smoke linger in carpets and curtains, creating hazardous "third-hand smoke" exposure that especially affects babies and small children.

Do most public housing residents want a ban on smoking?

Yes. Exposure to cigarette smoke is a perennial complaint among public housing residents and surveys of residents show that strong majorities support smoke-free policies. They also show residents frequently report smoke incursions into their living spaces, and that these reports are much lower when multiunit housing buildings have 100 percent smoke-free policies than when they have only partial smoke-free policies or no policies. Secondhand smoke in public housing is also a problem because these residents have few housing choices; they generally can't "vote with their feet" by moving to a smoke-free environment.

Could this help tenants who don't have the political will, time, or financial ability, to sue landlords who ignore their claims of respiratory concerns?

Absolutely — not to mention that those lawsuits, even if they were brought, often would fail.  Generally, tenants' rights are whatever local housing codes and lease agreements say they are, and smoke-free buildings aren't typically part of that package. Smoke-free policies aren't a guarantee, of course, and there have been difficulties enforcing them among some of the local public housing authorities that have implemented them.  But when they're in place, housing authorities have more mechanisms and reason to ensure that residents are protected from smoke exposure than they do without the policies.

Many argue that what they do in their own home is their own business.

That argument fails as soon as a puff of smoke escapes their home and wafts into someone else's air supply.  It also fails whenever there's a dependent in the house, whether a child or an adult relative, who doesn't smoke. Let's not forget, nearly half of all public housing households include children. Finally, most smokers desire to quit. About 7 in 10 say they want to quit completely, and in one study, over 90 percent said they wished they had never started. When we're talking about an addiction, particularly one people generally want to kick, the trope of autonomy doesn't have a lot of traction.

There are those who will say this is another attack on low-income Americans — such as banning sugary drinks or limits to what people can buy with their food stamps — and that this smacks of government shaming the poor.

Although it's reasonable to question policies that disproportionately burden the poor, I don't think this is such a policy. The reason is that only a minority of public housing residents are smokers; most of these low-income residents are benefitted, not burdened, by smoke-free policies.  The majority are vulnerable people, including children and the elderly, who have a higher-than-average incidence of respiratory and other health problems — and who want to breathe clean air in and around their homes.

Could this proposal lead to fewer kids smoking that first cigarette?

Yes. Part of the "tobacco endgame" is to further denormalize smoking, to the point that the next generation of kids will not grow up seeing it as something adults do. This is a hard argument to make when a kid smells smoke every time he walks into the hallway of his building and sees groups of residents smoking on stoops. Smoking bans have really helped to marginalize smoking behavior in other settings, like airports, restaurants, hospitals and schools.  Multiunit housing is the next logical step.

California’s measles epidemic was no fluke; between 2007 and 2013 the percentage of kindergarteners using a “personal belief” exemption to enroll in school without vaccinations doubled.

In that year, 3 percent of kindergarteners entered school unvaccinated. In some schools, the percentage of vaccinated children was so low that it threatened herd immunity, or the ability for a population to keep a pathogen at bay, according to Stanford health-policy researcher Michelle Mello, PhD, JD.

To understand the rapid increase, Mello worked with a team led by Tony Yang, ScD, with George Mason University. Their research is published on Nov. 12 in the American Journal of Public Health.

They found the highest resistance to vaccinations among white, affluent communities. In contrast to previous studies, however, they did not find a correlation between higher levels of education and vaccine exemptions.

Read More

In August 2015, the publisher Springer retracted 64 articles from 10 different subscription journals “after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports,” according to a statement on their website. The retractions came only months after BioMed Central, an open-access publisher also owned by Springer, retracted 43 articles for the same reason.

Charlotte J. Haug, MD, PhD, a visiting scholar at Stanford Health Policy, writes in this New England Journal of Medicine perspective that the pressure to publish is huge for scientists, what with rewards such as promotions and financial incentives. This is leading to a growing number of cases of plagiarism and errors.

Jonathan H. Chen was an intern at Stanford Hospital a few years back, admitting patients with unusual medical syndromes or rare diseases.

He wasn’t always sure how to immediately treat these patients.

“I found myself clueless at times,” said Chen. “I thought to myself, I should review the chart of a similar patient who had an experienced clinician care for him so that I can learn from their care plan.”

That triggered Chen’s eureka moment. 

“Why look at just one person’s chart?” he thought. “Why not look at the last thousand charts to see how all doctors take care of their patients in similar cases?”

Doing so, he would have the potential to crowd-source the collective wisdom of physicians all in one central location.

Already having a PhD in computer science and spending a few years as a software developer before medical school, Chen — a wunderkind who started college when he was 13 — knew he had the rare set of skills to marry medicine and technology.

“I thought about how the Amazon product-recommender algorithm works and thought, `Can we do this for medical decision-making?’” said the 34-year-old Chen, a VA Medical Informatics Fellow at Stanford Health Policy.

So instead of, other people who bought this book also liked this book, how about: Other doctors who ordered this CT scan also ordered this medication.

“What if there was that kind of algorithm available to me at the point of care?” he asked. “It doesn’t tell me the right or wrong answer, but I bet this would be really informative and help me make better decisions for my patients.”

The National Institutes of Health agrees. Chen was recently awarded a five-year NIH grant as the principal investigator behind OrderRex, a digital platform that data-mines electronic medical records to learn clinical practice patterns and outcomes to inform concrete medical decisions.

Chen is designing and coding OrderRex with the help of his chief mentor, Russ Altman, a professor of bioengineering, genetics and medicine and director of Stanford’s Biomedical Informatics Training Program. Stanford Health Policy professors of medicine, Mary Goldstein and Steven Asch, round out his core team of grant mentors. Grant collaborators Nigam Shah, Lester Mackey, and Mike Baiocchi are providing additional critical expertise.

“I think OrderRex is a first step towards an entirely new way to provide decision support to physicians,” said Altman. “We will not only have a large database of patients from which we can collect similar patients to create virtual cohorts, but we will also have a database of the decisions that their physicians have made in different clinical situations.”

Altman added: “Each of these capabilities would be transformative — but together they would really change what is possible for a provider sitting with a patient, making decisions about diagnosis and therapy.”

The NIH’s Big Data-to-Knowledge grant will allow Chen to develop and test the platform. Stanford Medicine’s Center for Clinical Informatics provided Chen a year’s worth of Stanford Hospital records, including every medical order for every patient. The more medical data he loads, the more patterns begin to form.

Chen has been using a derivative of Amazon’s algorithm to make his platform scalable with millions of patient records. The broad vision is to eventually integrate this tool with hospital computer networks to assist physicians with their decisions.

“Imagine, technology allowing medical decisions to be informed by the collective experience of thousands of other physicians right at the point-of-care,” Chen said.

There are naysayers who worry such a product will further alienate physicians from their patients and allow doctors to jump to crowd-sourced conclusions about treatment. Chen emphasizes OrderRex would only serve as a tool, which does not substitute for human contact, calculations and conclusions.

“Tools like this are simply to augment the medical decision-making process and hopefully — and I know this is a big goal — improve the quality and efficiencies of health care.”

Altman says the lacking-human-touch argument is imprecise and potentially unethical.

“Of course, providers will always be real people and of course they should be empathetic, listen to the patient, examine the patient, and think about what’s best in the big picture,” he said. “But if there are technological tools that they can use to improve their decision-making, it is probably unethical to replace data-driven decision-making with `touch’ and ‘intuition’ — which often perpetuates the status quo and contributes to variability in practice and variability in outcomes.”

Stanford Medicine is already leading the revolution in precision health and big data to overcome human error and misdiagnosis.

In a 2014 Health Affairs article, Stanford pediatrician Christopher A. Longhurst along with Nigam Shah, MBBS, PhD, assistant professor of biomedical research and assistant director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, and Robert Harrington, MD, professor and chair of medicine, outlined a vision for drawing medical guidance from day-to-day medical practice in hospitals and doctors’ offices. They called it the Green Button.

The idea is to give doctors access —a green button — to patient data from a vast collection of electronic medical records. They wrote that the instant access to EMRs isn’t a substitute for a clinical trials, but better than resorting to the physician’s own bias-prone memory of one or two previous encounters with similar patients.

Chen is working with those professors, but notes the Green Button concept is to look for “patients like mine” and ask questions about different treatment options that may yield different results. His approach looks for “doctors like me,” and anticipates what the doctor wants before they ask for it.

“The conceit of my approach is that all practicing doctors are already trying to make our best-guess decision to improve our patients' outcomes,” he said. “Rather than trying to directly predict how to change a patient outcome, I look to the records of physician decision-making that already represent a wealth of expertise we are not leveraging in a systematic way.”

Could that wealth of expertise one day make Chen a wealthy man, perhaps the Jeff Bezos of the medical informatics world?

“I wouldn’t complain if I was,” Chen said with a grin. “But if I just wanted to make money, I wouldn’t have gone to medical school,” He gave up a lucrative living as a software developer.

He does recognize, however, that for OrderRex to have a big impact, commercial applications such as licensing the product as an add-on to EMR systems are likely.

“So, having a broad impact that will serve the mission of improving quality and efficiency — that is the ultimate goal.”

Every Halloween there seems to be another animated brushing campaign to save children from their own sweet tooths. For most, the goal is simple: better oral hygiene for kids.

PLAQUEMONSTER is different.

Developed by Jason Wang, director of the Center for Policy, Outcomes and Prevention (CPOP) and a Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (CHP/PCOR) core faculty member, and his team, PLAQUEMONSTER does encourage children to practice good oral hygiene. However, the true purpose of the app is to provide feedback on the user’s engagement that can be used for future forays into mobile health.

Image

Using the game’s team mechanic, the app urges children to encourage their friends to brush and floss. Teammates can release a tooth pet from jail, so kids must hold each other accountable if they want their team to progress.

“The social aspect really does make a difference,” said Zara Abraham, a digital media specialist at CPOP and one of the app’s designers. She found that the app’s first child testers “would always be on the phone making sure that each one was doing their work, checking on their teeth.”

The social aspect is likely to engage children more than the average brushing and flossing campaign, according to Abraham. The app’s storyline also helps set PLAQUEMONSTER apart.

Image

However, PLAQUEMONSTER is more than just a game, more even than a campaign for oral hygiene. Wang’s team hopes to use health literacy games along with demographic and engagement information to develop other mobile health apps. Ultimately, PLAQUEMONSTER is a tool for discovering how people engage with health on a mobile platform and how mobile health apps can improve health care.

Wang unveiled the mHealth app at Stanford Medicine's Population Health Sciences Colloquium last week.

“The spirit that Jason brings to the app is the game mechanics of behavioral economics,” said Manuel Rivera, product manager at CPOP.

Eventually, Wang’s team hopes to develop other mHealth apps that could aid patients with serious conditions, helping them to track their health and engage in their care plan. Wang’s long-term goal is for “people who are of working age and elderly to improve their quality of life and health trajectories” using mobile health.

If all goes well, PLAQUEMONSTER could be a first step toward active engagement between patients and health care using mobile platforms.

This project is supported by an NIH Director's New Innovator Award.

Medical researchers must work together across disciplines to provide better health care to those who need it most, according to panelists at Stanford Medicine’s Annual Population Health Sciences Colloquium.

The symposium, hosted by the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences, brought together working groups from across the Stanford campus to showcase the latest findings in population health research.

“Population health science at Stanford is likely to make the most important contributions when we cross traditional intellectual expertise disciplines,” said Paul H. Wise, a core faculty member at the Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (CHP/PCOR).

Many of the scholars at the daylong conference on Tuesday stressed that an interdisciplinary approach to health care is crucial to understanding and aiding underserved populations.

“To deal with life-course questions we need to create-life course observational windows,” said Mark Cullen, chief of the Division of General Medical Disciplines and director of the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences.

Instead of trying to create an all-encompassing care plan for the human population as a whole, panelists demonstrated that studying the needs of particular groups, or smaller populations, can better serve individuals within populations that may not receive the best care.

Douglas K. Owens, director of CHP/PCOR, said the U.S.  Preventive Services Task Force, of which he is a member, has “often faced a real paucity of data trying to develop prediction guidelines for both the very young and the old.”

The Task Force, a panel of experts that makes recommendations for medical prevention services, is generally able to make guidelines for large populations like adults, but suggestions for specialized groups like children and the elderly are more challenging. Though Stanford researchers like Wise are working to improve care for particular sectors like children, more study is needed.

Several speakers at the conference said the underserved population of poor children could benefit from research targeted toward their population group.

“We don’t really understand the biology of the life-course, why things taking place in gestation and early life actually affect healthy aging and adult onset disease,” said Wise, adding, “We have a very poor understanding of how to translate this understanding into effective interventions for communities in need.”

Panelists agreed that big data can help them understand smaller, poorly served populations, such as young children in impoverished communities. By collecting large amounts of data from the general population, researchers will increase the amount of data available for more specific groups. This allows researchers to study these populations more closely and help create better outcomes.

Abby King, a professor of health research and policy and of medicine, and Jason Wang, director of the Center for Policy, Outcomes and Prevention (CPOP) and a CHP/PCOR core faculty member, believe life-course digital applications can provide individualized care while collecting data on a large-scale.

According to King, a life-course app, or a device to track health and provide care throughout one’s life, would grow with the user and help them through important developmental stages.

Image

Health-care techniques using mobile devices, known as mHealth, could be particularly useful in underserved populations. King notes that even low-income populations have cell phones, so using phones as health-care tools could help decrease the gap between higher- and lower-income populations.

“I think for us one of the major challenges of the century is to really close that health-disparities gap and mHealth can help.”

However, each app must be tailored to the user.

“There’s no reason to believe that an African-American 16-year-old is going to be motivated the same way as a 45-year-old white man,” said Wang. “You need to involve patients in the design of the app.” When the app fits the specific patient’s needs, they are more likely to use it regularly, and knowing the needs of their population helps determine their preferences.

As the world continues to become more connected, the panelists said that reaching across disciplines and incorporating technology may hold the key to effective health care in the 21^st century.