John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Building, 366 Galvez Street
Stanford, CA 94305-6015
Hongbin Li is a Senior Fellow of Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI).
Hongbin obtained Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University in 2001 and joined the economics department of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), where he became full professor in 2007. He was also one of the two founding directors of the Institute of Economics and Finance at the CUHK. He taught at Tsinghua University in Beijing 2007-2016 and was C.V. Starr Chair Professor of Economics in the School of Economics and Management. He also founded and served as the Executive Associate Director of the China Social and Economic Data Center at Tsinghua University. He founded the Chinese College Student Survey (CCSS) in 2009 and the China Employer-Employee Survey (CEES) in 2014.
Hongbin’s research has been focused on the transition and development of the Chinese economy, and the evidence-based research results have been both widely covered by media outlets and well read by policy makers around the world. He is currently the co-editor of the Journal of Comparative Economics and co-author of the forthcoming book, “The Highest Exam: How the Gaokao Shapes China” published by Harvard University Press.
Zoom Meeting
Register in advance for this meeting:
https://stanford.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJcuf-2sqzkoE93jEPn9deZKTTBJoze-2d6u
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
Encina Commons, Room 201
615 Crothers Way Stanford, CA 94305-6006
Executive Assistant: Soomin Li, soominli@stanford.edu
Phone: (650) 725-9911
Douglas K. Owens is the Henry J. Kaiser, Jr. Professor, Chair of the Department of Health Policy in the Stanford University School of Medicine and Director of the Center for Health Policy (CHP) in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). He is a general internist, a Professor of Management Science and Engineering (by courtesy), at Stanford University; and a Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.
Owens' research includes the application of decision theory to clinical and health policy problems; clinical decision making; methods for developing clinical guidelines; decision support; comparative effectiveness; modeling substance use and infectious diseases; cardiovascular disease; patient-centered decision making; assessing the value of health care services, including cost-effectiveness analysis; quality of care; and evidence synthesis.
Owens chaired the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians for four years. The guideline committee develops clinical guidelines that are used widely and are published regularly in the Annals of Internal Medicine. He was a member and then Vice-Chair and Chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which develops national guidelines on preventive care, including guidelines for screening for breast, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer. He has helped lead the development of more than 50 national guidelines on treatment and prevention. He also was a member of the Second Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, which developed guidelines for the conduct of cost-effectiveness analyses.
Owens also directed the Stanford-UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center. He co-directs the Stanford Health Services Research Program, and previously directed the VA Physician Fellowship in Health Services Research, and the VA Postdoctoral Informatics Fellowship Program.
Owens received a BS and an MS from Stanford University, and an MD from the University of California-San Francisco. He completed a residency in internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a fellowship in health research and policy at Stanford. Owens is a past-President of the Society for Medical Decision Making. He received the VA Undersecretary’s Award for Outstanding Achievement in Health Services Research, and the Eisenberg Award for Leadership in Medical Decision Making from the Society for Medical Decision Making. Owens also received a MERIT award from the National Institutes on Drug Abuse to study HIV, HCV, and the opioid epidemic. He was elected to the American Society for Clinical Investigation (ASCI) and the Association of American Physicians (AAP.)
Title: Academic Scientists in Court: Pros or Cons?
Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD is Associate Dean of Clinical and Translational Research and Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health, and Medicine. He is co-founder and co-director of the Meta-research innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), a group dedicated to examining and improving the reproducibility and efficiency of biomedical research.
Abstract: Most of what academics say are public. However, expert testimony they provide in court is often impossible to access. Thus, even though decisions they affect often have profound importance for public health or health policy, such experts are typically not accountable to the scientific community. This talk will review some high-profile examples, some from personal involvement, of court testimony from leading health scientists that embrace questionable scientific principles or causes contrary to their public positions or values. Solutions to this problem will be discussed.
Zoom Meeting
Register in advance for this meeting:
https://stanford.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJUpduGurzMuGtGafXLOszafXLgQhE8Nfx2G
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
Maya Rossin-Slater, PhD
Associate Professor of Medicine
SIEPR Faculty Fellow
NBER Faculty Research Fellow
IZA Faculty Affiliate
Title:
"Trauma at School: The Impacts of Shootings on Students' Human Capital and Economic Outcomes"
Abstract:
We examine how shootings at schools---an increasingly common form of gun violence in the United States---impact the educational and economic trajectories of students. Using linked schooling and labor market data in Texas from 1992--2018, we compare within-student and across-cohort changes in outcomes following a shooting to those experienced by students at matched control schools. We find that school shootings increase absenteeism and grade repetition; reduce high school graduation, college enrollment, and college completion; and reduce employment and earnings at ages 24--26. These effects span student characteristics, suggesting that the economic costs of school shootings are universal.
Zoom Meeting
Register in advance for this meeting:
https://stanford.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMuc-qvrzouH9YeFvjwgOprDrTluwrz68Rl
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
Encina Commons,
615 Crothers Way Room 184,
Stanford, CA 94305-6006
Maya Rossin-Slater is the Josephine Knotts Knowles Professor of Human Biology and Associate Professor of Health Policy at Stanford University. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic and Policy Research (SIEPR), a Faculty Affiliate at the Stanford Center on Early Childhood, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and a Research Affiliate at the IZA@LISER Network. She received her Ph.D. in Economics from Columbia University, and her BA in Economics and Statistics from the University of California at Berkeley. She is a health economist who studies issues in maternal, child, and family well-being, social safety net programs, and public policies and other factors affecting disadvantaged populations. She is the recipient of the National Science Foundation CAREER Award, and the American Economic Association’s Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession Elaine Bennett Research Prize (awarded to recognize outstanding research in any field of economics by a woman not more than ten years beyond her PhD). She is also the PI on several grants from the National Institutes of Health, and has published articles in a variety of peer-reviewed journals, including the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy, Review of Economic Studies, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Journal of Health Economics, Journal of Public Economics, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. She currently serves as a co-editor at the Journal of Human Resources.
With vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, on the near-term horizon, U.S. policymakers are focusing on how to ensure that Americans get vaccinated. This challenge has been compounded by reports that White House officials are exerting undue influence over the agencies that would ordinarily lead such efforts, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Few issues in the policy response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have inspired as impassioned debate as school reopening. There is broad agreement that school closures involve heavy burdens on students, parents, and the economy, with profound equity implications, but also that the risk of outbreaks cannot be eliminated even in a partial reopening scenario with in-school precautions. Consensus largely ends there, however: the approaches states and localities have taken to integrating these concerns into school reopening plans are highly variable.
On August 17, 2020, the Los Angeles Unified School District launched a program to test more than 700,000 students and staff for SARS-CoV-2. The district is paying a private contractor to provide next-day, early-morning results for as many as 40,000 tests daily. As of October 4, a total of 34,833 people had been tested at 42 sites. The program is notable not only because it’s ambitious, but also because it’s unusual: testing is conspicuously absent from school reopening plans in many other districts. Typically, exhaustive attention has instead focused on physical distancing, face coverings, hygiene, staggering of schedules, and cohorting (dividing students into small, fixed groups). Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and state officials have urged schools to prepare for Covid-19 cases, they have offered strikingly little substantive guidance on testing. Immediate attention to improving testing access and response planning is essential to the successful reopening of schools.
The economic and mortality impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have been widely discussed, but there is limited evidence on their relationship across demographic and geographic groups. We use publicly available monthly data from January 2011 through April 2020 on all-cause death counts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and employment from the Current Population Survey to estimate excess all-cause mortality and employment displacement in April 2020 in the United States. We report results nationally and separately by state and by age group. Nationally, excess all-cause mortality was 2.4 per 10,000 individuals (about 30% higher than reported COVID deaths in April) and employment displacement was 9.9 per 100 individuals. Across age groups 25 y and older, excess mortality was negatively correlated with economic damage; excess mortality was largest among the oldest (individuals 85 y and over: 39.0 per 10,000), while employment displacement was largest among the youngest (individuals 25 to 44 y: 11.6 per 100 individuals). Across states, employment displacement was positively correlated with excess mortality (correlation = 0.29). However, mortality was highly concentrated geographically, with the top two states (New York and New Jersey) each experiencing over 10 excess deaths per 10,000 and accounting for about half of national excess mortality. By contrast, employment displacement was more geographically spread, with the states with the largest point estimates (Nevada and Michigan) each experiencing over 16 percentage points employment displacement but accounting for only 7% of the national displacement. These results suggest that policy responses may differentially affect generations and geographies.
When an experienced provider opts to leave a healthcare workforce (attrition), there are significant costs, both direct and indirect. Turnover of healthcare providers is underreported and understudied, despite evidence that it negatively impacts care delivery and negatively impacts working conditions for remaining providers. In the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, attrition of women’s health primary care providers (WH-PCPs) threatens a specially trained workforce; it is unknown what factors contribute to, or protect against, their attrition.