The program’s 3 goals are to:
Open Letter: 690 Economists Oppose Trump's Re-Election
Don't forget to vote.
********
update: 932 economists the last time I checked.
The NBER market design conference is on Zoom this year, today through Saturday, starting each day at noon Eastern time (9am Pacific time). I'll be speaking today at 2:45 EST (11:45 PST), about a new proposal for global kidney exchange using chains that begin overseas and end in the U.S., and about the background and history to this proposal, which initially met with considerable opposition.
| 2:45 pm | Mohammad Akbarpour, Stanford University Afshin Nikzad, University of Southern California Michael A. Rees, University of Toledo Medical Center Alvin E. Roth, Stanford University and NBER Global Kidney Chains | |
The full schedule, with links to papers, is here:
Market Design Working Group Meeting
Michael Ostrovsky and Parag A. Pathak, Organizers
October 22-24, 2020, on Zoom.us
For easy access, here's the video of my talk at the National Kidney Donor Organization virtual conference, about which I blogged this morning. We talked about kidney exchange, global kidney exchange, and repugnant transactions...
Here's an announcement I received from Ned Brooks, the founder of NKDO, National Kidney Donation Organization (formerly Donor to Donor). If I understand correctly, the different talks and interviews will be available at the link after first streaming in conference style, starting at 9am Pacific time. It includes a video of Ned interviewing me.
I'll update this post as necessary.
"This Wednesday, October 21st, NKDO, National Kidney Donation Organization (formerly Donor to Donor) will release the virtual National Kidney Donor Advocate Conference. This event is designed to give volunteer living donor advocates the information they need to be more effective advocates for living donation. Transplant industry experts across the country will be presenting to you and delivering invaluable advice about their area of expertise.
The conference will stream on our YouTube channel beginning at 12:00 noon Eastern this Wednesday. The conference will be in segments and accessed through the “playlist”, either streaming as one event or accessed at different points in the conference. The link is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsoS-yavRQCVl7bwcjT2iCA , which will go live at noon Eastern on Wednesday.
- Have you ever wondered about the transplant surgeons who do the surgery? What
they are thinking and what they would like you to know? Dr. Joshua Mezrich,
transplant surgeon at UWMadison and author of “When Death Becomes Life: Notes
from a Transplant Surgeon” talks about his experience with organ donors and
recipients.
- Are you a living donor or a transplant recipient, or expecting to be one? Do
you remember the experience of being evaluated at the transplant center and
listening to all the information, and maybe feeling a little overwhelmed?
Living Donor Coordinator Marian Charlton and Patient Coordinator Janet Hiller
are two of the most respected voices in transplant, and they will tell you what
they want you to know to better understand the process. Anyone who goes through
this experience or has a loved one in transplant will want to see these
segments.
- Living kidney donors deserve all protections available, from reimbursement
for out-of-pocket costs and lost wages to medical coverage for medical issues
that may arise months or years after donation. Garet Hil, founder and CEO of
the National Kidney Registry, talks about the suite of protections available to
living donors through Donor Shield.
- Are you a kidney patient in need of a donor? Harvey Mysel, a two-time
kidney recipient and founder and CEO of the Living Kidney Donor Network, talks
about how to have your kidney donor find you.
- Professor Alvin Roth won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work creating
the algorithms that contributed to the creation of the “kidney chain”, a
development that transformed kidney transplant procedures. Prof. Roth discusseshis work and the business known by the intriguing moniker of “repugnanttransactions.”
- All kidney patients will benefit by watching nephrologist Dr. David Serur
talk about kidney disease and what every kidney patient and advocate needs to
know to be properly informed about how to deal with renal disease.
- Non-directed, or altruistic, donors are a rare breed, though we are trying to
change that. No one knows the brain of the non-directed donor better than
Professor Abigail Marsh, who has been studying non-directed donors for years.
If you want to better understand why someone will happily donate a kidney to a
stranger, this presentation will help answer that question. Prof. Marsh
is the author of “The Fear Factor: How One Emotion Connects Altruists,
Psychopaths, and Everyone In-Between.”
- If you listen to podcasts, you are probably familiar with “Freakonomics”
and its creator, Stephen Dubner. It was the Freakonomics interview with Prof.
Roth that set Donor to Donor and NKDO into motion, and our interview with Mr.
Dubner will interest anyone who understands “the power of the pod”.
- Jim Gleason is a heart transplant recipient and the president of TRIO,
Transplant Recipients International Organization. Mr. Gleason is a motivational
speaker who asks the question, “Are you a cookie monster?”
Tomorrow at dawn I'll give a seminar to the surgeons at UCSF, about kidney exchange, and the controversies it has overcome, and is overcoming.
Surgery Grand Rounds | Kidneys and Controversies: Kidney Exchange Within and Across Borders
Date: October 21, 2020 Time: 7:00am-8:00am Place: Webinar
Rishwain Visiting Speaker: Alvin E. Roth, PhD
Al Roth is the Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics at Stanford University and the George Gund Professor Emeritus of Economics and Business Administration at Harvard University. He shared the 2012 Nobel memorial prize in Economics. His research interests are in game theory, experimental economics, and market design. In the 1990’s he directed the redesign of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) and currently is a member of the Board of Directors. He has been involved in the design and organization of kidney exchange, which helps incompatible patient-donor pairs find life-saving compatible kidneys for transplantation. He is on the Advisory Board of the National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC). His work on kidney transplantation led him to become interested in repugnant transactions, and more generally how markets, and bans on markets, gain or fail to gain social support.
The University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians. CME Course MGR21045
UCSF designates this live activity for a maximum of 43 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
*The above credit is inclusive of credit for all Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Department of Surgery Grand Rounds.
Disclosure declaration – No one in a position to control the content of this activity has a relationship with an ACCME-defined commercial interest. Planners Wen Shen, MD, Julie Ann Sosa, MD, MA, Lygia Stewart, MD, and Ryutaro Hirose, MD, have stated that they have no relationships to disclose. Speaker Roth has stated that he has no relevant relationships to disclose.
This activity is supported by the Department of Surgery’s Howard Naffziger Endowment Fund.
Join Webinar: https://ucsf.zoom.us/j/252447171?pwd=MWt0bG9vTjBSZEo1UnpidXRVWWU2UT09
Some people like to say things that other people think they shouldn't say. In the age of the internet, politeness can be (somewhat) automated, by banning certain words. But of course, words have contexts. Here's a funny story from the Guardian:
"Participants in a virtual paleontology session found themselves caught between a rock and a hard place last week, when a profanity filter prevented them from using certain words – such as bone, pubic, stream and, er, beaver – during an online conference.
"The US-based Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) held its annual meeting virtually this year due to the pandemic, but soon found its audience stifled when they tried to use particular words.
"Convey Services, which was was handling the conference, used a “naughty-word filter,” for the conference, outlawing a pre-selected list of words.
"“Words like ‘bone’, ‘pubic’, and ‘stream’ are frankly ridiculous to ban in a field where we regularly find pubic bones in streams,” said Brigid Christison, a master’s student in biology attending the event
...
"Some discovered bias in the algorithm, too. Jack Tseng, a vertebrate paleontologist from the University of Berkley pointed out that the filter had banned the common surname Wang but not Johnson – even though both are frequently used as slang words to describe a man’s genitals."
********
Here's Dr. Tseng's tweet:
Z. Jack Tseng, @Tseng_ZJ
"Wang" is banned but not "Johnson" (both used as slangs). This western-centric filter erasing the surname of 90+ million Chinese but not <2 million people of European descent is unexpectedly on brand for 2020, ! My PhD advisor is X. **** by the way. "
**********
Previous related posts:
HT: Muriel Niederle
Here's an article in the Lancet:
Marketing of breastmilk substitutes during the COVID-19 pandemic by Christoffer van Tulleken, Charlotte Wright, Amy Brown, David McCoy, and Anthony Costello, October 08, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32119-X
"It is of concern that the US$70 billion infant formula industry has been actively exploiting concerns about COVID-19 to increase sales, in violation of the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (the Code)1 and national law in many countries.
"Globally, infants who are not exclusively breastfed are 14 times more likely to die than infants who are exclusively breastfed.2 Lockdown measures have diminished household income, and the UN World Food Programme estimates that by the end of 2020, 265 million people may be facing food insecurity,3, 4 making breastfeeding even more important. Public bodies that are independent of industry influence, including WHO5, 6 and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health,7 have unanimously asserted that no evidence exists to suggest breastfeeding increases the risk of infants contracting COVID-19, and that skin-to-skin contact remains essential for newborn health and maternal health.
"By contrast, large manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes have inappropriately positioned themselves as sources of public health expertise, and suggested various unnecessary hygiene measures, the use of expressed breastmilk, and the separation of mothers from their babies. Such recommendations undermine breastfeeding and thus increase the risk of infant death. Baby Milk Action and the International Baby Food Action Network8 have documented numerous infringements of both the Code and laws associated with COVID-19."
A broad based survey suggests that challenge trials are not generally regarded as repugnant.
Broad Cross-National Public Support for AcceleratedCOVID-19 Vaccine Trial Designs
by David Broockman, Joshua Kallay, Alexander Guerrero, Mark Budolfson, Nir Eyal, Nicholas P. Jewell , Monica Magalhaes, Jasjeet S. Sekhony
Abstract: A vaccine for COVID-19 is urgently needed. Several vaccine trial designs may significantly accelerate vaccine testing and approval, but also increase risks to human subjects. Concerns about whether the public would see such designs as ethically acceptable represent an important roadblock to their implementation, and the World Health Organization has called for consulting the public regarding them. Here we present results from a pre-registered cross-national survey (n = 5,920) of individuals in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The survey asked respondents whether they would prefer scientists to conduct traditional trials or one of two accelerated designs: a challenge trial or a trial integrating a Phase II safety and immunogenicity trial into a larger Phase III efficacy trial. We find broad majorities prefer for scientists to conduct challenge trials (75%, 95% CI: 73-76%) and integrated trials (63%, 95% CI: 61-65%) over standard trials. Even as respondents acknowledged the risks, they perceived both accelerated trials as similarly ethical to standard trial designs, and large majorities characterized them as "probably" or "definitely ethical" (72%, 95% CI: 70-73% for challenge trials; 77%, 95% CI 75-78% for integrated trials). This high support is consistent across every geography and demographic subgroup we examined, including people of diverging political orientations and vulnerable populations such as the elderly, essential workers, and racial and ethnic minorities. These findings bolster the case for these accelerated designs and can help assuage concerns that they would undermine public trust in vaccines.
It turns out that frequent flier programs get a lot of their income from credit cards that reward purchases with miles. So they are one of airlines' big profit centers, that hasn't suffered so much from the slowdown in air travel.
Here's a NY Times story:
"Even as the coronavirus pandemic has sapped the ability and desire to travel, miles programs are a winner for the airlines. In the first half of 2020, Delta’s passenger revenue fell 60 percent, but the cash the airline got from American Express’s purchases of miles for its customers fell less than 5 percent. ...
"United puts a different but no less illuminating set of words and numbers to our mile lust. It goes into granular detail in its pitch about its ability to “nimbly” control its mile redemption costs on “peak days.” That explains why it’s so hard to use your miles to get a great deal during school vacations, Mardi Gras or other occasions."
******
Here's Market Watch:
Airlines are using frequent flyer programs to sell debt. Here’s how it works By Sunny Oh
"In essence, miles are sold to credit card companies who offer them as part of their reward programs to their customers. The revenues earned from selling the miles are much higher than the cost of any flight travel redeemed by passengers,
...
"In a June filing, United Airlines valued their MileagePlus loyalty program at $21.9 billion which is around double the total market capitalization of the company itself."
In my limited experience (but not just limited to my own experience) Nobel prizewinners are often asked about how they were notified of the fact that they won the prize, and by whom. Paul Milgrom and Bob Wilson certainly have one of the best stories to answer that question, and millions of people have already viewed the video from the Milgroms' Nest doorbell camera, as Bob tried to arouse Paul and give him the news.
Here's how USA Today covered that story:
Doorbell camera captures moment Nobel Prize winner is told by fellow recipient he's won
Paul Milgrom discovered via a Nest camera that he'd won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences.<>
The Nest doorbell broadcast also to Paul's wife Eva, who was visiting family in Stockholm, and who was alerted at the same time he was. Here's the view from the Swedish press (including a video of the video playing on her laptop...):
Two recent papers discuss different issues concerning drug delivery to those in need, where the obstacles may be individual reluctance to take the drug (antibiotics) or lack of social support for the drug program (for vaccines):
Predicting and improving patient-level antibiotic adherence
Isabelle Rao, Adir Shaham, Amir Yavneh, Dor Kahana, Itai Ashlagi, Margaret L. Brandeau & Dan Yamin, Health Care Management Science (2020), 05 October 2020
Abstract: Low adherence to prescribed medications causes substantial health and economic burden. We analyzed primary data from electronic medical records of 250,000 random patients from Israel’s Maccabi Healthcare services from 2007 to 2017 to predict whether a patient will purchase a prescribed antibiotic. We developed a decision model to evaluate whether an intervention to improve purchasing adherence is warranted for the patient, considering the cost of the intervention and the cost of non-adherence. The best performing prediction model achieved an average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.684, with 82% accuracy in detecting individuals who had less than 50% chance of purchasing a prescribed drug. Using the decision model, an adherence intervention targeted to patients whose predicted purchasing probability is below a specified threshold can increase the number of prescriptions filled while generating significant savings compared to no intervention – on the order of 6.4% savings and 4.0% more prescriptions filled for our dataset. We conclude that analysis of large-scale patient data from electronic medical records can help predict the probability that a patient will purchase a prescribed antibiotic and can provide real-time predictions to physicians, who can then counsel the patient about medication importance. More broadly, in-depth analysis of patient-level data can help shape the next generation of personalized interventions.
********
Covid-19: how to prioritize worse-off populations in allocating safe and effective vaccines
Harald Schmidt, Parag Pathak, Tayfun Sönmez, and M Utku Ünver, BMJ 2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3795 (Published 05 October 2020)
"When compared with previous pandemics covid-19 is unique, not only in its substantial economic impact but in exposing the consequences of historical and ongoing structural disadvantages among minority groups,123 particularly in the US. Minorities have experienced far higher rates of unemployment, infections, hospital admissions, and deaths.23456 So, as safe and effective vaccines become likely but in limited supply, should policy makers prioritize worse-off minorities in their allocation of stocks?
"Traditional allocation focuses on maximizing overall benefits, with less regard to how these benefits are distributed among different population groups. Giving more vaccines to disadvantaged groups who are expected to live less long would generally be deemed undesirable. However, the current debate around covid-19 vaccines indicates a profound reorientation in what worse-off population groups are owed."
Could this be the best Nobel pairing ever? (It's certainly a great one, and one of the best things to come out of 2020 so far...) Here's the announcement:
"The 2020 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel has been awarded to Paul R. Milgrom and Robert B. Wilson “for improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats" https://www.nobelprize.org/
I've known Paul at least since 1978, when he attended a course I taught while on leave at Stanford, on Axiomatic Models of Bargaining. Bob advised both of our dissertations, although not at the same time.
Bob is a legendary advisor of grad students. Paul is now the third of Bob's students to win a Nobel. So Bob is well established as the patriarch of a Nobel dynasty.
 |
| Bob Wilson's Nobel dynasty (to date): Wilson (with Milgrom) 2020, and Bob's students Roth (with Shapley) 2012, Holmstrom (with Hart) 2016, and Milgrom (with Wilson) 2020 |
It looks like we should check back in 2024...
Here's another picture, from another celebration:
 |
 |
| Bob Wilson and Paul Milgrom in 2006 |
"The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2020 to
Paul R. Milgrom
Stanford University, USA
Robert B. Wilson
Stanford University, USA
“for improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats”
...
“This year’s Laureates in Economic Sciences started out with fundamental theory and later used their results in practical applications, which have spread globally. Their discoveries are of great benefit to society,” says Peter Fredriksson, chair of the Prize Committee."
Learn more in the popular information
"Every day, auctions distribute astronomical values between buyers and sellers. This year’s Laureates, Paul Milgrom and Robert Wilson, have improved auction theory and invented new auction formats, benefitting sellers, buyers and taxpayers around the world."
Read the scientific background
Peter Coles and I started this blog in September 2008, to help alert students in our market design class at Harvard that market design was everywhere. Sometime recently I passed the 5000 posts mark. It turns out I like to blog about market design, broadly construed. And I'm still teaching market design.
The modal tag on my posts turns out to be repugnance, as I've been fascinated by trying to understand which kinds of transactions and markets get social support and which don't. Various design efforts that I've been involved in also have been the subject of multiple posts, with tags like residents and fellows, school choice, and kidney exchange.
Some of my favorite posts (from an incomplete series, whenever I manage to get a picture) commemorate dissertation defences. And under a variety of tags (such as market designers) I like to mark when students and colleagues are celebrated or win a prize. (I look forward to writing more of those.)
Less fun is the growing number of posts tagged RIP, in which I note the passing of people with whom I've intersected, mostly but not always in a market design connection.
In the first years of the blog I allowed comments, but after I got involved in kidney exchange, I had to regularly erase comments--typically sprinkled each night among old posts--that offered to buy kidneys, at unrealistically high prices, phishing for fools. So at some point I shut down comments, noted in this post: August 25, 2018 No comment(s)
Here are ten posts from the last five years that caught my eye as I scrolled through them before giving up on the clunky scrolling device:
March 2, 2018 The Economist discusses repugnant transactions
April 12, 2017 A bridge of life: Global kidney exchange between Mexico and the U.S.
February 21, 2017 Ken Arrow (1921-2017)
What happens to medical procedures that are found to be no more effective than placebos? Some live on for quite a while. One thing that works is to stop paying for them.
Here's an article in JAMA:
De-adopting Low-Value Care--Evidence, Eminence, and Economics
Brian W. Powers, MD, MBA1; Sachin H. Jain, MD, MBA2,3; William H. Shrank, MD, MHSA1 JAMA. Published online October 2, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17534
"An often cited shortcoming of the US health care system is the slow pace with which new innovations are adopted into routine clinical practice.1 A parallel problem receives comparably less attention: the US and other countries are slow to abandon practices that provide little or no benefit to patients. Despite robust research cataloguing common practices that confer little or no value,2,3 these practices remain widespread, accounting for an estimated $67 billion in spending annually.4 For example, estimates suggest that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) spends more than $274 million annually on carotid artery disease screening for asymptomatic patients and more than $111 million annually on cervical cancer screening for women older than 65 years.2 The concept of de-adopting these and other low-value services is embedded in the Less Is More series in JAMA Internal Medicine5 and in the Choosing Wisely campaign from the American Board of Internal Medicine.6"
I still get a small thrill when I see jobs for market designers appear, appropriately, in places that not so very long ago hadn't heard of market design.. Here's an ad from the Congressional Budget Office.
Climate and Energy Economist, Congressional Budget Office – Washington DC, Published October 2, 2020
"The Energy, Environment, and Infrastructure Unit conducts research and analysis on certain topics of interest to the Congress, including climate change, energy and related environmental issues, transportation and infrastructure, and federal policy toward research and development. In the coming years, the unit expects to expand its capacity to model the effects of climate change and climate change policy on the budget and the economy.
...
"Qualifications: Applicants must have either a Ph.D. in economics or a related discipline or a master’s degree with five years of experience in one of those fields. They should also have strong quantitative and modeling skills; preference will be given to candidates with experience modeling energy markets or systems. A background in industrial organization or market design, public finance, or a related microeconomic field is desirable"
********
And here's an ad for a crypto-economist at Facebook:
Novi Economics/Blockchain at Facebook
"Description: Novi is a Facebook subsidiary whose goal is to provide financial services for Libra, a new global currency powered by blockchain technology. The first product Novi will introduce is a digital wallet, which will be available in Messenger, WhatsApp and as a standalone app. The first version of Novi will support peer-to-peer payments and a few other ways to pay such as QR codes which small merchants can use to accept payments in Libra. Over time there will be many other use-cases for Novi including in-store payments, integrations into Point-of-Sale systems, and more. When launched, Novi will have strong fraud and privacy protections. The Novi digital wallet is expected to launch in 2020.
"The Novi economics team is seeking exceptional candidates from all fields, with a special focus on applied microeconomics, development, macroeconomics, finance, and market design, to join our team. Individuals in this role are expected to have deep expertise and the ability to leverage economic theory into real-world, practical solutions for blockchain based problems."
The National Academy of Sciences celebrates Janet Currie in the current issue of PNAS, with an interview and an inaugural article.
QnAs with Janet Currie, by Tinsley H. Davis, PNAS September 29, 2020 117 (39) 24008-24009; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017808117
"Many mental illnesses arise in adolescence, and a study of national insurance claims in the United States finds a large variance in how adolescent patients are treated even within the same zip code. The findings, reported in Janet Currie’s Inaugural Article (IA) (1), reveal that 45% of adolescents receive first-line treatments that are not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1). Currie, elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2019, has studied children’s health for three decades. A professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, Currie has undertaken pioneering economic analysis of child development, including analysis of the effects of the Head Start program on children (2, 3) and the effects of expansions of the Medicaid program for pregnant women and children (4, 5). In her IA (1), Currie analyzes a large national dataset to reveal disparities in treatment that cannot be attributed to supply-side factors, such as limited availability of treatment providers."
Here's the first question and answer:
"PNAS:What is the link between health and economics?
"Currie: Health can have an impact on how much human capital, like education, people are able to acquire. Moreover, healthcare is a business, and it accounts for almost 20% of US GDP [gross domestic product]. So there are two strands: One is thinking about health as a business, and another is thinking about health as a form of wealth. My work generally focuses more on that second aspect of health as a form of human capital. The Inaugural Article (1) brings those two strands together to a certain extent because mental health problems in children are one of the things that causes them to have less human capital than they might otherwise, and I’m looking at how those children with mental health problems end up getting treated by the healthcare system."
And here is her INAUGURAL ARTICLE
Treatment of mental illness in American adolescents varies widely within and across areas
Emily Cuddy and Janet Currie, PNAS September 29, 2020 117 (39) 24039-24046; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2007484117
"Abstract: Many mental health disorders first manifest in adolescence, and early treatment may affect the course of the disease. Using a large national database of insurance claims, this study focuses on variations in the type of care that adolescent patients receive when they are treated for an initial episode of mental illness. We found large variations in the probability that children receive follow-up care and in the type of follow-up care received across zip codes. We also found large variations in the probability that children receive drug treatments that raise a red flag when viewed through the lens of treatment guidelines: Overall, in the first 3 mo after their initial claim for mental illness, 44.85% of children who receive drug treatment receive benzodiazepines, tricyclic antidepressants, or a drug that is not Food and Drug Administration-approved for their age. On average, these children are 12 y old. While the supply of mental health professionals impacts treatment choices, little of the overall variation is explained by supply-side variables, and at least half of the variation in treatment outcomes occurs within zip codes. These results suggest that other factors, such as physician practice style, may play an important role in the types of treatment that children receive."
Posts
All Comments
