Now Is Our Time to Act: Why Academic Medicine Must Embrace Community Collaboration as Its Fourth Mission.

In his Leadership Plenary at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) annual meeting, "Learn Serve Lead 2020: The Virtual Experience," president and CEO David Skorton emphasized that the traditional tripartite mission of academic medicine-medical education, clinical care, and research-is no longer enough to achieve health justice for all. Today, collaborating with diverse communities deserves equal weight among academic medicine's missions. This means going beyond "delivering care" to establishing and expanding ongoing, two-way community dialogues that push the envelope of what is possible in service to what is needed. It means appreciating community assets and creating ongoing pathways for listening to and learning from the needs, lived experiences, perspectives, and wisdom of patients, families, and communities. It means working with community-based organizations in true partnership to identify and address needs, and jointly develop, test, and implement solutions. This requires bringing medical care and public/population health concepts together and addressing upstream fundamental causes of health inequities. The authors call on academic medical institutions to do more to build a strong network of collaborators across public and population health, government, community groups, and the private sector. We in academic medicine must hold ourselves accountable for weaving community collaborations consistently throughout research, medical education, and clinical care. The authors recognize the AAMC can do better to support its member institutions in doing so and discuss new initiatives that signify a shift in emphasis through the association's new strategic plan and AAMC Center for Health Justice. The authors believe every area of academic medicine could grow and better serve communities by listening and engaging more and bringing medical care, public health, and other sectors closer together.

The Ethical Imperative of Equity in Oncology: Lessons Learned From 2020 and a Path Forward.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the simultaneous increased focus on structural racism and racial/ethnic disparities across the United States have shed light on glaring inequities in U.S. health care, both in oncology and more generally. In this article, we describe how, through the lens of fundamental ethical principles, an ethical imperative exists for the oncology community to overcome these inequities in cancer care, research, and the oncology workforce. We first explain why this is an ethical imperative, centering the discussion on lessons learned during 2020. We continue by describing ongoing equity-focused efforts by ASCO and other related professional medical organizations. We end with a call to action-all members of the oncology community have an ethical responsibility to take steps to address inequities in their clinical and academic work-and with guidance to practicing oncologists looking to optimize equity in their research and clinical practice.

Ethics of Implementing US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations for Childhood Obesity.

Childhood obesity represents a serious and growing concern for the United States. Its negative consequences for health and well-being can be far-reaching, devastating, and intergenerational. In 2017, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade B recommendation for screening children and adolescents for obesity and offering or referring to comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions as indicated. However, many communities in the United States have limited access to such interventions. The USPSTF's mission is to review and grade research evidence for clinical preventive services and does not include cost or population-based operationalization and implementation logistics considerations for its recommendations. Yet implementing recommendations without considering cost and operationalization may lead to equity and access challenges. These are essential considerations, but oversight of the implementation of these recommendations is not standardized or assigned to any one agency or organization. As such, a central ethical feature inherent to the implementation of USPSTF recommendations calls for stakeholder collaborations to take on the next step beyond the establishment of evidence-based recommendations: to ensure the ethical application of such guidelines across diverse populations. Furthermore, the screening-intervention relationship inherent to this USPSTF recommendation raises ethical concerns regarding US societal norms surrounding obesity, particularly when contrasted against other screening-intervention modalities. More efforts, such as increased incentives or expansion of clinical services in low-resource areas, should be taken to facilitate this recommended intervention by expanding access to childhood obesity interventions to fulfill ethical responsibilities to equity and to ensure the right to open futures for children.

Health Equity and the Circle of Human Concern.

Using the inequality exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic as a vivid example, this article focuses on health equity from the standpoint of structural marginalization-here, described as being marked as an "other" outside of the circle of human concern. This process leads to tension between the principles of liberty and equality and contributes to the creation of systemic disadvantage as manifested in health disparities. Creating an equitable health system must begin with this root understanding and generate greater belonging through the policy process of targeted universalism. Targeted universalism replaces a disparities framework with one in which a universal goal is identified but targeted strategies to meet each population group's needs are employed.

Reflective disequilibrium: a critical evaluation of the complete lives framework for healthcare rationing.

One prominent view in recent literature on resource allocation is Persad, Emanuel and Wertheimer's complete lives framework for the rationing of lifesaving healthcare interventions (CLF). CLF states that we should prioritise the needs of individuals who have had less opportunity to experience the events that characterise a complete life. Persad et al argue that their system is the product of a successful process of reflective equilibrium-a philosophical methodology whereby theories, principles and considered judgements are balanced with each other and revised until we achieve an acceptable coherence between our various beliefs. Yet I argue that many of the principles and intuitions underpinning CLF conflict with each other, and that Persad et al have failed to achieve an acceptable coherence between them. I focus on three tensions in particular: the conflict between the youngest first principle and Persad et al's investment refinement; the conflict between current medical need and a concern for lifetime equality; and the tension between adopting an objective measure of complete lives and accommodating for differences in life narratives.