Three student researchers with Stanford Health Policy have been awarded the Lee B. Lusted Student Prizes by the Society for Medical Decision Making.

The cash prizes, which were awarded in October, recognize outstanding presentations of original student research.

First-year doctoral student Sze-chuan Suen won the Lusted Award for Best Student Presentation in the area of Health Services and Policy Research.  Suen’s abstract, Dynamic Transmission Microsimulation of Tuberculosis in India to Assess the Future Impact of Treatment Programs, explores the connection between tuberculosis treatment and the growing burden of multi-drug resistant TB in India. Co-authors included Eran Bendavid, an affiliate of Stanford Health Policy; and Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert, a core faculty member of SHP, which is a center at the university’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Bendavid and Goldhaber-Fiebert are both assistant professors of medicine.

Fourth-year doctoral student Lauren Cipriano won the Lusted Award for Best Student Presentation in the area of Applied Health Economics. Her abstract, Optimal Information Acquisition Policy in Dynamic Healthcare Policy: Application to HCV Screening, demonstrates how a complete policy lifecycle analysis of Hepatitis C screening can maximize its social value. Cipriano illustrated the practical value of her theoretical framework using an HCV model developed by Stanford doctoral student Shan Liu and Goldhaber-Fiebert.

Eva Enns, who finished her PhD in June, won the Lusted Award for Best Student Presentation in the area of Quantitative Methods and Theoretical Developments.  Enns’s abstract, Calibration Methods for Inferring Transition Probabilities from Cross-sectional Studies, presents an iterative algorithm that accurately and consistently infers transition probabilities from multiple cross-sectional prevalence estimates. Enns, a recent Stanford graduate and first-year faculty member at the University of Minnesota, completed this project while at Stanford, in collaboration with SH-trainee Suzann Pershing, Stanford doctoral student Yang Wang and Goldhaber-Fiebert.

Stanford investigators’ research presentations at the conference covered a wide range of clinical topics from infectious diseases to emergency care. They also contributed new methods and frameworks to help policymakers decide how best to allocate scarce resources for problems such as determining the cost-effectiveness of competing HIV management strategies and quantifying the mortality rates of high-risk groups infected with chronic Hepatitis C.

Among SHP’s participants were a number with top-ranked, plenary abstracts. Former SHP trainee and current Stanford faculty member, M. Kit Delgado, was acknowledged for his top-ranked abstract, which established that current helicopter scene transport for trauma victims is not as cost-effective as ground transport. Goldhaber-Fiebert was also recognized for his top-ranked abstract, which developed calibration methods to infer rates of exposure for time-varying risk factors from household surveys using the example of smoking in India.

SHP affiliates who gave oral presentations and posters included: Daniella Perlroth, Dena Bravata, and Lauren Shluzas. Trainees Kevin Erickson and Zachary Kastenberg were recognized as Lee B. Lusted Award finalists for their original research in the field of Applied Health Economics, and recent Stanford graduate, Sabina Alistar, was named a finalist in the area of Health Services and Policy Research.  Other trainees and former trainees who presented included Serena Faruque, Suzann Pershing, Jonathan Glazer Shaw, Grace Hunter, Jessie Juusola, and Crystal Smith-Spangler. Co-authors and faculty mentors on many of these projects include SHP director, Douglas Owens; former SHP director, Alan Garber; and Stanford professors Margaret Brandeau, Mary Goldstein, Glenn Chertow, Bendavid and Goldhaber-Fiebert.

The Society for Medical Decision Making brings researchers, educators and others in health care together in a mission of improving health outcomes through the advancement of proactive systematic approaches to clinical decision-making and policy-formation in health care. The value the society places on interdisciplinary scholarship and methodological excellence mirrors SHP’s focus on conducting rigorous, multi-disciplinary research that lays the foundation for better domestic and international health policy and health care.

“Knowing the dedication of our students and faculty to tackling important topics with sophisticated analysis, I was not surprised with our results at this year’s annual meeting. But it really was a wonderful moment to hear each Lusted Prize winner’s name, followed by their Stanford affiliation,” said Kathryn McDonald, SHP’s executive director. “Our entire Stanford contingent shared a sense of pride since everyone supports each other’s work.”

Wheat is a staple crop throughout much of India, but in many areas it is commonly sown past the optimum yield window. A study led by FSE associate director David Lobell uses satellite measurements to estimate a decade’s worth of sow dates in wheat-growing areas of India.

The study finds, among other developments, that wheat was sown one week earlier by 2010 than it was at the beginning of the decade, a change that explains 5% in country-wide yield gains. It also predicts that yield benefits from sow date shifts will likely diminish in the next decade.

"There's an important, one time boost farmers have gotten recently from moving into the optimum sowing window, but the data suggest this effect will run out of steam in the coming years," says Lobell.

Fresh off his re-election victory, Barack Obama—the “Pacific President”—became the first president to visit Myanmar and Cambodia when he traveled to the Southeast Asian countries in November.

The trip highlights the region’s importance to the United States and signals that Obama’s second term will significantly focus on Asian trade, security and governance issues.

Eight Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center scholars sat down to discuss reactions to the election in Asia, and possible directions for U.S.-Asia relations and foreign policy during the second Obama administration.

How do you think countries in Asia view the outcome of the U.S. presidential election?

Karl Eikenberry: Overall, I think the countries of Asia will view President Obama’s reelection as positive, including because of the likely continuity in American policy toward the region.

Thomas Fingar: Beijing is troubled by Obama’s policies toward Asia because it sees them as directed against China and detrimental to its interests. But it was more troubled by Romney’s rhetoric during the campaign and probably interprets the election outcome as portending more continuity than change in U.S. policy. On balance, Beijing would rather deal with a devil it knows than cope with the uncertainties of a new U.S. administration.

Gi-Wook Shin: There was some concern in South Korea that Mitt Romney would have reverted to the hardline North Korea policy of George W. Bush’s first term. It would have created a bit of tension between the United States and South Korea, so in that context many Koreans are relieved that Obama was re-elected.

David Straub: Interestingly, President Obama personally is overwhelmingly popular in South Korea, but opinion polls show that most South Koreans continue to have complex, even critical views of American foreign policy under him.

Is President Obama likely to make major changes to Asia policy in his second term?

Eikenberry: Some of the people in key positions in the second Obama administration will change, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but President Obama will of course be in office for four more years. He has been in Asia and knows the players. He has a clear strategy, so overall I expect continuity in his administration’s Asia policy. 

Michael H. Armacost: Events are really what shape foreign policy, and developments can occur that are hard to predict.

Henry S. Rowen: We tend to assume there is a continuity or gradual evolution to events, but there are also discontinuities. Something could happen in North Korea, for example. Unexpected events do happen from time to time, and the question is to try to figure out what they might be.

How could U.S. China policy develop?

Fingar: If President Obama has a clear plan for his second term, its goals and priorities are not yet clear to the Chinese. They worry that he may continue, or ratchet up, efforts they see as designed to constrain China’s rise. That said, they know that steady relations with the United States are essential for their own continued economic success and will respond positively to U.S. efforts to reduce distrust and enhance strategic stability. They will be troubled, however, by likely—and overdue—U.S. pressure to secure enforcement of China’s intellectual property and other trade-related commitments, and by likely U.S. efforts to deepen trade relations with other countries.

How could the possible election of a more conservative Japanese government during the second term of the Obama administration affect U.S.-Japan relations?

Armacost: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an issue where we both have potential constraints on the extent to which Japan can be included, and it is not certain whether that will change very much under a Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) administration. Secondly, there is the longstanding Okinawa base issue. The LDP did not do anything about the base from 1996 onward, and that will probably also be the case if the LDP comes into power again. Finally, the United States will probably push Japan to take more of a stand on the ongoing Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute with China.

After the failure of the United States’ Leap Day agreement with North Korea this year, and especially with the election of a new South Korean government next month, do you think that Obama’s second term could bring a renewed effort in diplomacy with North Korea?

Shin: It will be important to watch the outcome of the South Korean election. If the opposition party wins, they will move very quickly to engage with North Korea and the question then will be how the United States will respond.

Straub: In any event, the United States periodically reaches out to North Korea, to test it or just because time has passed. It may do so again after the election, particularly since there is a still fairly new leadership in North Korea, and also because there are elections or leadership changes in all the countries in the region. A number of the Six Party Talks member states, likely including South Korea, may also push harder for a resumption of those talks, which were never held during President Obama’s first term. But the Obama administration will be cautious because it was burned by North Korea’s breaking of their Leap Day agreement.

What direction might U.S. policy toward South Asia take?

Eikenberry: Our presence in Afghanistan is going to remain an important part of our overall military posture in Central, South, and East Asia. Managing properly the transition to full Afghan responsibility for their internal security will remain very high on President Obama’s agenda. At the same time, it will be important to keep some U.S. counterterrorism capability in Afghanistan, with the permission of the Afghan government.  

The nature of our security dialogue with Pakistan will change in emphasis from one that since 9/11 has mostly been informed by international terrorism. If we continue to make progress against Al Qaida, I expect our conversation with Pakistan will place more emphasis on its nuclear weapons programs and deployments. This is a potentially destabilizing issue and a concern not only to India, but also to China.

There has been a steady appreciation in the current and future importance of India. It will continue to be key in terms of the administration’s broader Asia-Pacific policy, but with a clear understanding of the limits of defense engagement with India.

Will the rebalancing, or “pivot,” toward Asia continue to be a central theme in U.S. foreign policy in Obama’s second term?

Eikenberry: Last year, when President Obama announced the rebalancing to Asia, I think this was done in part to signal to the world that we were putting the decade of costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan behind us and looking forward—that the U.S. “was back.” I do not believe we will see any short-term major change in the deployment of military capabilities to the Asia-Pacific region, but the rebalancing could have profound consequences in the longer term. It will likely inform the prioritization of our future defense modernization and the development of military doctrine, which in turn drives procurement.

Donald K. Emmerson: Asia will continue to loom large on Washington's policy horizon. Although the pivot was originally all about security, the rebalance has since been "rebalanced" to encompass economic concerns. In July 2012 when Secretary Clinton went to Phnom Penh to attend the security-focused ASEAN Regional Forum, she brought along the largest delegation of American businesspeople ever to visit Southeast Asia. Their presence upgraded the profile of the U.S.-ASEAN Business Forum, which met the following day. The Obama administration has also taken the lead in promoting a Trans-Pacific Partnership to liberalize Asia-Pacific trade. 

President Obama's mid-November trip to Southeast Asia is further evidence of the pivot's continuation. In mid-November he will become the first U.S. president ever to have visited Myanmar and Cambodia. He will stop in Thailand as well. In Phnom Penh he will attend the U.S.-ASEAN Summit and the East Asia Summit. A key issue at these meetings will be the quarrels over sovereignty in the South China Sea between China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. To the extent that the United States appears to be intervening against Beijing in these disputes, the "pivot" will be interpreted as a move to check China.

Armacost: There is no doubt that the Asia rebalancing strategy will endure, but the components and the apportionment of resources may change. President Obama may have initially overplayed engagement with China, and now he is probably hedging too much. But it does not change the fact that there is a lot at stake in terms of our relationship with China and that we have to engage the government. So it is a question then of where to strike a balance between hedging and engagement. After the election, there is also the question now of what happens to U.S. trade policy, and whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership will include India, China, and Japan.

Daniel C. Sneider: If you look at the president’s broader message and the one he carried in the campaign, he is very focused on restructuring and moving toward a more innovation-centered U.S. economy to develop new sources of employment. In addition to being concerned about climate change, he is also seriously looking at alternative energy resources as a source of real growth in the U.S. economy and as a way to move away from foreign fossil fuel dependency. Focusing more on the Asia-Pacific region is also quite consistent with these goals.