Including ELSI research questions in newborn screening pilot studies

Background The evidence review processes for adding new conditions to state newborn screening (NBS) panels rely on data from pilot studies aimed at assessing the potential benefits and harms of screening. However, the consideration of ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of screening within this research has been limited. This paper outlines important ELSI issues related to newborn screening policy and practices as a resource to help researchers integrate ELSI into NBS pilot studies. Approach Members of the Bioethics and Legal Workgroup for the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network facilitated a series of professional and public discussions aimed at engaging NBS stakeholders to identify important existing and emerging ELSI challenges accompanying NBS. Results Integrating ELSI questions into pilot studies will help NBS programs to better understand the potential impact of screening for a new condition on newborns and families, and make crucial policy decisions aimed at maximized benefits and mitigating the potential negative medical or social implications of screening

Assessment of Disparities Associated with a Crisis Standards of Care Resource Allocation Algorithm for Patients in 2 US Hospitals during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance: Significant concern has been raised that crisis standards of care policies aimed at guiding resource allocation may be biased against people based on race/ethnicity. Objective: To evaluate whether unanticipated disparities by race or ethnicity arise from a single institution\u27s resource allocation policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) who were cared for on a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ward or in a monitored unit requiring invasive or noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula between May 26 and July 14, 2020, at 2 academic hospitals in Miami, Florida. Exposures: Race (ie, White, Black, Asian, multiracial) and ethnicity (ie, non-Hispanic, Hispanic). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was based on a resource allocation priority score (range, 1-8, with 1 indicating highest and 8 indicating lowest priority) that was assigned daily based on both estimated short-term (using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score) and longer-term (using comorbidities) mortality. There were 2 coprimary outcomes: maximum and minimum score for each patient over all eligible patient-days. Standard summary statistics were used to describe the cohort, and multivariable Poisson regression was used to identify associations of race and ethnicity with each outcome. Results: The cohort consisted of 5613 patient-days of data from 1127 patients (median [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 62.7 [51.7-73.7]; 607 [53.9%] men). Of these, 711 (63.1%) were White patients, 323 (28.7%) were Black patients, 8 (0.7%) were Asian patients, and 31 (2.8%) were multiracial patients; 480 (42.6%) were non-Hispanic patients, and 611 (54.2%) were Hispanic patients. The median (IQR) maximum priority score for the cohort was 3 (1-4); the median (IQR) minimum score was 2 (1-3). After adjustment, there was no association of race with maximum priority score using White patients as the reference group (Black patients: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.12; Asian patients: IRR, 0.95; 95% CI. 0.62-1.45; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19) or of ethnicity using non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10); similarly, no association was found with minimum score for race, again with White patients as the reference group (Black patients: IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14; Asian patients: IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.62-1.49; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07) or ethnicity, again with non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of adult patients admitted to a COVID-19 unit at 2 US hospitals, there was no association of race or ethnicity with the priority score underpinning the resource allocation policy. Despite this finding, any policy to guide altered standards of care during a crisis should be monitored to ensure equitable distribution of resources

Policy and Poverty: Child and Community Health in Philadelphia, 1900 to 1930

On a fall day in 1913, a man sat on a crowded wooden bench with a little boy on his lap. He waited all day, only to be told that the physician who would treat his son was not working in the public clinic that day. The next morning he learned that if he returned at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, he would stand a better chance of seeing the physician. Since the family home was a shack and even food was scarce, he could ill afford the loss of another day's pay. His son had infantile paralysis, though, and the father believed that the physician could help, so he kept trying. The boy died during the Christmas holidays. "Is it simply that there are not enough public clinics, enough doctors willing to help care for the people who come to them?" asked the social worker who told this story. "Or is there something wrong with the system?"

Identifying the right outcomes to measure for children with medical complexity

This commentary is on the original article by Fayed et al. on pages 1093–1100 of this issue

Henry Bryant Bigelow, the US Bureau of Fisheries, and Intensive Area Study

Oceanographers have long viewed `intensive area study' as a step in the internal development of oceanography. But for its first American practitioner, Henry Bryant Bigelow, intensive area study was a new and innovative approach that allowed him to pursue fundamental questions of hydrology and zoology within the restrictions imposed by his patron, the US Bureau of Fisheries. Intellectually, such methods promised a long-term solution to the problem of predicting fluctuations in fish populations; practically, they required little money and allowed Bigelow to stay physically near the New England fisheries. Reconstructing Bigelow's relationship to the USBF provides the political and social context necessary for understanding the origins and acceptance of a scientific practice. It also shows how scientists must often negotiate between the demands of their patrons for practical information and the demands of their disciplines for `pure' science