The Effects of Shale Gas Production on Natural Gas Prices

The Producer Price Index (PPI) for natural gas, measured on an annual average basis, fell 56.8 percent between 2007 and 2012, in response to strong growth in domestic energy production. The application of horizontal hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to shale rock formations contributed significantly to this increase in supply, as the technique boosted natural gas production yield by more than 25 percent over this period. Since shale gas has been a key player in domestic natural gas production for only a few years, and because it has been tracked over a relatively short period (since 2007) by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), analysts find that it is difficult to quantify precisely the effects that shale gas has had on natural gas prices. However, data indicate that increasingly higher natural gas prices during the first half of 2008 lured additional shale gas to the market. As natural gas prices peaked in July 2008, drilling activity (as measured by rig counts) hit an all-time high.2 Eventually, effects of oversupply took hold

As American as Apple Inc.: Corporate Ownership and the Fight for Tax Reform

Both supporters and critics of the current tax advantages enjoyed by U.S. multinational corporations (MNCs) bolster their arguments with appeals to patriotism: the MNCs and their political supporters argue that allowing inversions or other similar arrangements and instituting another tax holiday for “repatriating” overseas earnings are good for the American economy as a whole; opponents condemn these tax advantages as unpatriotic in depriving the U.S. of enormous sums of needed revenue. But where, precisely, is the “home” to which profits held offshore return? For many purposes, home is where the shareholders are. Determining ownership of U.S. MNCs such as Apple and GE, however, is extremely hard to do. Appeals for policies that promote U.S. competitiveness by presuming U.S. ownership of U.S. incorporated parent companies rest, in the end, on very little.https://repository.upenn.edu/pennwhartonppi/1034/thumbnail.jp

ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation - the RAPPORT study

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a prerequisite for many funding bodies and NHS research ethics approval. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or by the public rather than to, about or for them. While the benefits of PPI have been widely discussed, there is a lack of evidence on the impact and outcomes of PPI in research. Objectives To determine the types of PPI in funded research, describe key processes, analyse the contextual and temporal dynamics of PPI and explore the experience of PPI in research for all those involved. Mechanisms contributing to the routine incorporation of PPI in the research process were assessed, the impact of PPI on research processes and outcomes evaluated, and barriers and enablers to effective PPI identified. Design A three-staged realist evaluation drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to understand how far PPI was embedded within health-care research in six areas: diabetes mellitus, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, dementia, public health and learning disabilities. The first two stages comprised a scoping exercise and online survey to chief investigators to assess current PPI activity. The third stage consisted of case studies tracked over 18 months through interviews and document analysis. The research was conducted in four regions of England. Participants Non-commercial studies currently running or completed within the previous 2 years eligible for adoption on the UK Clinical Research Network portfolio. A total of 129 case study participants included researchers and PPI representatives from 22 research studies, and representatives from funding bodies and PPI networks

The effects of memantine on prepulse inhibition.

Reduced prepulse inhibition (PPI) of startle provides evidence of deficient sensorimotor gating in several disorders, including schizophrenia. The role of NMDA neurotransmission in the regulation of PPI is unclear, due to cross-species differences in the effects of NMDA antagonists on PPI. Recent reports suggest that drug effects on PPI differ in subgroups of normal humans that differ in the levels of baseline PPI or specific personality domains; here, we tested the effects of these variables on the sensitivity of PPI to the NMDA antagonist, memantine. PPI was measured in male Sprague-Dawley rats, after treatment with memantine (0, 10 or 20 mg/kg, s.c.). Baseline PPI was then measured in 37 healthy adult men. Next, subjects were tested twice, in a double-blind crossover design, comparing either (1) placebo vs 20 mg of the NMDA antagonist memantine (n=19) or (2) placebo vs 30 mg memantine (n=18). Tests included measures of acoustic startle amplitude, PPI, autonomic indices and subjective self-rating scales. Memantine had dose- and interval-dependent effects on PPI in rats. Compared with vehicle, 10 mg/kg increased short-interval (10-20 ms) PPI, and 20 mg/kg decreased long-interval (120 ms) PPI. In humans, memantine caused dose-dependent effects on psychological and somatic measures: 20 mg was associated with increased ratings of happiness, and 30 mg was associated with increased ratings of dizziness. PPI at the 120 ms prepulse interval was increased by 20 mg, but not 30 mg of memantine. Subgroups most sensitive to the PPI-enhancing effects of memantine were those with low baseline PPI, or with personality scale scores suggestive of high novelty seeking, high sensation seeking, or high disinhibition. NMDA blockade with memantine appears to have dose- and interval-dependent effects on sensorimotor gating in rats and humans, particularly among specific subgroups of normal human subjects. These findings are discussed as they relate to consistencies across other studies in humans, as well as apparent inconsistencies in the NMDA regulation of PPI across species

Highlights of the 2013 PPI User Survey

From December 2012 to May 2013, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Producer Price Index (PPI) program conducted a user survey of its stakeholders in order to learn more about the program’s data users and how they utilize PPI data. The survey was sent by email to more than 42,000 PPI contacts who had a preexisting relationship with the PPI, as either a survey respondent, a subscriber to a data product, or a user who had contacted the PPI program for technical information. To increase awareness, BLS highlighted the survey on the PPI website and announced it in the U.S. Federal Register. The survey resulted in a total of 3,790 responses

When is proton pump inhibitor use appropriate?

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is commonly used outside of Food and Drug Administration indication for a broad range of conditions such as extra-esophageal reflux and PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia. While this may be appropriate in some scenarios, it has also resulted in widespread inappropriate PPI use. At the same time, data suggesting adverse effects of long-term PPI therapy are multiplying, albeit mainly from low quality studies. The systematic review by Scarpignato et al. (BMC Med 14:179, 2016) addresses this dilemma with a comprehensive analysis of the risks and benefits of PPI use. The authors concluded that, while PPIs are highly efficacious in erosive acid-peptic disorders, efficacy is not equaled in other conditions. In some instances, they found no supportive evidence of benefit. With respect to side effects, they indicated that the questionable harms associated with PPI therapy do not outweigh the benefits afforded by appropriate PPI use. However, inappropriate PPI use results in increased healthcare costs and unnecessary exposure to potential adverse effects. Ideally, PPI therapy should be personalized, based on indication, effectiveness, patient preference, and risk assessment.Please see related article: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0718-z

Primary care-led commissioning and public involvement in the English National Health Service. Lessons from the past.

Background: Patient and Public involvement (PPI) in health care occupies a central place in Western democracies. In England, this theme has been continuously prominent since the introduction of market reforms in the early 1990s. The health care reforms implemented by the current Coalition Government are making primary care practitioners the main commissioners of health care services in the National Health Service, and a duty is placed on them to involve the public in commissioning decisions and strategies. Since implementation of PPI initiatives in primary care commissioning is not new, we asked how likely it is that the new reforms will make a difference. We scanned the main literature related to primary care-led commissioning and found little evidence of effective PPI thus far. We suggest that unless the scope and intended objectives of PPI are clarified and appropriate resources are devoted to it, PPI will continue to remain empty rhetoric and box ticking. Aim: To examine the effect of previous PPI initiatives on health care commissioning and draw lessons for future development. Method: We scanned the literature reporting on previous PPI initiatives in primary careled commissioning since the introduction of the internal market in 1991. In particular, we looked for specific contexts, methods and outcomes of such initiatives. Findings: 1. PPI in commissioning has been constantly encouraged by policy makers in England. 2. Research shows limited evidence of effective methods and outcomes so far. 3. Constant reconfi- guration of health care structures has had a negative impact on PPI. 4. The new structures look hardly better poised to bring about effective public and patient involvement

Regional Working in the East of England: Using the UK National Standards for Public Involvement

Plain English summary: Involving patients and members of the public to help shape and carry out research is recommended in health research in the United Kingdom (UK). There are a number of regional networks of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) groups, which support the collaboration between researchers, patients and public members. We are a group of researchers, patients and public members who came together via a PPI regional network in the East of England to collaborate on a research study about the extent of feedback from researchers to PPI contributors.The aim of this paper is to use the recently developed UK National Standards for Public Involvement to structure our thinking about what worked well and what did not, within our recently completed study. We believe this paper is one of the first to use the National Standards to structure a retrospective reflection on PPI within a study.Our findings showed that there are benefits of regional working, including easier access to public members and bringing together researchers, public members and those who run PPI groups for research collaboration. The main challenges included involvement of people before studies are funded and working across organisations with different payment processes.The National Standards for Public Involvement has provided a useful framework to consider how best to involve patients and members of the public in research and could be a helpful structure to reflect on successes and challenges in individual projects and also regional, national or international comparisons of PPI in research. Abstract: Background Regional networks of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) organisations, including academic institutions, health and social care services, charities, patient and public groups and individuals, can play an important part in carrying out health research. In the UK, recommendations by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) encourage the use of regional, collaborative networks with shared resources and training. Methods The newly developed UK National Standards for Public Involvement were used as a framework for a retrospective reflection of PPI within a recently completed research study which focused on feedback from researchers to PPI contributors. PPI contributors, those running PPI groups (PPI leads) and researchers involved in the study have contributed to this reflection by completing evaluation forms throughout the research alongside notes of meetings and co-authors' final reflections. Results Results revealed a number of successes where the regional network was particularly useful in bringing together PPI contributors, those who lead PPI groups and researchers. The regional network helped researchers to get in touch with patients and members of the public. Challenges included involving people before funding and bureaucratic and financial barriers when working across different organisations in the region. The importance of working together in flexible, informal ways was key and on-going support for the PPI contributors was vital for continued involvement, including emotional support not just monetary. The first four National Standards of inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning and communications were particularly useful as means of structuring our reflections. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is one of the first research studies to use the UK National Standards for Public Involvement as a framework to identify what worked well and the challenges of PPI processes. It is suggested that as more reflective papers are published and the National Standards are more widely used in the UK, many lessons can be learnt and shared on how to improve our Patient and Public Involvement within research studies. Evaluations or reflections such as these can further enhance our understanding of PPI with implications for regional, national and international comparisons.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Improvements to the Producer Price Index measure: The Final-Demand-Intermediate-Demand System

[Excerpt] The release of January 2014 Producer Price Index (PPI) data marks the transition from the Stage of Processing (SOP) aggregation system to the Final Demand–Intermediate Demand (FD–ID) aggregation system. The transition to the FD– ID system is the culmination of a longstanding PPI objective to improve upon the SOP aggregation system by incorporating price data for services, construction, government purchases, and exports. In comparison to the SOP system, the FD-ID system more than doubles PPI coverage of the U.S. economy to over 75 percent of in-scope domestic production. This issue of Beyond the Numbers presents 2013 PPI data based on the new FD–ID system. The PPI estimates shown with this system represent the beginning of wider coverage by the index, to be continued in subsequent issues