Conference in Economic Theoryin Honor of Jerry Green
Tel Aviv, Israel 13-15 June, 2012
It starts tomorrow, organized by Eddie Dekel, in honor of Jerry Green's 65th birthday. There's a long list of participants.
Here's the conference program:
Wednesday, June 13th
8:50-9:00 - Opening Remarks
9:00-10:00 - Elections and Strategic Voting: Condorcet and Borda
Eric Maskin (Harvard)
10:00-11:00 - Optimal Contracts and Money BurningAttila Ambrus (Duke University)
11:00-11:20 - Coffee Break
11:20-12:20 - Behavioral Competitive Equlibrium and Extreme PricesTomasz Strzalecki (Harvard)
12:20-13:50 - Lunch
13:50-14:50 - TBA
Hugo Hopenhayn (UCLA)
14:50-15:50 - A Search Story of the Peacock's TailBalazs Szentes (Chicago)
15:50-16:10 - Coffee Break
16:10-17:10 - Impartial Decision MakingHerve Moulin (Rice)
17:20 - Bus departs from the university to the hotel
18:40 - Bus departs from the hotel to "Shalvata" for an informal buffet-style dinner at the port overlooking the sea. Dinner at 19:00.
Thursday, June 14th
9:00-10:00 - Concurrent Discovery
Joel Sobel (UCSD)
10:00-11:00 - Multidimensional Product DesignGlen Weyl (Chicago)
11:00-11:20 - Coffee Break
11:20-12:20 - Two(!) Good To Be TrueSergiu Hart (Hebrew University)
12:20-13:50 - Lunch
13:50-14:50 - Decision-Theoretic Underpinnings of Informativeness OrderingsRoberto Serrano (Brown)
14:50-15:50 - Communication and Money in Repeated Games on Networks
Alex Wolitzky (Stanford)
15:50-16:10 - Coffee Break
16:10-17:10 - TBADrew Fudenberg (Harvard)
17:20 - Bus departs from the university to the hotel
19:10 - Bus departs from the hotel to "Liliot" for the main conference dinner.
Dinner at 19:30.
Friday, June 15th
9:00-10:00 - Robustness
Stephen Morris (Princeton)
10:00-11:00 - Strategic TournamentsAriel Rubinstein (Tel Aviv University and New York University)
11:00-11:20 - Coffee Break
11:20-12:20 - TBA
John Geanakoplos (Yale)
12:20-13:50 - Lunch
14:00 - Bus departs from the university to the hotel.
16:40 - Bus departs from the hotel for a tour of Tel Aviv's White City (a World Cultural Heritage site) and Jaffa (see local information for more information). The tour is about 3-4 hours.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Ariel Rubinstein on why game theory is no good
Ariel Rubinstein is the famous game theorist who thinks that game theory isn't useful. It's a position he's put forward in many venues (e.g. here), most recently in this interview (and see his new book--new in English that is).
I once gave a talk at the Hebrew University that was followed immediately with a talk by Ariel, to the same audience. My talk was called something like "The Economist as Engineer," and focused on the kinds of market design applications of game theory covered in this blog: labor market clearinghouses for doctors and others, school choice mechanisms in various American cities, kidney exchange...
Ariel's talk was called something like "Why game theory isn't useful."
So, I gave my talk, we broke for a fifteen minute coffee break, then we all came back and Ariel stood up and I sat where he had been sitting and everyone else returned to their seats. Naturally the first question he got, just about when he had finished saying the title of his talk, was "how about all that stuff that Al just talked about? Isn't it useful?"
He answered (I paraphrase from memory): "Oh, Al's stuff is useful alright. But it's not game theory."
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Eating dogs
A NY Times op-ed considers the repugnance of eating the dog...
"Although dog-eating is taboo in the United States, personal consumption of dog meat is legal in most states. Likewise, Americans find horse-eating offensive; a five-year federal ban on slaughtering horses for human consumption was lifted last year. (Chicken-fried horse steak with onion gravy was on the menu at the Harvard Faculty Club until 1985.) Horse meat is consumed in France, just as dog meat is eaten in countries like Ghana, Nigeria, Tonga, parts of Asia and even Switzerland. In Poland, some ingest dog fat as a curative. The status of dog meat as a hard-luck food is also well documented — Germans during the two world wars referred to it as “blockade mutton.”
"Yet in the United States, dog-eating has been a longstanding flashpoint for anxieties about race and citizenship. In 1904, a group of scantily clad Philippine Igorots from the Luzon highlands reenacted a daily “Bow Wow Feast” at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis. Loosely based on the custom of sumang, in which a dog was sacrificed and eaten after military victory, the dog-eating spectacle was a sensation. Touring Los Angeles in 1906, the Igorots, now suspiciously “fat and glossy,” were blamed for an “epidemic of thefts” of over 200 “high-class dogs,” according to The Los Angeles Times.
"No dog theft was ever substantiated, but American politicians readily declared that the Igorots were “unfit” for American citizenship, a pressing matter in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, when the United States defeated Spain, claimed its empire and annexed the Philippines. Moreover, the arrival of millions of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and the rise of Jim Crow laws in the South fueled white nativist fears of racial mongrelization. Between 1901 and 1904, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution need not “follow the Flag”; the country could legally annex an overseas territory and deny its people citizenship. New American humane education programs in Philippine public schools stressed the importance of animal kindness, including the proper care of pet dogs, as a keystone of civilization, moral agency and, perhaps, future independence. "
"Although dog-eating is taboo in the United States, personal consumption of dog meat is legal in most states. Likewise, Americans find horse-eating offensive; a five-year federal ban on slaughtering horses for human consumption was lifted last year. (Chicken-fried horse steak with onion gravy was on the menu at the Harvard Faculty Club until 1985.) Horse meat is consumed in France, just as dog meat is eaten in countries like Ghana, Nigeria, Tonga, parts of Asia and even Switzerland. In Poland, some ingest dog fat as a curative. The status of dog meat as a hard-luck food is also well documented — Germans during the two world wars referred to it as “blockade mutton.”
"Yet in the United States, dog-eating has been a longstanding flashpoint for anxieties about race and citizenship. In 1904, a group of scantily clad Philippine Igorots from the Luzon highlands reenacted a daily “Bow Wow Feast” at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis. Loosely based on the custom of sumang, in which a dog was sacrificed and eaten after military victory, the dog-eating spectacle was a sensation. Touring Los Angeles in 1906, the Igorots, now suspiciously “fat and glossy,” were blamed for an “epidemic of thefts” of over 200 “high-class dogs,” according to The Los Angeles Times.
"No dog theft was ever substantiated, but American politicians readily declared that the Igorots were “unfit” for American citizenship, a pressing matter in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, when the United States defeated Spain, claimed its empire and annexed the Philippines. Moreover, the arrival of millions of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and the rise of Jim Crow laws in the South fueled white nativist fears of racial mongrelization. Between 1901 and 1904, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution need not “follow the Flag”; the country could legally annex an overseas territory and deny its people citizenship. New American humane education programs in Philippine public schools stressed the importance of animal kindness, including the proper care of pet dogs, as a keystone of civilization, moral agency and, perhaps, future independence. "
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Economic Fables by Ariel Rubinstein
Recently translated from the Hebrew
"I had the good fortune to grow up in a wonderful area of Jerusalem, surrounded by a diverse range of people: Rabbi Meizel, the communist Sala Marcel, my widowed Aunt Hannah, and the intellectual Yaacovson. As far as I'm concerned, the opinion of such people is just as authoritative for making social and economic decisions as the opinion of an expert using a model." Part memoir, part crash-course in economic theory, this deeply engaging book by one of the world's foremost economists looks at economic ideas through a personal lens. Together with an introduction to some of the central concepts in modern economic thought, Ariel Rubinstein offers some powerful and entertaining reflections on his childhood, family and career. In doing so, he challenges many of the central tenets of game theory, and sheds light on the role economics can play in society at large. Economic Fables is as thought-provoking for seasoned economists as it is enlightening for newcomers to the field.
The Amazon web page I accessed also offers 9 new from $14.98 1 used from $47.89. (Those used books are still rare...)
Here is the book description (I haven't seen it yet, but hope to read it on the long plane-ride home from Israel later this week):
"I had the good fortune to grow up in a wonderful area of Jerusalem, surrounded by a diverse range of people: Rabbi Meizel, the communist Sala Marcel, my widowed Aunt Hannah, and the intellectual Yaacovson. As far as I'm concerned, the opinion of such people is just as authoritative for making social and economic decisions as the opinion of an expert using a model." Part memoir, part crash-course in economic theory, this deeply engaging book by one of the world's foremost economists looks at economic ideas through a personal lens. Together with an introduction to some of the central concepts in modern economic thought, Ariel Rubinstein offers some powerful and entertaining reflections on his childhood, family and career. In doing so, he challenges many of the central tenets of game theory, and sheds light on the role economics can play in society at large. Economic Fables is as thought-provoking for seasoned economists as it is enlightening for newcomers to the field.
Medical school admissions statistics
Friday, June 8, 2012
Dead eagles: a different sort of cadaver shortage
A different sort of deceased donor waiting list: A Repository for Eagles Finds Itself In Demand
"the National Eagle Repository [is] the only place where American Indians can legally obtain bald and golden eagles from the federal government for traditional ceremonies.
"Through a series of federal acts dating to the 1940s, bald and golden eagles have been fiercely protected. It is illegal to hunt the birds and also to collect feathers or eagle parts without the proper permit.
"And so, for more than 30 years, this United States Fish and Wildlife Service program has been shipping thousands of eagle carcasses and parts to American Indians, who view the animals as sacred.
"But a growing backlog of applications, and a slew of recent court battles over when American Indians can lawfully obtain eagles on their own, has raised questions about whether the repository is sufficient.
"Currently, tribal members seeking an immature golden eagle, the most coveted bird, must wait about four and a half years. Wait times for a bald eagle are two years. Despite the efforts by the Wildlife Service to ship animals as swiftly as possible, the waiting list has swelled to more than 6,000 applications.
**********
National Eagle Repository
"the National Eagle Repository [is] the only place where American Indians can legally obtain bald and golden eagles from the federal government for traditional ceremonies.
"Through a series of federal acts dating to the 1940s, bald and golden eagles have been fiercely protected. It is illegal to hunt the birds and also to collect feathers or eagle parts without the proper permit.
"And so, for more than 30 years, this United States Fish and Wildlife Service program has been shipping thousands of eagle carcasses and parts to American Indians, who view the animals as sacred.
"But a growing backlog of applications, and a slew of recent court battles over when American Indians can lawfully obtain eagles on their own, has raised questions about whether the repository is sufficient.
"Currently, tribal members seeking an immature golden eagle, the most coveted bird, must wait about four and a half years. Wait times for a bald eagle are two years. Despite the efforts by the Wildlife Service to ship animals as swiftly as possible, the waiting list has swelled to more than 6,000 applications.
**********
National Eagle Repository
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Same sex marriage: some history til now
The Washington Post gives some background to recent events.
"In 1970, in a case that made national news, Baker and McConnell applied for a marriage license in Minnesota.
...
"Baker and McConnell were denied when they applied to marry in Minnesota in 1970. They challenged that decision in court. They lost.
“The institution of marriage as a union [of] man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis,” wrote the Minnesota Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to step in.
...
"But after the AIDS epidemic, there was a shift: Instead of keeping the law away, gay couples wanted the law on their side. “This request for marriage is, in effect, sort of asking the government to regulate our relationships, or at least give gay people the opportunity to be regulated by the government,” Ball said.
"Then, in Hawaii, a lesbian named Ninia Baehr had an ear infection. She lacked health insurance and — as medical bills piled up — she called a local gay rights group to see if she could obtain insurance through her partner.
"They asked if she’d like to get married, instead. When the state of Hawaii refused her request for a marriage license, Baehr and others filed suit. Their case brought a landmark victory in 1993: State courts declared that Hawaii had no constitutional basis for denying marriage licenses to gay couples.
"Then the case led to one loss after another. Hawaii amended its constitution and defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. And, around the country, some religious and conservative groups began to mobilize against a threat they hadn’t taken seriously before.
...
"The result was the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a legal union between one man and one woman. The Obama administration has now stopped defending that law in court.
"For those advocating same-sex marriage, the next big win came in Massachusetts in 2003, when the state Supreme Court legalized marriages between gay couples.
"Now, six states and the District of Columbia allow gay couples to marry. Two states, Washington and Maryland, have gay marriage laws that have not taken effect. And five others give gay couples the rights of marriage without the name, allowing “civil unions” instead.
"But, in 39 states, gay marriage has been specifically prohibited through laws or constitutional amendments.
"Baker and McConnell, the men who made the promise in Oklahoma, still live in Minnesota, well past retirement age. They now avoid the media: When a Washington Post reporter called McConnell this week, he declined to comment.
"They have seen up-close that making same-sex marriage thinkable is not the same as making it real. Gay marriage is still illegal in Minnesota. And this November, voters will consider writing that ban into their state constitution."
"In 1970, in a case that made national news, Baker and McConnell applied for a marriage license in Minnesota.
...
"Baker and McConnell were denied when they applied to marry in Minnesota in 1970. They challenged that decision in court. They lost.
“The institution of marriage as a union [of] man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis,” wrote the Minnesota Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to step in.
...
"But after the AIDS epidemic, there was a shift: Instead of keeping the law away, gay couples wanted the law on their side. “This request for marriage is, in effect, sort of asking the government to regulate our relationships, or at least give gay people the opportunity to be regulated by the government,” Ball said.
"Then, in Hawaii, a lesbian named Ninia Baehr had an ear infection. She lacked health insurance and — as medical bills piled up — she called a local gay rights group to see if she could obtain insurance through her partner.
"They asked if she’d like to get married, instead. When the state of Hawaii refused her request for a marriage license, Baehr and others filed suit. Their case brought a landmark victory in 1993: State courts declared that Hawaii had no constitutional basis for denying marriage licenses to gay couples.
"Then the case led to one loss after another. Hawaii amended its constitution and defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. And, around the country, some religious and conservative groups began to mobilize against a threat they hadn’t taken seriously before.
...
"The result was the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a legal union between one man and one woman. The Obama administration has now stopped defending that law in court.
"For those advocating same-sex marriage, the next big win came in Massachusetts in 2003, when the state Supreme Court legalized marriages between gay couples.
"Now, six states and the District of Columbia allow gay couples to marry. Two states, Washington and Maryland, have gay marriage laws that have not taken effect. And five others give gay couples the rights of marriage without the name, allowing “civil unions” instead.
"But, in 39 states, gay marriage has been specifically prohibited through laws or constitutional amendments.
"Baker and McConnell, the men who made the promise in Oklahoma, still live in Minnesota, well past retirement age. They now avoid the media: When a Washington Post reporter called McConnell this week, he declined to comment.
"They have seen up-close that making same-sex marriage thinkable is not the same as making it real. Gay marriage is still illegal in Minnesota. And this November, voters will consider writing that ban into their state constitution."
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Terasaki Medical Innovation award
Itai Ashlagi and I received the NKR Terasaki Medical Innovation award Monday evening at the American Transplant Congress meeting in Boston, for our work on kidney exchange algorithms for patient pools with highly sensitized patients.
"The Terasaki Medical Innovation Award will be presented annually to a medical professional who, through their pioneering work, has had a significant impact in advancing paired exchange transplantation and saving the lives of those facing kidney failure. "
Awards are nice for the recipients, but one can't help but be mpressed by the career of the scientist after whom the award is named, UCLA's Dr. Paul Ichiro Terasaki. Dr. Terasaki pioneered the tests used today to determine immunocompatibility, and built a business to make tools to implement those tests widely available.
Born in California in 1929, he and his family were interned with other Japanese-Americans during WWII. Later in life he donated $50 Million to UCLA, which named their Life Sciences building after him.
In short, he has had a storied scientific and American career.
Also receiving an award Monday evening was the non-directed altruistic donor Alexander Berger, about whom I blogged earlier: A kidney donor argues that selling kidneys should be legal, after he published a NY Times op-ed to that effect. (He's a 2011 Stanford philosophy grad, and he apparently worked with Debra Satz, although they disagree about whether kidney sales should be allowed.) Appropriately enough, he's currently working for an organization called Give Well, which works to identify charities that are "cost-effective, underfunded, and outstanding." He gave well himself, and started a nonsimultaneous extended altruistic donor (NEAD) chain of the kind NKR is famous for.
(I discussed the first NEAD chain here, and have posted about them frequently.)
The food was pretty good too.
"The Terasaki Medical Innovation Award will be presented annually to a medical professional who, through their pioneering work, has had a significant impact in advancing paired exchange transplantation and saving the lives of those facing kidney failure. "
Awards are nice for the recipients, but one can't help but be mpressed by the career of the scientist after whom the award is named, UCLA's Dr. Paul Ichiro Terasaki. Dr. Terasaki pioneered the tests used today to determine immunocompatibility, and built a business to make tools to implement those tests widely available.
Born in California in 1929, he and his family were interned with other Japanese-Americans during WWII. Later in life he donated $50 Million to UCLA, which named their Life Sciences building after him.
In short, he has had a storied scientific and American career.
Also receiving an award Monday evening was the non-directed altruistic donor Alexander Berger, about whom I blogged earlier: A kidney donor argues that selling kidneys should be legal, after he published a NY Times op-ed to that effect. (He's a 2011 Stanford philosophy grad, and he apparently worked with Debra Satz, although they disagree about whether kidney sales should be allowed.) Appropriately enough, he's currently working for an organization called Give Well, which works to identify charities that are "cost-effective, underfunded, and outstanding." He gave well himself, and started a nonsimultaneous extended altruistic donor (NEAD) chain of the kind NKR is famous for.
(I discussed the first NEAD chain here, and have posted about them frequently.)
The food was pretty good too.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
What has G-d been doing since the Creation? (Matchmaking, of course...))
My recently graduated student Jacob Leshno left me with a wonderful parting gift: he (and his dad) arranged to have a sofer, a Hebrew scribe, write out one of my favourite passages from the Talmud, which suggests that matching is a very big deal indeed...
*************
And if empirical evidence is needed that some marriages are arranged in heaven, consider the wedding this evening of Dvorah Marciano and Assaf Romm in Jerusalem, and the upcoming weddings of Ilana Turko and Judd Kessler on Shelter Island, and Theresa Morin and Brian Hall on Little Cranberry Island, and a little further ahead of Coren Apicella and Eduardo Azevedo, and Katie Baldiga and Luke Coffman. (Not to mention lots of anniversaries that come to mind, including Emilie's and my recent 35th:). It appears that economists are also into matching...)
***************
Update (from Jacob Leshno): here is the line by line translation...
A Roman lady asked R. Jose b. Halafta: ‘In
how many days did the Holy One, blessed be He, create His world”’ He answered: ‘In six days, as
it is written, For in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth,
etc.(Ex. XXXI, 17). She asked further: ‘And
what has He been doing since that time?’
He answered: ‘He is joining couples [proclaiming]:
“A’s wife [to be] is allotted to A; A’s daughter is allotted to B; (So-and-so’s
wealth is for So-and-so).”’ Said
she:
‘This is a thing which I, too, am able to do.
See how many male slaves and how many female slaves I have; I can make
them consort together all at the same time.’
Said he: ‘If in your eyes it is an easy task, it is
in His eyes as hard a task as the dividing of the Red Sea.’ He
then went away and left her. What did
she do? She sent for a thousand male
slaves and a thousand female slaves, placed them in rows, and said to them:
‘Male A shall take to wife female B; C shall take D and so on.’ She let them consort together one night. In the morning they came to her; one had a
head wounded, another had an eye taken out, another an elbow crushed, another a
leg broken; one said ‘I do not want this one [as my husband],’ another said: ‘I
do not want this one [as my wife].’
Midrash
Rabbah
(VaYikra
Rabbah)
Translated into English under the
editorship of Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, and Maurice Simon,
Leviticus, Chapters I-XIX translated by
Rev. J. Israelstam, Soncino
Press, London, 1939
Chapter VIII (TZAV)
And if empirical evidence is needed that some marriages are arranged in heaven, consider the wedding this evening of Dvorah Marciano and Assaf Romm in Jerusalem, and the upcoming weddings of Ilana Turko and Judd Kessler on Shelter Island, and Theresa Morin and Brian Hall on Little Cranberry Island, and a little further ahead of Coren Apicella and Eduardo Azevedo, and Katie Baldiga and Luke Coffman. (Not to mention lots of anniversaries that come to mind, including Emilie's and my recent 35th:). It appears that economists are also into matching...)
***************
Update (from Jacob Leshno): here is the line by line translation...
|
מטרוניתא שאלה את ר'
יוסי בר חלפתא,
אמרה לו:
|
A Roman lady asked R. Jose b. Halafta:
|
|
בכמה ימים ברא הקב"ה
את עולמו?
|
‘In how many days did the Holy One,
blessed be He, create His World?” |
|
אמר לה: לששת ימים,
דכתיב (שמות לא): כי ששת ימים
עשה ה' את השמים וגו'.
|
He answered: ‘In six days, as it is
written, For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, etc.’
|
|
אמרה לו: ומאותה שעה עד עכשיו
מהו יושב ועושה?
|
She asked further: ‘And what has He been
doing since that time?’
|
|
אמר לה: מזווג זווגים.
אשתו של פלוני לפלוני,
|
He answered: ‘He is joining couples:
“A’s wife [to be allotted] to A;
|
|
בתו של פלוני לפלוני,
ממונו של פלוני לפלוני.
|
A’s daughter is allotted to B;
(so-and-so’s wealth is for so-and-so).”
|
|
אמרה לו: הדא הוא?!
אף אני יכולה לעשות כן.
כמה עבדים יש לי וכמה שפחות יש לי ואני יכולה לזווגם
בשעה אחת!
|
Said she: ‘This is a thing which I, too, am able to
do.
See how many male slaves and how many female slaves I have; I can make them consort together all at the same time.’ |
|
אמר לה: אם קלה היא
בעיניך, קשה היא לפני
הקדוש ברוך הוא, כקריעת
ים סוף!
|
Said he: ‘If in your eyes it is an easy
task, it is in His eyes as hard a task as the dividing of the Red Sea.’
|
|
הניחה והלך לו.
|
He then went away and left her.
|
|
מה עשתה?
|
What did she do?
|
|
שלחה והביאה אלף עבדים ואלף
שפחות והעמידה
אותן שורות שורות.
|
She
sent for a thousand male slaves and a thousand female slaves, placed them in
rows
|
|
אמרה להם: פלוני ישא
לפלונית, פלוני לפלונית,
זווגן בלילה אחת. |
, and said to them: ‘Male A shall take
to wife female B; C shall take D and so on
She let them consort together one night.
|
|
לצפרא אתין לגבה, דין
מוחו פציעה
ודין עינו שמוטה
ודין אציליה פריך ודין ארכובה חבירה.
|
In the morning they came to her;
one had a head wounded, another had an
eye taken out, another an elbow crushed,
another a leg broken;
|
|
דין אמר: לינא בעיא
לדין, ודין אמר: לינא בעיא לדין.
|
one said: ‘I do not want this one,’
another said: ‘I do not want this one
|
|
מיד שלחה והביאה את
ר' יוסי בר חלפתא אמרה לו:
רבי! אמת היא תורתכם, נאה משובחת היא! |
Immediately she sent for Rabi Jose b.
Halafta, told him:
Rabi! True is your wisdom and fair it is
|
|
יפה אמרת כל מה שאמרת.
|
Well
said all that you have spoken
|
Monday, June 4, 2012
First year of the new medical residency scramble, SOAP
I've written before about the new Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP), and the National Resident Matching Program has now released a report on its first year of operation.
There were 1,100 unfilled first year positions at the end of the main match, and 815 unmatched seniors graduating from U.S. medical schools (and many more unmatched applicants when foreign medical schools are included). Most of the unmatched positions were in family medicine and in "preliminary" rotations in surgery and internal medicine.
After the first day of the SOAP exploding offer process (i.e. after two rounds of exploding offers), only 267 positions remained, and 98 of these remained unfilled. So, most of the action happened the first day.
Medical schools complained that students were asked to "commit" to programs prior to receiving an offer, and thought that rounds should be longer. Residency programs thought rounds should be shorter.
In line with the criticisms of the design offered earlier (see here), I anticipate that next year more students will be asked to "commit" before receiving an offer (even though it's against the rules), and that even more of the action will be concentrated in the first day and the first round, with more of the market shifting out of the formal scramble, either officially or de facto, through the offline "commitment" process....
As I was quoted saying last year (see here), "If it's really, really tempting for people on both sides to break the rules," says Roth, "often the rules get broken."
HT: Nikhil Agarwal
There were 1,100 unfilled first year positions at the end of the main match, and 815 unmatched seniors graduating from U.S. medical schools (and many more unmatched applicants when foreign medical schools are included). Most of the unmatched positions were in family medicine and in "preliminary" rotations in surgery and internal medicine.
After the first day of the SOAP exploding offer process (i.e. after two rounds of exploding offers), only 267 positions remained, and 98 of these remained unfilled. So, most of the action happened the first day.
Medical schools complained that students were asked to "commit" to programs prior to receiving an offer, and thought that rounds should be longer. Residency programs thought rounds should be shorter.
In line with the criticisms of the design offered earlier (see here), I anticipate that next year more students will be asked to "commit" before receiving an offer (even though it's against the rules), and that even more of the action will be concentrated in the first day and the first round, with more of the market shifting out of the formal scramble, either officially or de facto, through the offline "commitment" process....
As I was quoted saying last year (see here), "If it's really, really tempting for people on both sides to break the rules," says Roth, "often the rules get broken."
HT: Nikhil Agarwal
Sunday, June 3, 2012
David Warsh on Stanford Econ
David Warsh, in his role as economist-watcher, in The Providence Journal today (along with some observations about the market for newspapers):
"The Stanford University buildup in economics, financed by the riches of Silicon Valley, continues apace. Susan Athey and Guido Imbens, of Harvard, a married couple, last week accepted an offer. Previously announced was the decision of Alvin Roth, of Harvard Business School, to relocate to Palo Alto. Other offers are said to be in the works.
"Athey and Roth are market designers, at the forefront of especially exciting developments in present-day economics, in which the nexus with technology is especially germain. (Imbens is a highly rated econometrician.) Athey started a research laboratory for Microsoft in Cambridge that has since grown to considerable size. I don't suppose that the leadership of economics itself is in any danger of tipping out of Massachusetts. But it's clearly easier to make things happen on the Left Coast."
"The Stanford University buildup in economics, financed by the riches of Silicon Valley, continues apace. Susan Athey and Guido Imbens, of Harvard, a married couple, last week accepted an offer. Previously announced was the decision of Alvin Roth, of Harvard Business School, to relocate to Palo Alto. Other offers are said to be in the works.
"Athey and Roth are market designers, at the forefront of especially exciting developments in present-day economics, in which the nexus with technology is especially germain. (Imbens is a highly rated econometrician.) Athey started a research laboratory for Microsoft in Cambridge that has since grown to considerable size. I don't suppose that the leadership of economics itself is in any danger of tipping out of Massachusetts. But it's clearly easier to make things happen on the Left Coast."
N.A.A.C.P. Endorses Same-Sex Marriage
N.A.A.C.P. Endorses Same-Sex Marriage
"The board of the N.A.A.C.P. voted to endorse same-sex marriage on Saturday, putting the weight of the country’s most prominent civil rights group behind a cause that has long divided some quarters of the black community.
...
"Borrowing a term used by gay right’s advocates, the resolution stated: “We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
...
"The strongest opposition to gay weddings within the black community has come from church leaders, whose opinions may not be swayed by the N.A.A.C.P. In its resolution, the board appeared to be sensitive to those objections, reaffirming its support for religious freedom.
...
"Black and white Americans are divided on same-sex marriage in similar numbers, according to the results of four aggregated polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News over the past year.
"Yet there is greater opposition among black Democrats than white Democrats. Sixty-one percent of white Democrats supported legalizing marriage for gay couples, compared with 36 percent of black Democrats, while 35 percent of black Democrats opposed any legal recognition, compared with 18 percent of white Democrats."
"The board of the N.A.A.C.P. voted to endorse same-sex marriage on Saturday, putting the weight of the country’s most prominent civil rights group behind a cause that has long divided some quarters of the black community.
...
"Borrowing a term used by gay right’s advocates, the resolution stated: “We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
...
"The strongest opposition to gay weddings within the black community has come from church leaders, whose opinions may not be swayed by the N.A.A.C.P. In its resolution, the board appeared to be sensitive to those objections, reaffirming its support for religious freedom.
...
"Black and white Americans are divided on same-sex marriage in similar numbers, according to the results of four aggregated polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News over the past year.
"Yet there is greater opposition among black Democrats than white Democrats. Sixty-one percent of white Democrats supported legalizing marriage for gay couples, compared with 36 percent of black Democrats, while 35 percent of black Democrats opposed any legal recognition, compared with 18 percent of white Democrats."
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Kidney black markets are hard to stop
It's difficult to collect reliable evidence about criminal activity, but The Guardian reports on recent WHO estimates of illegal kidney sales. Illegal kidney trade booms as new organ is 'sold every hour': World Health Organisation estimates 10,000 black market operations involving human organs take place each year
"Evidence collected by a worldwide network of doctors shows that traffickers are defying laws intended to curtail their activities and are cashing in on rising international demand for replacement kidneys driven by the increase in diabetes and other diseases.
"Patients, many of whom will go to China, India or Pakistan for surgery, can pay up to $200,000 (nearly £128,000) for a kidney to gangs who harvest organs from vulnerable, desperate people, sometimes for as little as $5,000.
...
"The Guardian contacted an organ broker in China who advertised his services under the slogan, "Donate a kidney, buy the new iPad!" He offered £2,500 for a kidney and said the operation could be performed within 10 days.
"The resurgence of trafficking has prompted the WHO to suggest that humanity itself is being undermined by the vast profits involved and the division between poor people who undergo "amputation" for cash and the wealthy sick who sustain the body parts trade.
"The illegal trade worldwide was falling back in about 2006-07 – there was a decrease in 'transplant tourism'," said Luc Noel, a doctor and WHO official who runs a unit monitoring trends in legitimate and underground donations and transplants of human organs. But he added: "The trade may well be increasing again. There have been recent signs that that may well be the case. There is a growing need for transplants and big profits to be made. It's ever growing, it's a constant struggle. The stakes are so big, the profit that can be made so huge, that the temptation is out there."
"Lack of law enforcement in some countries, and lack of laws in others, mean that those offering financial incentives to poor people to part with a kidney have it too easy, Noel said."
...
"A medical source with knowledge of the situation said: "While commercial transplantation is now forbidden by law in China, that's difficult to enforce; there's been a resurgence there in the last two or three years.
"Foreigners from the Middle East, Asia and sometimes Europe come and are paying $100,000 to $200,000 for a transplant. Often they are Chinese expats or patients of Chinese descent."
"Some of China's army hospitals were believed to be carrying out the transplants, the source added.
"The persistence of the trade is embarrassing for China. The health ministry in Beijing has outlawed it and has also promised to stop harvesting organs from executed prisoners by 2017, a practice that has brought international condemnation.
"Jim Feehally, a professor of renal medicine at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust, said: "Since the Declaration of Istanbul the law on trafficking has been changed in the Philippines – which was one of the centres of transplant tourism – and the Chinese government realises that things have to change." Feehally is also president of the International Society of Nephrology, which represents 10,000 specialist kidney doctors worldwide. "Trafficking is still continuing – it's likely that it is increasing," he said. "We know of countries in Asia, and also in eastern Europe, which provide a market so that people who need a kidney can go there and buy one."
"The key issue, Feehally said, was exploitation. "You are exploiting a donor if they are very poor and you are giving them a very small amount of money and no doctor is caring for them afterwards, which is what happens.
"The people who gain are the rich transplant patients who can afford to buy a kidney, the doctors and hospital administrators, and the middlemen, the traffickers. It's absolutely wrong, morally wrong." ************
HT: Rubén Martínez Cárdenas
"Evidence collected by a worldwide network of doctors shows that traffickers are defying laws intended to curtail their activities and are cashing in on rising international demand for replacement kidneys driven by the increase in diabetes and other diseases.
"Patients, many of whom will go to China, India or Pakistan for surgery, can pay up to $200,000 (nearly £128,000) for a kidney to gangs who harvest organs from vulnerable, desperate people, sometimes for as little as $5,000.
...
"The Guardian contacted an organ broker in China who advertised his services under the slogan, "Donate a kidney, buy the new iPad!" He offered £2,500 for a kidney and said the operation could be performed within 10 days.
"The resurgence of trafficking has prompted the WHO to suggest that humanity itself is being undermined by the vast profits involved and the division between poor people who undergo "amputation" for cash and the wealthy sick who sustain the body parts trade.
"The illegal trade worldwide was falling back in about 2006-07 – there was a decrease in 'transplant tourism'," said Luc Noel, a doctor and WHO official who runs a unit monitoring trends in legitimate and underground donations and transplants of human organs. But he added: "The trade may well be increasing again. There have been recent signs that that may well be the case. There is a growing need for transplants and big profits to be made. It's ever growing, it's a constant struggle. The stakes are so big, the profit that can be made so huge, that the temptation is out there."
"Lack of law enforcement in some countries, and lack of laws in others, mean that those offering financial incentives to poor people to part with a kidney have it too easy, Noel said."
...
"A medical source with knowledge of the situation said: "While commercial transplantation is now forbidden by law in China, that's difficult to enforce; there's been a resurgence there in the last two or three years.
"Foreigners from the Middle East, Asia and sometimes Europe come and are paying $100,000 to $200,000 for a transplant. Often they are Chinese expats or patients of Chinese descent."
"Some of China's army hospitals were believed to be carrying out the transplants, the source added.
"The persistence of the trade is embarrassing for China. The health ministry in Beijing has outlawed it and has also promised to stop harvesting organs from executed prisoners by 2017, a practice that has brought international condemnation.
"Jim Feehally, a professor of renal medicine at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust, said: "Since the Declaration of Istanbul the law on trafficking has been changed in the Philippines – which was one of the centres of transplant tourism – and the Chinese government realises that things have to change." Feehally is also president of the International Society of Nephrology, which represents 10,000 specialist kidney doctors worldwide. "Trafficking is still continuing – it's likely that it is increasing," he said. "We know of countries in Asia, and also in eastern Europe, which provide a market so that people who need a kidney can go there and buy one."
"The key issue, Feehally said, was exploitation. "You are exploiting a donor if they are very poor and you are giving them a very small amount of money and no doctor is caring for them afterwards, which is what happens.
"The people who gain are the rich transplant patients who can afford to buy a kidney, the doctors and hospital administrators, and the middlemen, the traffickers. It's absolutely wrong, morally wrong." ************
HT: Rubén Martínez Cárdenas
Friday, June 1, 2012
Mike Rees and Greece: an intercontinental kidney exchange
Greece and USA Complete First Intercontinental Kidney
Paired Donation Transplant
International Press
Conference at the Embassy of Greece (6/1/12, 11:00 a.m.)
Five Lives Saved
and Three More Transplants Scheduled
Six Transplant
Centers across USA and One in Greece Involved
Washington, May 29, 2012 - Medical history was made when a 31-year-old
Oklahoma woman altruistically donated her kidney to a stranger—a Greek man
living in Athens, Greece. In return, the Greek man’s wife has now donated
one of her kidneys to another person in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., completing the first
intercontinental kidney exchange and opening a door that potentially can save
thousands of lives in the U.S., as well as others throughout the world.
The United States and Greece will be holding an international press
conference announcing this first intercontinental Kidney Paired Donation
(KPD) and subsequent pay-it-forward chain of kidney transplants. The
announcement will be made at the Embassy of Greece by Ambassador Vassilis
Kaskarelis, on Friday, June 1, at 11 a.m.
The process known as “Kidney Paired Donation (KPD)” takes place when a donor
who is incompatible with their designated recipient promises to donate their
kidney to a stranger in order to enable their designee to receive a compatible
kidney from another stranger. Most often KPDs are between designated donors but
can also be started or facilitated by an altruistic donor (someone who gives a
kidney without expecting a kidney back for a loved one). Though paired
exchanges have been taking place in the U.S. for over 10 years, the idea and
concept of enlarging the donor pool, thereby getting more Americans
transplanted, by including other nations, has been problematic due to the transplant
laws governing other nations as well as those in the United States.
The break-through came as a result of the tireless efforts of Dora
Papaioannou-Helmis, who had been working to save her husband’s life and to
advocate for changes to the Greek law regarding organ transplantation. Dora and
Michalis were the first internationals entered into America’s “Alliance for
Paired Donation” recipient and donor pool. This achievement was the result of
the close work and cooperation between Greece and the U.S.
Michael Rees, MD, PhD,
Director of Transplantation at the University of Toledo Medical Center and CEO
of the Alliance for Paired Donation, will give an account of what occurred for
this intercontinental KPD to become possible. Dora and Michalis, the Greek
couple that participated in the KPD, will be present at the press conference,
along with Elizabeth Gay, the altruistic donor who started the chain, and the
recipient and donor from Pennsylvania. In addition, Greek and U.S. physicians
from the hospitals involved in this chain of transplants and those who
facilitated and helped change the Greek law, will be present to answer
questions.
The Alliance for Paired
Donation is an American non-profit organization (501-c-3) supported by public,
private, corporate and government grants that facilitates kidney paired
exchanges throughout the world. Services provided are completely free for both
donors and recipients. Often, financial support for travel, food, and lodging
is provided by the Alliance for Paired Donation, when necessary.
What: International Press
Conference
RSVP or for Further Information
When: Friday, June 1,
2012
Embassy of Greece – Press Office
Time: 11:00
a.m.
Maria Galanou, Press Attaché
Where: Embassy of
Greece
P: 202-332-2727, M: 202-657-1236
************Update from Jewish Hospital Transplant Center in Louisville: "The chain began when a 31-year-old Oklahoma woman, Elizabeth Gay, altruistically donated her kidney to a stranger—Dora’s husband, Michalis. In return, Dora donated one of her kidneys to another person in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., completing the first intercontinental exchange and opening a door that potentially can save thousands of American lives, as well as others throughout the world. A kidney from the donor in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. was flown to Jewish Hospital for JoAnn Breckinridge, and thus the chain continues.
“We were honored to be part of the first international paired kidney donation,” said Marvin. “It only takes one caring individual to start the chain that can save so many lives. We are grateful to the generosity of each donor that was part of this paired donation.”
"The successful transplants were also completed at: The University of Toledo Medical Center, in Toledo, OH; Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center in Wilkes-Barre, PA; and Scripps Green Hospital in La Jolla, CA. Three more transplants in the chain will take place shortly at Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta and the University of Colorado Hospital in Denver. To date, one Greek and four American lives have been saved and three more transplants are expected within weeks as a result of the first intercontinental kidney donor chain.
"Though paired exchanges have been taking place in the United States for over 10 years, the idea of enlarging the donor pool by including other nations, thereby getting more Americans transplanted, has been problematic due to the variability in national transplant laws. As a result of Dora’s efforts and the keen insight of the Greek government to adopt new health laws regarding organ transplantation, kidney paired transplantation became legal in Greece. In essence, this allowed the Greek national health insurance system to pay for kidney transplants emanating from a paired exchange system within and outside of the country."
********
Further update: the Toledo Blade celebrates Mike Rees: Local surgeon aids historic kidney swap
A remnant of Prohibition ends in Washington State.
One of the remaining remnants of Prohibition crumbled in Washington State today (i.e. starting June 1), when the state monopoly on liquor gives way to the newly privatized system.
I posted earlier about the auction for all 167 state liquor stores, and that auction resulted in the stores being sold individually (and not all to one bidder, as was one of the possibilities of the auction, which had an "entirety" option ). As it turns out, individual bids added up to more than any entirety bids, and so those stores are now individually in private hands, including 18 stores that had to be reauctioned when the original winners defaulted (see here for a news story on the reauction at a link which will likely last longer).
The NIH's National Institute on Alcohol Policyand Alcoholism compiles information on state policies on the sale of alcohol, which has remained a somewhat repugnant transaction in many places, with a storied American history. See their Alcohol Policy Information System.
This map shows that there will be only seven states with state owned liquor stores now.
The sale of alcohol was prohibited by the 18th amendment to the Constitution in 1919, and Prohibition was ended by the 21st amendment to the Constitution in 1933.
When I searched for 18th amendment, the top items were links to the amendment, but when I searched for 21st amendment, the top link was to a San Francisco brewery and restaurant with that name:) (It's a popular name, here's the Boston restaurant...). So the sale of alcohol is a recovered (or recovering) repugnant market. It will be interesting to see how some other repugnant transactions end or begin in the coming years.
I posted earlier about the auction for all 167 state liquor stores, and that auction resulted in the stores being sold individually (and not all to one bidder, as was one of the possibilities of the auction, which had an "entirety" option ). As it turns out, individual bids added up to more than any entirety bids, and so those stores are now individually in private hands, including 18 stores that had to be reauctioned when the original winners defaulted (see here for a news story on the reauction at a link which will likely last longer).
The NIH's National Institute on Alcohol Policyand Alcoholism compiles information on state policies on the sale of alcohol, which has remained a somewhat repugnant transaction in many places, with a storied American history. See their Alcohol Policy Information System.
This map shows that there will be only seven states with state owned liquor stores now.
The sale of alcohol was prohibited by the 18th amendment to the Constitution in 1919, and Prohibition was ended by the 21st amendment to the Constitution in 1933.
When I searched for 18th amendment, the top items were links to the amendment, but when I searched for 21st amendment, the top link was to a San Francisco brewery and restaurant with that name:) (It's a popular name, here's the Boston restaurant...). So the sale of alcohol is a recovered (or recovering) repugnant market. It will be interesting to see how some other repugnant transactions end or begin in the coming years.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
First circuit rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional
Late breaking news from Boston on the judicial/legislative/elective battles going on over same sex marriage's shaky status as a repugnant transaction: Appeals Court Rules Against Defense of Marriage Act
"A federal appeals court ruled unanimously Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996, discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them the same federal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.
"The decision will have no immediate effect because it anticipates an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
"In upholding an earlier decision by a lower court, Thursday’s ruling, by a three-judge panel of the First United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, is the first time an appeals court has declared the federal law unconstitutional.
"The ruling dealt narrowly with the question of federal benefits for same-sex couples, not with the legality of same-sex marriage itself.
...
“Today’s landmark ruling makes clear once again that DOMA is a discriminatory law for which there is no justification,” Martha Coakley, attorney general of Massachusetts, said in a statement. It was under Ms. Coakley’s direction that Massachusetts became the first state, in 2009, to complain formally that DOMA was unconstitutional.
"A federal judge in Massachusetts found in 2010 that the law violated the equal protection clause of the constitution by denying benefits to one class of married couples — gay men and lesbians — but not to others.
"The appeals court on Thursday agreed, saying the law interfered with the right of a state to define marriage. The benefits denied to same-sex couples range from the right to file joint tax returns, which can reduce a couple’s payments, to the ability to collect death benefits.
"While both sides wait to see whether the Supreme Court takes the case — Ms. Bonauto said that every expert she had talked to predicted it would — the ruling will not be enforced, meaning that same-sex couples cannot begin to collect federal benefits.
"The first circuit covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico.
"Since DOMA was passed, eight states and the District of Columbia have approved same-sex marriage; the states are Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect.
"President Obama campaigned against the law in 2008 and said in 2011 that his administration would not defend it. That has left the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, appointed by the Republican majority in the House, to defend the case. The group has said that Congress wanted to preserve DOMA because it provided a traditional and uniform definition of marriage, helping the federal government to distribute federal benefits."
**************
Here's the ruling.
"A federal appeals court ruled unanimously Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996, discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them the same federal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.
"The decision will have no immediate effect because it anticipates an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
"In upholding an earlier decision by a lower court, Thursday’s ruling, by a three-judge panel of the First United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, is the first time an appeals court has declared the federal law unconstitutional.
"The ruling dealt narrowly with the question of federal benefits for same-sex couples, not with the legality of same-sex marriage itself.
...
“Today’s landmark ruling makes clear once again that DOMA is a discriminatory law for which there is no justification,” Martha Coakley, attorney general of Massachusetts, said in a statement. It was under Ms. Coakley’s direction that Massachusetts became the first state, in 2009, to complain formally that DOMA was unconstitutional.
"A federal judge in Massachusetts found in 2010 that the law violated the equal protection clause of the constitution by denying benefits to one class of married couples — gay men and lesbians — but not to others.
"The appeals court on Thursday agreed, saying the law interfered with the right of a state to define marriage. The benefits denied to same-sex couples range from the right to file joint tax returns, which can reduce a couple’s payments, to the ability to collect death benefits.
"While both sides wait to see whether the Supreme Court takes the case — Ms. Bonauto said that every expert she had talked to predicted it would — the ruling will not be enforced, meaning that same-sex couples cannot begin to collect federal benefits.
"The first circuit covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico.
"Since DOMA was passed, eight states and the District of Columbia have approved same-sex marriage; the states are Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect.
"President Obama campaigned against the law in 2008 and said in 2011 that his administration would not defend it. That has left the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, appointed by the Republican majority in the House, to defend the case. The group has said that Congress wanted to preserve DOMA because it provided a traditional and uniform definition of marriage, helping the federal government to distribute federal benefits."
**************
Here's the ruling.
Search firms in university hiring could become illegal in Illinois
Search firms for hiring university administrators could become illegal for public universities in Illinois: Illinois Bill Would Ban Use of Search Firms in Hiring at Public Universities
"A bill pending before the State Senate would prohibit public universities from "contracting with outside search firms, executive search firms, or similar organizations." Supporters of the legislation say that paying consultants to find candidates is a poor use of taxpayer and tuition dollars, and that hiring is a responsibility that should fall to those on the university's payroll.
...
"Universities across the country have increasingly turned to outside consultants, at least for hiring at the presidential level. Search consultants were used to recruit nearly 60 percent of recently hired presidents, a jump from 49 percent four years ago, according to an American Council on Education survey released this year.
**************
Update, May 31: Illinois Legislators Approve Limits on Use of Search Firms in Public Universities' Hiring
"Illinois legislators have approved a bill that would restrict the use of search firms to fill vacancies at public universities, but the measure backs away from earlier proposals that would have banned the increasingly popular practice entirely.
"The amended bill, which passed the Illinois House of Representatives and the State Senate this week, would allow universities to contract with search firms to help fill presidential vacancies, but it would limit their use in other cases. Before employing outside consultants to aid in nonpresidential searches, a university and its board of trustees would have to "demonstrate a justifiable need for guidance from an individual or firm with specific expertise in the field of the hiring." The bill would require the state's public institutions to enact policies that define the criteria for when hiring a search firm is necessary.
"The bill, HB 5914, will next be sent to the governor, who is reviewing the legislation, his spokesperson said Wednesday.
"The University of Illinois objected to earlier versions of the bill that featured a complete ban on outside search consultants, arguing that such a prohibition would impede its ability to compete for well-qualified candidates. Over the past several months, the university has sought to persuade the legislation's sponsors to relax the language in the bill."
"A bill pending before the State Senate would prohibit public universities from "contracting with outside search firms, executive search firms, or similar organizations." Supporters of the legislation say that paying consultants to find candidates is a poor use of taxpayer and tuition dollars, and that hiring is a responsibility that should fall to those on the university's payroll.
...
"Universities across the country have increasingly turned to outside consultants, at least for hiring at the presidential level. Search consultants were used to recruit nearly 60 percent of recently hired presidents, a jump from 49 percent four years ago, according to an American Council on Education survey released this year.
**************
Update, May 31: Illinois Legislators Approve Limits on Use of Search Firms in Public Universities' Hiring
"Illinois legislators have approved a bill that would restrict the use of search firms to fill vacancies at public universities, but the measure backs away from earlier proposals that would have banned the increasingly popular practice entirely.
"The amended bill, which passed the Illinois House of Representatives and the State Senate this week, would allow universities to contract with search firms to help fill presidential vacancies, but it would limit their use in other cases. Before employing outside consultants to aid in nonpresidential searches, a university and its board of trustees would have to "demonstrate a justifiable need for guidance from an individual or firm with specific expertise in the field of the hiring." The bill would require the state's public institutions to enact policies that define the criteria for when hiring a search firm is necessary.
"The bill, HB 5914, will next be sent to the governor, who is reviewing the legislation, his spokesperson said Wednesday.
"The University of Illinois objected to earlier versions of the bill that featured a complete ban on outside search consultants, arguing that such a prohibition would impede its ability to compete for well-qualified candidates. Over the past several months, the university has sought to persuade the legislation's sponsors to relax the language in the bill."
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The market for medical referrals
The medical profession finds (explicit) advertising repugnant, but specialists depend upon referrals, so there's a marketing industry at work: The Surprising Secret Behind Doctor Referrals
"Most patients assume that if they've got an ailment their family doctor can't fix, they'll be referred to a specialist who's, well, special for reasons they expect: ... So it may come as a surprise that the nattily dressed guy or gal sitting two chairs down in the waiting room, the one who brought that jumbo tin of caramel popcorn for the front-desk staff, may play a role in determining the next surgeon they see.
"With specialists' operating margins having fallen in the past decade and health care reforms putting increasing pressure on their bottom line, more are turning to this burgeoning group of marketing pros to open new-patient pipelines. For anywhere from $3,000 to $10,000 a month, these so-called referral-development consultants will provide marketing plans and dispatch a "physician liaison" to pound the pavement and praise the doctors' prowess. The pitches can focus as much on waiting-room decor as on clinical credentials, but in the end, marketers say, they're sparing doctors the roadside-billboard approach to bringing in patients, and reshaping a long-ignored, but important component of doctoring. "I tell doctors how to sell their business without looking needy, cheesy, greedy or sleazy," says Stewart Gandolf, founding partner of Healthcare Success Strategies, a Southern California medical marketing firm, which says it helped double referrals for one Midwest ophthalmologist in a six-month period.
"Most patients assume that if they've got an ailment their family doctor can't fix, they'll be referred to a specialist who's, well, special for reasons they expect: ... So it may come as a surprise that the nattily dressed guy or gal sitting two chairs down in the waiting room, the one who brought that jumbo tin of caramel popcorn for the front-desk staff, may play a role in determining the next surgeon they see.
"With specialists' operating margins having fallen in the past decade and health care reforms putting increasing pressure on their bottom line, more are turning to this burgeoning group of marketing pros to open new-patient pipelines. For anywhere from $3,000 to $10,000 a month, these so-called referral-development consultants will provide marketing plans and dispatch a "physician liaison" to pound the pavement and praise the doctors' prowess. The pitches can focus as much on waiting-room decor as on clinical credentials, but in the end, marketers say, they're sparing doctors the roadside-billboard approach to bringing in patients, and reshaping a long-ignored, but important component of doctoring. "I tell doctors how to sell their business without looking needy, cheesy, greedy or sleazy," says Stewart Gandolf, founding partner of Healthcare Success Strategies, a Southern California medical marketing firm, which says it helped double referrals for one Midwest ophthalmologist in a six-month period.
"But while no one can fault a doctor for trying to drum up business in tough times, critics say that medicine and marketing can make for strange bedfellows. To be sure, accepting payment for a referral is illegal and patient advocates say that no doctor will intentionally make a bad referral....[But] a steady stream of thank-you gifts might keep a specialist top-of-mind. (Even years later, the Mobile, Ala., dental community still raves about one oral surgeon's gift basket: ribs and bottles of Jack Daniels.)
...
"The American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics requires doctors to provide patients with "relevant information" about potential procedures, but has no guidelines on what to tell them about the specialist to whom they're being sent. "It goes against the basic trust that is the centerpiece of the physician patient relationship," says Peter Clark, director of the Institute of Catholic Bioethics
...
"If doctors are just getting in on the referral game, hospitals have been at it for some time -- and on a larger scale. Whereas patients see a hospital only as a place for serious tests and procedures, administrators see a hospital also as a collection of business areas (radiology, ORs, cancer centers) with specific revenue targets -- goals most readily reached when providers send along more patients. When hospitals buy physician practices and become their bosses, federal law prevents them from tying doctors' compensation to in-house referrals. But they are allowed to incentivize them by offering bonuses based on the overall performance of the hospital. "Go into a hospital board room, and 99 percent of the time they're talking about referrals and physician relations," says Timothy Crowley, a former managing director at Leerink Swann, a health care investment bank.
"Indeed, at a recent Hospital and Physician Relations Summit in Scottsdale, Ariz., hospital administrators and doctors gathered for three days to collectively fret about everything from "physician alignment" to "referral leakage." In one session, a Pennsylvania hospital official identifies one type of leak -- proactive patients doing their own doctor research -- as a growing challenge. Not that patients can't be corralled. Many hospitals now employ staffers called "navigators," who help recovering patients with paperwork and follow-up appointments. Part of their job, though, is insuring that the patients' next specialist has the same hospital logo on his or her lab coat.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
The Need for (long) Chains in Kidney Exchange
That's the title of a new paper that explores (using random graph theory) the dramatic success of long non-simultaneous chains in kidney exchange (aka kidney paired donation), since the first one was organized by Michael Rees through the Alliance for Paired Donation. They are a big part of the success of Garet Hil's National Kidney Registry as well.
Here's the paper: The Need for (long) Chains in Kidney Exchange
by Itai Ashlagi David Gamarnik Michael A. Rees Alvin E. Roth
Abstract
It has been previously shown that for sufficiently large pools of patient-donor pairs, (almost) efficient kidney exchange can be achieved by using at most 3-way cycles, i.e. by using cycles among no more than 3 patient-donor pairs. However, as kidney exchange has grown in practice, cycles among n > 3 pairs have proved useful, and long chains initiated by non-directed, altruistic donors have proven to be very effective.
We explore why this is the case, both empirically and theoretically. We provide an analytical model of exchange when there are many highly sensitized patients, and show that large cycles of exchange or long chains can significantly increase efficiency when the opportunities for exchange are sparse. As very large cycles of exchange cannot be used in practice, long non-simultaneous chains initiated by non-directed donors significantly increase efficiency in patient pools of the size and composition that presently exist. Most importantly, long chains benefit highly sensitized patients without harming low-sensitized patients.
Here's the paper: The Need for (long) Chains in Kidney Exchange
by Itai Ashlagi David Gamarnik Michael A. Rees Alvin E. Roth
Abstract
It has been previously shown that for sufficiently large pools of patient-donor pairs, (almost) efficient kidney exchange can be achieved by using at most 3-way cycles, i.e. by using cycles among no more than 3 patient-donor pairs. However, as kidney exchange has grown in practice, cycles among n > 3 pairs have proved useful, and long chains initiated by non-directed, altruistic donors have proven to be very effective.
We explore why this is the case, both empirically and theoretically. We provide an analytical model of exchange when there are many highly sensitized patients, and show that large cycles of exchange or long chains can significantly increase efficiency when the opportunities for exchange are sparse. As very large cycles of exchange cannot be used in practice, long non-simultaneous chains initiated by non-directed donors significantly increase efficiency in patient pools of the size and composition that presently exist. Most importantly, long chains benefit highly sensitized patients without harming low-sensitized patients.
Michael Sandel on markets and economists
The Boston Review hosts a Forum on Michael Sandel's arguments against markets:
Sandel lays out his views more fully than in the quote at the top of the page (if not always more clearly) in the lead essay of the forum: How Markets Crowd Out Morals, and in his reply to the commentators, some sympathetic and some less so. Bowles and Welch and Gintis all suggest that the level of the discussion could be raised by considering evidence, of various kinds.
See my earlier posts on Michael Sandel's views on markets.
Update: Nicholas Kristof weighs in in his May 30 NY Times column, citing some of the more lurid examples of things bought and sold.
Forum:
How Markets Crowd Out Morals
How Markets Crowd Out Morals
Shout
Michael J. Sandel
Some economists think markets can benefit all spheres of human activity. But they’re wrong: markets can erode important goods and social norms.
Not only are there some things money can’t buy, but there are also many things it shouldn’t.
Not only are there some things money can’t buy, but there are also many things it shouldn’t.
Responses
Richard Sennett
When the market is everywhere, we lead a socially impoverished existence.
Matt Welch
Because Sandel disagrees with people’s choices, he wants to take those choices away.
Anita L. Allen
Financial incentives are improperly used to induce African Americans to embrace “good” behaviors.
Debra Satz
Debating the place of the market is less about the value of goods than about inequality.
Herbert Gintis
Tolerance, equality, and democracy have only flourished in market societies.
Lew Daly
Making money, formerly an exclusive realm of cosmic evil, is now “doing God’s work.”
Samuel Bowles
Even market enthusiasts know that society can’t function if people are the amoral, self-interested calculators of blackboard economics.
Elizabeth Anderson
The profit motive is corrupting the justice system.
John Tomasi
Free markets are a kind of fairness.
Michael J. Sandel replies
By keeping markets in their place, we can avoid their corrosive effects.
Sandel lays out his views more fully than in the quote at the top of the page (if not always more clearly) in the lead essay of the forum: How Markets Crowd Out Morals, and in his reply to the commentators, some sympathetic and some less so. Bowles and Welch and Gintis all suggest that the level of the discussion could be raised by considering evidence, of various kinds.
See my earlier posts on Michael Sandel's views on markets.
Update: Nicholas Kristof weighs in in his May 30 NY Times column, citing some of the more lurid examples of things bought and sold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
