Tuesday, June 4, 2019
Monday, June 3, 2019
Steps towards reimbursing kidney donors--update from Frank McCormick
I've written before about NLDAC, the federally funded National Living Donor Assistance Center, which operates under many regulatory constraints. (I'm on their advisory board.)
Frank McCormick brings us up to date on recent steps to relax some of those constraints. Below I quote from his recent email:
"Since 2007, the federal government has had a program to reimburse low income organ donors for their travel and lodging expenses. This program is currently administered by National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC) at the University of Arizona. The Secretary of Health and Human services (HHS) has the legal authority to administratively expand the mandate of this program. Toward that end, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has just scheduled a new rule change:
Title: Removing Financial Disincentives to Living Organ Donation
Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) final rule to further remove financial barriers to living organ donation by expanding allowable costs that can be reimbursed. The changes would apply to specified incidental nonmedical expenses incurred toward living organ donation.
2. The second front is centered on the Advisory Committee on Organ Transplant (ACOT), a non-government committee that advises the Secretary of HHS on organ transplant matters. At its meeting on May 20, the committee heard a very informative presentation by Robert Merion of NLDAC:
A key part of the presentation was NLDAC’s Vision for Expansion:
1. Expand eligibility for reimbursement to donors with incomes up to 500% of the federal poverty guidelines (it is currently 300%)
2. Waive income verification for donors needing less than $500
3. Approve applications from non-directed donors (i.e., living donors who do not have a specific intended recipient)
4. Reimburse wages lost due to organ donation
5. Reimburse child care/elder care expenses due to organ donation
6. Require NLDAC information to be given to all recipients and donors
ACOT endorsed the first five recommendations and forwarded them to the Secretary of HHS. "
Frank McCormick brings us up to date on recent steps to relax some of those constraints. Below I quote from his recent email:
"Since 2007, the federal government has had a program to reimburse low income organ donors for their travel and lodging expenses. This program is currently administered by National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC) at the University of Arizona. The Secretary of Health and Human services (HHS) has the legal authority to administratively expand the mandate of this program. Toward that end, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has just scheduled a new rule change:
Title: Removing Financial Disincentives to Living Organ Donation
Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) final rule to further remove financial barriers to living organ donation by expanding allowable costs that can be reimbursed. The changes would apply to specified incidental nonmedical expenses incurred toward living organ donation.
2. The second front is centered on the Advisory Committee on Organ Transplant (ACOT), a non-government committee that advises the Secretary of HHS on organ transplant matters. At its meeting on May 20, the committee heard a very informative presentation by Robert Merion of NLDAC:
A key part of the presentation was NLDAC’s Vision for Expansion:
1. Expand eligibility for reimbursement to donors with incomes up to 500% of the federal poverty guidelines (it is currently 300%)
2. Waive income verification for donors needing less than $500
3. Approve applications from non-directed donors (i.e., living donors who do not have a specific intended recipient)
4. Reimburse wages lost due to organ donation
5. Reimburse child care/elder care expenses due to organ donation
6. Require NLDAC information to be given to all recipients and donors
ACOT endorsed the first five recommendations and forwarded them to the Secretary of HHS. "
Sunday, June 2, 2019
A third life for a transplanted liver in Hong Kong
The South China Morning Post has the story, of a transplanted liver that survived its recipient and was successfully transplanted into a second recipient following the death of the first recipient (11 years after receiving the transplant):
World first as Hong Kong surgeons transplant single liver into second patient
World-first procedure sees organ transplanted 11 years ago successfully given to another patient
"Hong Kong surgeons have performed a double world first with a transplant from one Hepatitis B sufferer to another of a liver that had already been transplanted once 11 years ago.
Bodybuilder Wong Wan-shing, 37, received the graft at Queen Mary Hospital from a 60-year-old donor identified only as Mr So, who died of a stroke on October 1."
World first as Hong Kong surgeons transplant single liver into second patient
World-first procedure sees organ transplanted 11 years ago successfully given to another patient
"Hong Kong surgeons have performed a double world first with a transplant from one Hepatitis B sufferer to another of a liver that had already been transplanted once 11 years ago.
Bodybuilder Wong Wan-shing, 37, received the graft at Queen Mary Hospital from a 60-year-old donor identified only as Mr So, who died of a stroke on October 1."
Saturday, June 1, 2019
Will NYC ban fur sales?
The NY Times has the story:
Proposed Fur Ban in New York Pits Animal Rights Advocates Against Black Ministers
"As Corey Johnson, the speaker of the New York City Council, urged his colleagues on Wednesday to ban the sale of fur in the city, he argued that it was the “moral thing to do.”
"But the proposed ban, backed by animal rights advocates, has met an unexpected challenge from a diverse set of opponents, including black pastors and Hasidic leaders. They say a prohibition would fly in the face of centuries of religious and cultural tradition.
"Black ministers have staged protests, saying that for many African-Americans, wearing furs is a treasured hallmark of achievement. Hasidic rabbis point to the many men who wear fur hats on the Sabbath. And fur shop owners and garment manufacturers have raised alarms over the potential loss of jobs and an attack on an industry with a deep history in New York
...
"The bill being considered by the Council would ban the sale of fur garments and accessories, but it would allow the sale of used fur garments and new apparel using fur from older garments. Violators would be subject to fines of $500 to $1,500, and any money made from selling banned fur would be subject to forfeiture. The bill would not ban wearing fur.
"Los Angeles is the largest city in the country to have banned the sale of fur; other cities include San Francisco and West Hollywood. But New York City is the largest fur retail market in the United States, according to FurNYC, a trade group representing 130 fur retailers in the city. The 150 fur businesses in the city create 1,100 jobs and produce $400 million in revenue per year, according to the group."
Proposed Fur Ban in New York Pits Animal Rights Advocates Against Black Ministers
"As Corey Johnson, the speaker of the New York City Council, urged his colleagues on Wednesday to ban the sale of fur in the city, he argued that it was the “moral thing to do.”
"But the proposed ban, backed by animal rights advocates, has met an unexpected challenge from a diverse set of opponents, including black pastors and Hasidic leaders. They say a prohibition would fly in the face of centuries of religious and cultural tradition.
"Black ministers have staged protests, saying that for many African-Americans, wearing furs is a treasured hallmark of achievement. Hasidic rabbis point to the many men who wear fur hats on the Sabbath. And fur shop owners and garment manufacturers have raised alarms over the potential loss of jobs and an attack on an industry with a deep history in New York
...
"The bill being considered by the Council would ban the sale of fur garments and accessories, but it would allow the sale of used fur garments and new apparel using fur from older garments. Violators would be subject to fines of $500 to $1,500, and any money made from selling banned fur would be subject to forfeiture. The bill would not ban wearing fur.
"Los Angeles is the largest city in the country to have banned the sale of fur; other cities include San Francisco and West Hollywood. But New York City is the largest fur retail market in the United States, according to FurNYC, a trade group representing 130 fur retailers in the city. The 150 fur businesses in the city create 1,100 jobs and produce $400 million in revenue per year, according to the group."
Friday, May 31, 2019
Xenotransplants, Baby Fae, and the complex pioneering efforts of Dr. Leonard Bailey, RIP
The recent death of Dr. Leonard Bailey (who performed the first successful heart transplant to an infant) reminded me of how so many ultimately successful stories in organ transplantation begin with rather wild shots in the dark, involving patients who have little to lose.
Here's the NY Times obituary:
Dr. Leonard Bailey, Who Gave a Baby a Baboon’s Heart, Dies at 76
By Denise Grady, May 22, 2019
"Dr. Leonard L. Bailey, who elicited both admiration and outrage by transplanting the heart of a baboon into a dying infant in 1984, died on May 12 at his home in Redlands, Calif. He was 76.
...
"Although Dr. Bailey went on to pioneer human heart transplants for infants, and to build a renowned center for children’s cardiac surgery at Loma Linda University in Southern California, he remained best known to the public as the doctor behind the wrenching story of the infant known as Baby Fae.
...
"“I knew she was going to die, and I had to try,” Ms. Beauclair [Baby Fae's mom] said in a telephone interview. “If I hadn’t tried, I always would have wondered, could we have saved her?
...
"The operation took place on Oct. 26, 1984. At first, Stephanie seemed to thrive. During a news conference at the hospital, Dr. Bailey was ebullient, describing her as a “beautiful, healthy baby” whose transplanted heart was doing “everything it should.”
"Baby Fae made headlines around the world. The public was enchanted by her. But reactions to the surgery ranged from awe to horror.
...
"Animal rights groups said killing the baboon was immoral and held demonstrations outside the hospital and Dr. Bailey’s home. He and the hospital received threats.
“This wasn’t a wild whim,” Dr. Roger Hadley, dean of Loma Linda University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “He had worked for years on doing cross-species transplants in animals. We had a whole lab of animals who had somebody else’s heart.”
"Dr. Hadley added that the hospital at Loma Linda is faith-based — the hospital and the university are run by the Seventh-day Adventist Church — and said that all its ethicists and theologians had thought that the transplant was the right thing to do.
“We stood by him here,” he said.
...
"Stephanie’s initial rally after the surgery did not last. Rejection and organ failure set in, and she died on Nov. 15, 1984. She had survived for 21 days.
"Her case helped focus concern on the plight of babies born with fatal heart defects, and the desperate need for organs. The next year, Dr. Bailey performed the first successful heart transplant in an infant, from a human donor. He went on to perform 375 more over the course of his career, as well as other types of pediatric heart surgery. He continued operating until 2017.
"Because of growing ethical concerns about experimenting on primates, research on using them as a source of organ transplants has mostly been abandoned. But efforts are underway to genetically alter pigs to make their organs compatible with humans."
Here's the NY Times obituary:
Dr. Leonard Bailey, Who Gave a Baby a Baboon’s Heart, Dies at 76
By Denise Grady, May 22, 2019
"Dr. Leonard L. Bailey, who elicited both admiration and outrage by transplanting the heart of a baboon into a dying infant in 1984, died on May 12 at his home in Redlands, Calif. He was 76.
...
"Although Dr. Bailey went on to pioneer human heart transplants for infants, and to build a renowned center for children’s cardiac surgery at Loma Linda University in Southern California, he remained best known to the public as the doctor behind the wrenching story of the infant known as Baby Fae.
...
"“I knew she was going to die, and I had to try,” Ms. Beauclair [Baby Fae's mom] said in a telephone interview. “If I hadn’t tried, I always would have wondered, could we have saved her?
...
"The operation took place on Oct. 26, 1984. At first, Stephanie seemed to thrive. During a news conference at the hospital, Dr. Bailey was ebullient, describing her as a “beautiful, healthy baby” whose transplanted heart was doing “everything it should.”
"Baby Fae made headlines around the world. The public was enchanted by her. But reactions to the surgery ranged from awe to horror.
...
"Animal rights groups said killing the baboon was immoral and held demonstrations outside the hospital and Dr. Bailey’s home. He and the hospital received threats.
“This wasn’t a wild whim,” Dr. Roger Hadley, dean of Loma Linda University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “He had worked for years on doing cross-species transplants in animals. We had a whole lab of animals who had somebody else’s heart.”
"Dr. Hadley added that the hospital at Loma Linda is faith-based — the hospital and the university are run by the Seventh-day Adventist Church — and said that all its ethicists and theologians had thought that the transplant was the right thing to do.
“We stood by him here,” he said.
...
"Stephanie’s initial rally after the surgery did not last. Rejection and organ failure set in, and she died on Nov. 15, 1984. She had survived for 21 days.
"Her case helped focus concern on the plight of babies born with fatal heart defects, and the desperate need for organs. The next year, Dr. Bailey performed the first successful heart transplant in an infant, from a human donor. He went on to perform 375 more over the course of his career, as well as other types of pediatric heart surgery. He continued operating until 2017.
"Because of growing ethical concerns about experimenting on primates, research on using them as a source of organ transplants has mostly been abandoned. But efforts are underway to genetically alter pigs to make their organs compatible with humans."
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Alumni medals at Columbia
I am a proud grad of the Columbia University School of Engineering, which I attended as an undergraduate from 1968-1971. I'll be back on campus this evening to get a medal, as will Dr. Harry L. Tuller.
You can read about us in the Columbia Engineering Magazine: Alumni Medalists
You can read about us in the Columbia Engineering Magazine: Alumni Medalists
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Black markets in college graduation tickets
Here's a seasonal story, from the Guardian;
Need a college graduation ticket? There's a black market for that
Tickets for New York University’s 2019 commencement ceremony are being advertised for as much as $250
"It’s graduation season in the United States, which means lots of caps, gowns, pomp and circumstance, corny speeches, selfies – and an underground trade in graduation tickets to top off the celebrations.
"Many colleges and universities limit the number of people who can attend a graduation ceremony, providing students with tickets to the event they can distribute to friends and family. These tickets are often transferable, meaning someone can give a ticket to a friend who needs an extra seat. But this also means that students can sell their tickets – though banned by most schools – to get some extra cash.
"This “black market” around graduation has been documented for years, especially with the rise of social media networks. People from schools like Princeton, University of San Francisco and College of Charleston have advertised tickets for hundreds of dollars, the Wall Street Journal reported in 2007. At the University of Virginia, students sold tickets for an average price of $150 for last year’s commencement ceremony in Charlottesville.
"Now at New York University (NYU), tickets for the class of 2019’s commencement ceremony are being advertised for as much as $250."
Need a college graduation ticket? There's a black market for that
Tickets for New York University’s 2019 commencement ceremony are being advertised for as much as $250
"It’s graduation season in the United States, which means lots of caps, gowns, pomp and circumstance, corny speeches, selfies – and an underground trade in graduation tickets to top off the celebrations.
"Many colleges and universities limit the number of people who can attend a graduation ceremony, providing students with tickets to the event they can distribute to friends and family. These tickets are often transferable, meaning someone can give a ticket to a friend who needs an extra seat. But this also means that students can sell their tickets – though banned by most schools – to get some extra cash.
"This “black market” around graduation has been documented for years, especially with the rise of social media networks. People from schools like Princeton, University of San Francisco and College of Charleston have advertised tickets for hundreds of dollars, the Wall Street Journal reported in 2007. At the University of Virginia, students sold tickets for an average price of $150 for last year’s commencement ceremony in Charlottesville.
"Now at New York University (NYU), tickets for the class of 2019’s commencement ceremony are being advertised for as much as $250."
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Surrogacy and citizenship: bringing the babies home isn't always so easy
Even the U.S., which is a center of surrogacy, employs outdated rules to determine which surrogate children born overseas are automatically American citizens. Here's a story from the NY Times which (among other things) involves reverse fertility tourism. The American male couple had a friend in Britain serve as the surrogate. (Mostly the tourism goes the other way, because British surrogates can't be paid, so they aren't easy to arrange....)
Both Parents Are American. The U.S. Says Their Baby Isn’t. By Sarah Mervosh.
"James Derek Mize is an American citizen, born and raised in the United States. His husband, who was born in Britain to an American mother, is a United States citizen, too.
"But the couple’s infant daughter isn’t, according to the State Department.
"She was born abroad to a surrogate, using a donor egg and sperm from her British-born father. Those distinct circumstances mean that, under a decades-old policy, she did not qualify for citizenship at birth, even though both her parents are American.
...
"The interpretation [of the law] has led the State Department to regard births from assisted reproductive technology as “out of wedlock,” if the source of the sperm and the egg do not match married parents. Such a designation comes with extra requirements for transmitting citizenship, including showing that a biological parent is an American citizen who has spent at least five years in the United States."
Both Parents Are American. The U.S. Says Their Baby Isn’t. By Sarah Mervosh.
"James Derek Mize is an American citizen, born and raised in the United States. His husband, who was born in Britain to an American mother, is a United States citizen, too.
"But the couple’s infant daughter isn’t, according to the State Department.
"She was born abroad to a surrogate, using a donor egg and sperm from her British-born father. Those distinct circumstances mean that, under a decades-old policy, she did not qualify for citizenship at birth, even though both her parents are American.
...
"The interpretation [of the law] has led the State Department to regard births from assisted reproductive technology as “out of wedlock,” if the source of the sperm and the egg do not match married parents. Such a designation comes with extra requirements for transmitting citizenship, including showing that a biological parent is an American citizen who has spent at least five years in the United States."
Monday, May 27, 2019
California surrogacy
Surrogacy serves all sorts of people, mostly couples who don't have a working womb between them. But, as Jenny Kleeman reports in the Guardian, it also can serve those whose need isn't medical. She interviews the controversial fertility doctor Vicken Sahakian, who is known among other things for having helped a Spanish woman become the oldest known person to give birth, at 67. Here's a link with some excerpts from the excellent, long article (read it all for more about the clients and the surrogates).
'Having a child doesn’t fit into these women's schedule': is this the future of surrogacy?
"His clients are straight, gay, young and old, and they come to him from across the globe, particularly from China, or parts of Europe where surrogacy is either illegal or very tightly regulated. In the UK, surrogacy is legal, but surrogates can claim only expenses for carrying a child for another person. California law allows surrogates to earn a profit, and upholds the rights of intended parents over anyone else who is involved in the creation of their babies. It’s given the state a reputation as the most surrogacy-friendly place in the world.
...
"And as the range of fertility options open to clients has diversified, so have their requests. Now, a growing number of women are coming to Sahakian for “social” surrogacy: they want to have babies that are biologically their own, but don’t want to carry them. There is no medical reason for them to use a surrogate; they just choose not to be pregnant, so they conceive babies through IVF and then hire another woman to gestate and give birth to their baby. It is the ultimate in outsourced labour.
...
"Five years ago, Sahakian says he would preside over a handful of social surrogacy cases a year; now he sees at least 20. “More and more every year. ... It costs $150,000 to have a baby this way. “If social surrogacy was more affordable, more women would be doing it, absolutely. There’s an advantage to being pregnant, the bonding, I understand that, and from experience I can say that most women love to be pregnant. But a lot of women don’t want to be pregnant and lose a year of their careers.”
...
"The typical candidates are models and actors who are doing well but haven’t yet made their name. “They tell me point blank, ‘If I get pregnant, I will lose my part. I work, I don’t have time because of work. I model, I act, I look good like this and I don’t want to disfigure my body.’”
...
"The official guidelines set out by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) say that gestational carriers – surrogates who carry babies conceived through IVF, with eggs from another woman – should be used only when there is a medical need. But Sahakian has no qualms about “defining medical reasons broadly”, as he puts it. “What’s the end result here? Somebody wants to be a parent. I’m facilitating that. I understand that it’s controversial, it’s borderline unethical for some people, but put yourself in the shoes of a 26-year-old model who is making her living by modelling swimsuits. Tell me something – is it that unethical, to say let’s not destroy this woman’s career?”
...
"Sahakian has a reputation for pushing boundaries, and he relishes it: it’s given him a notoriety that drives his business. In 2001, he helped the oldest woman on record in France, Jeanine Salomone, conceive using donor eggs and give birth at 62. A scandal erupted in France – where both surrogacy and artificial insemination of post-menopausal women are illegal – when it emerged that Jeanine’s brother, Robert, was the biological father of the son she gave birth to. ...
The press descended on Sahakian, who said the siblings had presented themselves in his consulting room as a married couple [they had the same last names], and that Jeanine had lied about her age. "
'Having a child doesn’t fit into these women's schedule': is this the future of surrogacy?
"His clients are straight, gay, young and old, and they come to him from across the globe, particularly from China, or parts of Europe where surrogacy is either illegal or very tightly regulated. In the UK, surrogacy is legal, but surrogates can claim only expenses for carrying a child for another person. California law allows surrogates to earn a profit, and upholds the rights of intended parents over anyone else who is involved in the creation of their babies. It’s given the state a reputation as the most surrogacy-friendly place in the world.
...
"And as the range of fertility options open to clients has diversified, so have their requests. Now, a growing number of women are coming to Sahakian for “social” surrogacy: they want to have babies that are biologically their own, but don’t want to carry them. There is no medical reason for them to use a surrogate; they just choose not to be pregnant, so they conceive babies through IVF and then hire another woman to gestate and give birth to their baby. It is the ultimate in outsourced labour.
...
"Five years ago, Sahakian says he would preside over a handful of social surrogacy cases a year; now he sees at least 20. “More and more every year. ... It costs $150,000 to have a baby this way. “If social surrogacy was more affordable, more women would be doing it, absolutely. There’s an advantage to being pregnant, the bonding, I understand that, and from experience I can say that most women love to be pregnant. But a lot of women don’t want to be pregnant and lose a year of their careers.”
...
"The typical candidates are models and actors who are doing well but haven’t yet made their name. “They tell me point blank, ‘If I get pregnant, I will lose my part. I work, I don’t have time because of work. I model, I act, I look good like this and I don’t want to disfigure my body.’”
...
"The official guidelines set out by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) say that gestational carriers – surrogates who carry babies conceived through IVF, with eggs from another woman – should be used only when there is a medical need. But Sahakian has no qualms about “defining medical reasons broadly”, as he puts it. “What’s the end result here? Somebody wants to be a parent. I’m facilitating that. I understand that it’s controversial, it’s borderline unethical for some people, but put yourself in the shoes of a 26-year-old model who is making her living by modelling swimsuits. Tell me something – is it that unethical, to say let’s not destroy this woman’s career?”
...
"Sahakian has a reputation for pushing boundaries, and he relishes it: it’s given him a notoriety that drives his business. In 2001, he helped the oldest woman on record in France, Jeanine Salomone, conceive using donor eggs and give birth at 62. A scandal erupted in France – where both surrogacy and artificial insemination of post-menopausal women are illegal – when it emerged that Jeanine’s brother, Robert, was the biological father of the son she gave birth to. ...
The press descended on Sahakian, who said the siblings had presented themselves in his consulting room as a married couple [they had the same last names], and that Jeanine had lied about her age. "
Sunday, May 26, 2019
Same sex marriage comes to Taiwan
Here's the NY Times story on the new law allowing marriage, and on still to be debated issues including family formation (adoption, surrogacy...):
After a Long Fight, Taiwan’s Same-Sex Couples Celebrate New Marriages
By Chris Horton, May 24, 2019
"TAIPEI, Taiwan — Typically drab and nondescript, Taipei’s Xinyi District Household Registration office exploded with life and color on Friday morning.
"Taiwanese and foreign reporters surrounded the office’s main desk to witness history, as Taiwan became first in Asia to legally recognize same-sex marriages.
...
"The registrations came exactly a week after Taiwan’s legislature made headlines worldwide by voting to recognize same-sex marriage.
...
"Mr. Chi said that Taiwan’s separate-but-equal law for same-sex couples was a step in the right direction, but that more work remained to be done. Instead of having a separate law for gay couples, he said, Taiwan’s civil code should be amended to simply include all couples. The issues of transnational couples and full adoption rights also need the be addressed, he said.
...
"The law passed last Friday went beyond what the constitutional court demanded. The 2017 court ruling spoke in terms of the right to equality and freedom of marriage, but it did not address equality with respect to building a family, said Margaret Lewis, a law professor at Seton Hall.
“Now the question is whether the court will be asked to rule on how the constitutional right to equality applies to adoption by married couples of the same sex,” she said. “Other issues of concern include whether to legalize surrogacy and changes to laws related to assisted reproductive technology.”
After a Long Fight, Taiwan’s Same-Sex Couples Celebrate New Marriages
By Chris Horton, May 24, 2019
"TAIPEI, Taiwan — Typically drab and nondescript, Taipei’s Xinyi District Household Registration office exploded with life and color on Friday morning.
"Taiwanese and foreign reporters surrounded the office’s main desk to witness history, as Taiwan became first in Asia to legally recognize same-sex marriages.
...
"The registrations came exactly a week after Taiwan’s legislature made headlines worldwide by voting to recognize same-sex marriage.
...
"Mr. Chi said that Taiwan’s separate-but-equal law for same-sex couples was a step in the right direction, but that more work remained to be done. Instead of having a separate law for gay couples, he said, Taiwan’s civil code should be amended to simply include all couples. The issues of transnational couples and full adoption rights also need the be addressed, he said.
...
"The law passed last Friday went beyond what the constitutional court demanded. The 2017 court ruling spoke in terms of the right to equality and freedom of marriage, but it did not address equality with respect to building a family, said Margaret Lewis, a law professor at Seton Hall.
“Now the question is whether the court will be asked to rule on how the constitutional right to equality applies to adoption by married couples of the same sex,” she said. “Other issues of concern include whether to legalize surrogacy and changes to laws related to assisted reproductive technology.”
Saturday, May 25, 2019
Matching comic from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
I rely on comics to let me know important subjects to study (doesn't everyone?). Here's one from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
Match-Up 2019 in Switzerland, May 26-29
Here's the program. (It contains abstracts following the schedule...)
Sunday, May 26th
14:00 - 14:15 Conference Opening (Bettina Klaus)
14:15 - 14:40“Stability Against Robust Deviations in the Roommate Problem”Daisuke Hirata, Yusuke Kasuya, andKentaro Tomoeda
14:40 - 15:05“Robust Group Strategy-Proofness”Steven KivinenandNorovsambuu Tumennasan
15:05 - 15:30“Robust Design in Monotonic Matching Markets: A Case for Firm-Proposing Deferred-Acceptance”Lars Ehlersand Jordi Masso
15:30-16:00Coffee Break
16:00 - 17:20 Poster Presentation Session 1
“Preprocessing in Matching Problems” Maxence Delorme, Ser-gio Garc`ıa, Jacek Gondzio, Joerg Kalcsics, David Manlove, andWilliam Pettersson
“Legal Assignments, the EADAM (Efficiency Adjusted DeferredAcceptance Mechanism) Algorithm” Yuri Faenza andXuanZhang
“A General Framework for Stable Roommate Problems: A Preliminary Report”Muge Fidan and Esra Erdem
“Preference Manipulation in Two-Sided Matching - Strategic Behavior and Robustness of Solution Algorithms” Christian Haas
“Practical Issues in Matching - A Case Study on Genetic Counseling Admissions in North America” Jonah Peranson
“Unpopularity Factor in the Marriage and Roommates Problems”Suthee Ruangwises and Toshiya Itoh
“School choice with priority levels: Constrained Efficient and FairAssignment” Thomas Wouters
Sunday, May 26th
14:00 - 14:15 Conference Opening (Bettina Klaus)
14:15 - 14:40“Stability Against Robust Deviations in the Roommate Problem”Daisuke Hirata, Yusuke Kasuya, andKentaro Tomoeda
14:40 - 15:05“Robust Group Strategy-Proofness”Steven KivinenandNorovsambuu Tumennasan
15:05 - 15:30“Robust Design in Monotonic Matching Markets: A Case for Firm-Proposing Deferred-Acceptance”Lars Ehlersand Jordi Masso
15:30-16:00Coffee Break
16:00 - 17:20 Poster Presentation Session 1
“Preprocessing in Matching Problems” Maxence Delorme, Ser-gio Garc`ıa, Jacek Gondzio, Joerg Kalcsics, David Manlove, andWilliam Pettersson
“Legal Assignments, the EADAM (Efficiency Adjusted DeferredAcceptance Mechanism) Algorithm” Yuri Faenza andXuanZhang
“A General Framework for Stable Roommate Problems: A Preliminary Report”Muge Fidan and Esra Erdem
“Preference Manipulation in Two-Sided Matching - Strategic Behavior and Robustness of Solution Algorithms” Christian Haas
“Practical Issues in Matching - A Case Study on Genetic Counseling Admissions in North America” Jonah Peranson
“Unpopularity Factor in the Marriage and Roommates Problems”Suthee Ruangwises and Toshiya Itoh
“School choice with priority levels: Constrained Efficient and FairAssignment” Thomas Wouters
Monday,May 27
09:10 CSF Welcome Address
09:25 - 10:10 Invited Talk“Parameterizing Stable Matching Problems” Ildi Schlotter
10:10 - 10:35“Stable Noncrossing Matchings” Suthee Ruangwises and Toshiya Itoh
10:35 - 11:05 Coffee Break
11:05 - 11:30 “Refugee Resettlement” David Delacretaz, Scott Duke Kominers, and Alexander Teytelboym
11:30 - 11:55 “Matching Problem of Civil Service”Ashutosh Thakur
11:55 - 12:20 “Trading Networks with General Preferences” Jan Christoph Schlegel
12:20 - 13:45 Lunch
13:45 - 14:30 Invited Talk “International Kidney Exchange Programmes: Op-timisation and Games”Peter Biro
14:30 - 14:55 “Pareto Optimal Coalitions of Fixed Size” ́Agnes Cseh, Tam ́as Fleiner, and Petra Harjan
14:55 - 15:20 “Balanced Stable Marriage: How Close is Close Enough?” Sushmita Gupta, Sanjukta Roy, Saket Saurabh, and Meirav Zehavi
15:20 - 15:50 Coffee Break
15:50 - 16:15“Flexibility in House Allocation and Housing Markets” Madhav Raghavan
16:15 - 16:40 “Endowment Manipulations in Probabilistic Assignment Problem”Yuki Tamura
16:40 - 17:05“Equivalent Choice Functions and Stable Mechanisms” Jan Christoph Schlegel
17:05 - 17:15 Short Break (no coffee)
17:15 - 17:40 “Centralized Matching with Incomplete Information” Marcelo Ariel Fernandezand Leeat Yariv
17:40 - 18:05“Simultaneous Search: Beyond Independent Successes” Ran I.Shorrer
18:05 - 18:30 “Deferred Acceptance and Regret-free Truth-telling: A Character-ization Result” Marcelo Ariel Fernandez
Tuesday, May 28
09:00 - 09:45 Invited Talk “Balanced Exchange in a Multi-Object Shapley-Scarf Market” P ́eter Biro,Flip Klijn, and Szilvia Papai
09:45 - 10:10 “Competing for Priorities in School Choice” Greg Leo and MartinVan der Linden
10:10 - 10:35 “Information Acquisition Costs in Matching Markets” Nicole S. Immorlica, Jacob D. Leshno, and Irene Y. Lo
10:35 - 11:05 Coffee Break
11:05 - 11:30 “Efficient and (Pretty) Fair Course Assignment with Quotas” Martin Bichler, Alexander Hammerl, Thayer Morrill, and StefanWaldherr
11:30 - 11:55 “An Algorithm for Strong Stability in the Student-Project Alloca-tion Problem with Ties” Sofiat Olaosebikan and David Manlove
11:55 - 12:20“Strategy-Proof Approximation Algorithms for the Stable Mar-riage Problem with Ties and Incomplete Lists”, Koki Hamada, Shuichi Miyazaki, and Hiroki Yanagisawa
Wednesday, May 29th
09:00 - 09:45 Invited Talk “Efficient and Incentive-Compatible Liver Ex-change” Haluk Ergin, Tayfun Sonmez, andM. Utku Unver
09:45 - 10:10 “Matching for the Israeli “Mechinot” Gap-Year Programs: Handling Rich Diversity Requirements” Yannai A. Gonczarowski, Lior Kovalio, Noam Nisan, and Assaf Romm
10:10 - 10:35 “Recourse in Kidney Exchange Programs” Valentin Bartier, Yves Crama, Bart Smeulders, and Frits C.R. Spieksma
10:35 - 11:05 Coffee Break
11:05 - 11:30 “Obvious Dominance and Random Priority” Marek Pycia and Peter Troyan
11:30 - 11:55 “Subgame Perfect Equilibria under the Deferred Acceptance Algo-rithm” Keisuke Bando andYasushi Kawase
11:55 - 12:20 “Optimizing Reserves in School Choice: A Dynamic ProgrammingApproach” Franklyn Wang, Ravi Jagadeesan, and Scott Duke Kominers
12:20 - 13:45 Lunch
13:45 - 14:10 “Strategy-proof, Envy-free and Pareto Efficient Online Mecha-nisms for Fair Division with Additive Valuations” Martin Aleksandrov and Toby Walsh
14:10 - 14:35 “An Alternative Approach to Asylum Assignment” Gian Caspari
14:35 - 15:00 “Matching with Myopic and Farsighted Players” Jean-Jacques Herings, Ana Mauleon, and Vincent Vannetelbosch
15:00 - 15:30 Coffee Break
15:30 - 16:15 Invited Talk “Pareto Optimal Allocation under Uncertain Pref-erences” Haris Aziz, Peter Bir ́o, Ronald de Haan, and Baharak Rastegari
16:15 - 16:40 CSF Award and Algorithms Award
16:40 - 18:00 Poster Presentation Session 2A
ll papers as in Poster Presentation Session 1 (except for Jonah Peranson and Christian Haas).
19:00Dinner
Friday, May 24, 2019
Matching early when information is costly, by Grenet, He, and Kübler
Here's a new paper on school matching that takes preference formation seriously:
Decentralizing Centralized Matching Markets:
Implications from Early Offers in University Admissions
by Julien Grenet, Yinghua He, and Dorothea Kübler
May 2019
Abstract
The matching literature commonly rules out that market design itself shapes agent preferences. Underlying this premise is the assumption that agents know their own preferences at the outset and that preferences do not change throughout the matching process. This assumption implies that a centralized market where agents receive at most one offer can dominate a decentralized market where multiple offers to agents are possible. Using a quasi-experiment in Germany’s university admissions, we provide evidence against this assumption. We study a centralized clearinghouse that implements the early stages of the university-proposing Gale-Shapley deferred-acceptance mechanism in real time, resembling a decentralized market with continuous offers, rejections, and acceptances. With data on the exact timing of every decision, we show that early offers are more likely to be accepted than (potential) later offers, despite early offers not being made by more desirable universities. Furthermore, early offers are only accepted after some time rather than immediately. These results and direct survey evidence are consistent with a model of information acquisition: it is costly for students to learn about universities and accepting a university that turns out to be inferior causes regret. We discuss and rule out some alternative hypotheses. Our findings motivate a hybrid mechanism that balances centralization and decentralization. By allowing sequential learning, it improves welfare, especially in markets with substantial learning costs.
Decentralizing Centralized Matching Markets:
Implications from Early Offers in University Admissions
by Julien Grenet, Yinghua He, and Dorothea Kübler
May 2019
Abstract
The matching literature commonly rules out that market design itself shapes agent preferences. Underlying this premise is the assumption that agents know their own preferences at the outset and that preferences do not change throughout the matching process. This assumption implies that a centralized market where agents receive at most one offer can dominate a decentralized market where multiple offers to agents are possible. Using a quasi-experiment in Germany’s university admissions, we provide evidence against this assumption. We study a centralized clearinghouse that implements the early stages of the university-proposing Gale-Shapley deferred-acceptance mechanism in real time, resembling a decentralized market with continuous offers, rejections, and acceptances. With data on the exact timing of every decision, we show that early offers are more likely to be accepted than (potential) later offers, despite early offers not being made by more desirable universities. Furthermore, early offers are only accepted after some time rather than immediately. These results and direct survey evidence are consistent with a model of information acquisition: it is costly for students to learn about universities and accepting a university that turns out to be inferior causes regret. We discuss and rule out some alternative hypotheses. Our findings motivate a hybrid mechanism that balances centralization and decentralization. By allowing sequential learning, it improves welfare, especially in markets with substantial learning costs.
Thursday, May 23, 2019
Vic Fuchs on the problems of employment-based health insurance, in JAMA
Vic Fuchs, the dean of American health economists, argues that employment-based insurance has an assortment problem focused on high income consumers (he compares it to Whole Foods versus Walmart) and a related high cost of administration.
May 9, 2019
Does Employment-Based Insurance Make the US Medical Care System Unfair and Inefficient?
Victor R. Fuchs, JAMA. Published online May 09, 2019. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.4812
"In the United States, the interests of high-income individuals dominate decisions about what medical care is offered and how it is financed. The result is a less efficient and less equitable medical care system than in other high-income countries. Employment-based insurance plays a key role in determining the production and financing of US medical care.
...
"Emphasis is on specialty and subspecialty care, expensive technology, extra capacity to facilitate access (US hospitals have an average occupancy rate of 65% compared with an average of 76% according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), and more and better-quality amenities, including space and privacy in the hospital.3 Architects who build in many countries suggest that design for US hospitals must also include better space for visitors and professional staff. This more costly product mix (specialty care and hospital amenities) is appreciated by patients at all income levels, but higher-income patients would and sometimes do pay extra for them. Many low- and middle-income households would be better off if medical care was less costly, and they had more money for other public and private goods and services.
...
"The preference of high-income patients for a costly product mix also adversely affects the efficiency of research and development in the choice of projects because market size influences the direction of investment in innovation. Almost all private medical research and development is directed toward extending the product mix with few attempts to discover new lower-cost interventions with truly disruptive innovations. The interests of high-income patients not only result in inefficiency in medical care production and innovation, but also adversely affect the way the United States finances health care. The present system, which is a mix of employment-based insurance, other private insurance, numerous government programs, including Medicaid and Medicare, each with its own eligibility rules and payment schemes, and out-of-pocket payments, is extremely costly to administer.4,5 The large role played by private insurance in the United States helps high-income households because the price of the insurance is the same regardless of income, whereas government plans typically require higher-income individuals to pay a larger share of the nation’s medical care bill."
May 9, 2019
Does Employment-Based Insurance Make the US Medical Care System Unfair and Inefficient?
Victor R. Fuchs, JAMA. Published online May 09, 2019. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.4812
"In the United States, the interests of high-income individuals dominate decisions about what medical care is offered and how it is financed. The result is a less efficient and less equitable medical care system than in other high-income countries. Employment-based insurance plays a key role in determining the production and financing of US medical care.
...
"Emphasis is on specialty and subspecialty care, expensive technology, extra capacity to facilitate access (US hospitals have an average occupancy rate of 65% compared with an average of 76% according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), and more and better-quality amenities, including space and privacy in the hospital.3 Architects who build in many countries suggest that design for US hospitals must also include better space for visitors and professional staff. This more costly product mix (specialty care and hospital amenities) is appreciated by patients at all income levels, but higher-income patients would and sometimes do pay extra for them. Many low- and middle-income households would be better off if medical care was less costly, and they had more money for other public and private goods and services.
...
"The preference of high-income patients for a costly product mix also adversely affects the efficiency of research and development in the choice of projects because market size influences the direction of investment in innovation. Almost all private medical research and development is directed toward extending the product mix with few attempts to discover new lower-cost interventions with truly disruptive innovations. The interests of high-income patients not only result in inefficiency in medical care production and innovation, but also adversely affect the way the United States finances health care. The present system, which is a mix of employment-based insurance, other private insurance, numerous government programs, including Medicaid and Medicare, each with its own eligibility rules and payment schemes, and out-of-pocket payments, is extremely costly to administer.4,5 The large role played by private insurance in the United States helps high-income households because the price of the insurance is the same regardless of income, whereas government plans typically require higher-income individuals to pay a larger share of the nation’s medical care bill."
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
Kidney exchange in India: the legal framework
Last week in Ahmedabad I had a chance to interact with Dr. Vivek Kute and his colleagues at the Trivedi Institute, to better understand the setting of their innovative kidney exchange program. The legal framework is of course a big part of that environment.
Here's India's Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (THOA), 2014 (scroll down for the English language version).
As in other places, much of the law is shaped by repugnance towards kidney sales. To this end, the law requires that an Authorisation Committee approve donation from someone who is not a "near relative," in the immediate nuclear family.
"Authorisation Committee.
(3) When the proposed donor and the recipient are not near relatives, the Authorisation Committee shall,-
(i)evaluate that there is no commercial transaction between the recipient and the donor and that no payment has been made to the donor or promised to be made to the donor or any other person;
(ii)prepare an explanation of the link between them and the circumstances which led to the offer being made;"
In the case of kidney exchange, only a near relative may serve as the intended donor (i.e. no uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.).
"(4)Cases of swap donation referred to under subsection (3A) of section 9 of the Act shall be approved by Authorisation Committee of hospital or district or State in which transplantation is proposed to be done and the donation of organs shall be permissible only from near relatives of the swap recipients."
Here's India's Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (THOA), 2014 (scroll down for the English language version).
As in other places, much of the law is shaped by repugnance towards kidney sales. To this end, the law requires that an Authorisation Committee approve donation from someone who is not a "near relative," in the immediate nuclear family.
"Authorisation Committee.
(3) When the proposed donor and the recipient are not near relatives, the Authorisation Committee shall,-
(i)evaluate that there is no commercial transaction between the recipient and the donor and that no payment has been made to the donor or promised to be made to the donor or any other person;
(ii)prepare an explanation of the link between them and the circumstances which led to the offer being made;"
In the case of kidney exchange, only a near relative may serve as the intended donor (i.e. no uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.).
"(4)Cases of swap donation referred to under subsection (3A) of section 9 of the Act shall be approved by Authorisation Committee of hospital or district or State in which transplantation is proposed to be done and the donation of organs shall be permissible only from near relatives of the swap recipients."
The present law also does not allow nondirected donors.
***********
Here are some related earlier posts:
***********
Here are some related earlier posts:
Tuesday, May 21, 2019 Robot-assisted kidney transplantation in Ahmedabad, India.
Monday, July 2, 2018
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Robot-assisted kidney transplantation in Ahmedabad, India.
I just returned from a very interesting visit to Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, part of which was at the Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences. There I had the privilege of sitting in on a robot-assisted kidney transplant operation conducted by Dr. Pranjal Modi. In the picture below, Dr. Modi is seated at the robot, that he operates with his hands and feet, while I watch on a screen, behind which is the patient (surrounded by doctors maintaining the various instruments inside him, through small incisions).
Below is the two-dimensional image in which I followed what he was doing (but when he looks through the binoculars of the robot, he sees it in very clear 3 dimensions).
The high magnification is apparently a big aid to fast and precise surgery, which (together with small incisions) is one of the attractions of robotic surgery.
The robot was made by Da Vinci.
I think this is the patient-facing part of the particular robot being used:
 |
| Dr. Pranjal R. Modi at the robot controls, while I watch him perform a kidney transplant. |
Below is the two-dimensional image in which I followed what he was doing (but when he looks through the binoculars of the robot, he sees it in very clear 3 dimensions).
The high magnification is apparently a big aid to fast and precise surgery, which (together with small incisions) is one of the attractions of robotic surgery.
The robot was made by Da Vinci.
I think this is the patient-facing part of the particular robot being used:
Monday, May 20, 2019
Management Science’s 65th Anniversary Conference, May 20-21, Boston University
Management Science’s 65th Anniversary Conference
May 20 – 21, 2019
Boston University Questrom School of Business
"2019 marks the publication of the 65th volume of Management Science. To celebrate this anniversary, the editorial board is organizing a conference at Questrom School of Business, Boston University, from May 20th to May 21st, 2019. The focus of the conference is “Innovations in the Science and Practice of Management,” with an emphasis on integrating theory and practice. "
Here's the conference program. It appears it will be a single stream, without parallel sessions.
It includes some talks explicitly labelled as market design, including, on Monday,
10:30 – 11:15 am Market Design, Behavioral and Experimental Economics and Management
Prof. Yan Chen, University of Michigan
Prof. Peter Cramton, University of Maryland
Prof. Axel Ockenfels, University of Cologne
And my talk on Tuesday,
Operational aspects of market design: the case of kidney exchange
By Itai Ashlagi and Al Roth
Sunday, May 19, 2019
Gail Cornwall responds to the recent NY Times story on SF schools
Gail Cornwall, who follows San Francisco schools, replies to a recent article in the NY Times:
A cautionary tale about linking school choice and segregation
"Late last month, New York Times’ national education reporter Dana Goldstein wrote about public school choice and segregated schools in San Francisco. Headlined San Francisco Had an Ambitious Plan to Tackle School Segregation. It Made It Worse, the story hits several nails squarely on the head.
**********
Here's my earlier post on the NY Times article:
A cautionary tale about linking school choice and segregation
"Late last month, New York Times’ national education reporter Dana Goldstein wrote about public school choice and segregated schools in San Francisco. Headlined San Francisco Had an Ambitious Plan to Tackle School Segregation. It Made It Worse, the story hits several nails squarely on the head.
...
"But there are several important weaknesses in Goldstein’s article that could mislead parents, readers, and policymakers.
"The piece lays blame for segregation at the feet of San Francisco’s citywide public school choice system. It oversimplifies the views and priorities of lower-income non-white families. And, though Goldstein told me it wasn’t meant to, the article seems to endorse a controversial return to a restriction of choice in favor of a form of neighborhood attendance zones."
**********
Here's my earlier post on the NY Times article:
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
I've blogged about other articles by Ms. Cornwall.Saturday, May 18, 2019
Yale SOM celebrates Vahideh Manshadi on the benefits of scale in kidney exchange
In Yale Insights (from Yale SOM):
Kidney Exchange Registries Should Collaborate to Save More Lives
VAHIDEH MANSHADI
"The results were surprising, says Manshadi. “We didn’t find any evidence that higher-frequency match runs were reducing the overall number of transplants by depleting the pool of potential donors. The total number of transplants remained stable.”
"What the researchers did find, however, was an unexpectedly high number of patients in both programs whose antibodies made them hard to match—what are called sensitized patients.
“The majority of patients in these programs are sensitized,” Manshadi says. “These patients have such high levels of antibodies in their blood that they are more likely to reject a donor organ. Frequent or infrequent matching will have little effect on them because it’s so much harder to find a donor whose kidney they can accept.”
"The best way of improving the outlook for these patients, says Manshadi, is to ensure they are prioritized when searching for matches. That, and find new ways of increasing—and diversifying—the number and range of donors coming into exchange programs. "
*********
And here's the original paper:
Effect of match‐run frequencies on the number of transplants and waiting times in kidney exchange
Itai Ashlagi Adam Bingaman Maximilien Burq Vahideh Manshadi David Gamarnik Cathi Murphey Alvin E. Roth Marc L. Melcher Michael A. Rees, American Journal of Transplantation, Volume18, Issue5, May 2018, Pages 1177-1186
First published: 31 October 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14566
Abstract
Numerous kidney exchange (kidney paired donation [KPD]) registries in the United States have gradually shifted to high‐frequency match‐runs, raising the question of whether this harms the number of transplants. We conducted simulations using clinical data from 2 KPD registries—the Alliance for Paired Donation, which runs multihospital exchanges, and Methodist San Antonio, which runs single‐center exchanges—to study how the frequency of match‐runs impacts the number of transplants and the average waiting times. We simulate the options facing each of the 2 registries by repeated resampling from their historical pools of patient‐donor pairs and nondirected donors, with arrival and departure rates corresponding to the historical data. We find that longer intervals between match‐runs do not increase the total number of transplants, and that prioritizing highly sensitized patients is more effective than waiting longer between match‐runs for transplanting highly sensitized patients. While we do not find that frequent match‐runs result in fewer transplanted pairs, we do find that increasing arrival rates of new pairs improves both the fraction of transplanted pairs and waiting times.
Kidney Exchange Registries Should Collaborate to Save More Lives
VAHIDEH MANSHADI
"The results were surprising, says Manshadi. “We didn’t find any evidence that higher-frequency match runs were reducing the overall number of transplants by depleting the pool of potential donors. The total number of transplants remained stable.”
"What the researchers did find, however, was an unexpectedly high number of patients in both programs whose antibodies made them hard to match—what are called sensitized patients.
“The majority of patients in these programs are sensitized,” Manshadi says. “These patients have such high levels of antibodies in their blood that they are more likely to reject a donor organ. Frequent or infrequent matching will have little effect on them because it’s so much harder to find a donor whose kidney they can accept.”
"The best way of improving the outlook for these patients, says Manshadi, is to ensure they are prioritized when searching for matches. That, and find new ways of increasing—and diversifying—the number and range of donors coming into exchange programs. "
*********
And here's the original paper:
Effect of match‐run frequencies on the number of transplants and waiting times in kidney exchange
Itai Ashlagi Adam Bingaman Maximilien Burq Vahideh Manshadi David Gamarnik Cathi Murphey Alvin E. Roth Marc L. Melcher Michael A. Rees, American Journal of Transplantation, Volume18, Issue5, May 2018, Pages 1177-1186
First published: 31 October 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14566
Abstract
Numerous kidney exchange (kidney paired donation [KPD]) registries in the United States have gradually shifted to high‐frequency match‐runs, raising the question of whether this harms the number of transplants. We conducted simulations using clinical data from 2 KPD registries—the Alliance for Paired Donation, which runs multihospital exchanges, and Methodist San Antonio, which runs single‐center exchanges—to study how the frequency of match‐runs impacts the number of transplants and the average waiting times. We simulate the options facing each of the 2 registries by repeated resampling from their historical pools of patient‐donor pairs and nondirected donors, with arrival and departure rates corresponding to the historical data. We find that longer intervals between match‐runs do not increase the total number of transplants, and that prioritizing highly sensitized patients is more effective than waiting longer between match‐runs for transplanting highly sensitized patients. While we do not find that frequent match‐runs result in fewer transplanted pairs, we do find that increasing arrival rates of new pairs improves both the fraction of transplanted pairs and waiting times.
Friday, May 17, 2019
Repugnant phrasing
Japan's labor and immigration policies have been more restrictive than welcoming to an immigrant/migrant labor force. So one can imagine a cheerful headline saying that was about to change, something along the lines of the final paragraph quoted below. I don't think the following WSJ headline quite does the trick:
Japan Aims to Hire Foreigners for Nuclear Cleanup
The country’s largest utility is working to decommission the Fukushima plant amid radiation risks at the site of the 2011 disaster
"TOKYO—Japan’s largest utility is looking to foreign blue-collar workers to help decommission its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant amid a labor shortage exacerbated by radiation risks at the site of the 2011 nuclear disaster.
"Tokyo Electric Power Co. , or Tepco, said Thursday it has informed dozens of contractors that foreigners could qualify for a new type of visa that allows manual workers to stay in the country for five years. Workers who enter areas with elevated radiation would need sufficient Japanese-language skills to comprehend radiation levels and safety instructions, a Tepco spokeswoman said.
"The move is a shift in strategy for Tepco, which hasn’t employed large numbers of blue-collar foreigners at the Fukushima plant. As of February, there were 29 foreign workers, the spokeswoman said.
"Under a new law that went into effect this month, Japan plans to open its doors to about 340,000 workers over the next five years to help fill job vacancies in chronically understaffed industries such as construction and nursing care. The new law also creates another type of visa for higher-skilled blue-collar workers who can stay indefinitely."
Japan Aims to Hire Foreigners for Nuclear Cleanup
The country’s largest utility is working to decommission the Fukushima plant amid radiation risks at the site of the 2011 disaster
"TOKYO—Japan’s largest utility is looking to foreign blue-collar workers to help decommission its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant amid a labor shortage exacerbated by radiation risks at the site of the 2011 nuclear disaster.
"Tokyo Electric Power Co. , or Tepco, said Thursday it has informed dozens of contractors that foreigners could qualify for a new type of visa that allows manual workers to stay in the country for five years. Workers who enter areas with elevated radiation would need sufficient Japanese-language skills to comprehend radiation levels and safety instructions, a Tepco spokeswoman said.
"The move is a shift in strategy for Tepco, which hasn’t employed large numbers of blue-collar foreigners at the Fukushima plant. As of February, there were 29 foreign workers, the spokeswoman said.
"Under a new law that went into effect this month, Japan plans to open its doors to about 340,000 workers over the next five years to help fill job vacancies in chronically understaffed industries such as construction and nursing care. The new law also creates another type of visa for higher-skilled blue-collar workers who can stay indefinitely."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
