Health and political economy: building a new common sense in the United States.

The prevailing economic paradigm, characterized by free market thinking and individualistic cultural narratives, has deeply influenced contemporary society in recent decades, including health in the United States. This paradigm, far from being natural, is iteratively intertwined with politics, social group stratification, and norms, together shaping what is known as political economy. The consequences are starkly evident in health, with millions of lives prematurely lost annually in the United States. Drawing on economic re-thinking happening in fields like climate and law, we argue for a new "common sense" towards a health-focused political economy. Central to this proposed shift is action in 3 interconnected areas: capital, care, and culture. Re-orienting capital to prioritize longer-term investments, such as in public options for health care and baby bonds, can promote health and affirmatively include historically marginalized groups. Recognizing that caregiving is economically valuable and necessary for health, approaches like local cadres of community health workers across the United States would be part of building robust caregiving infrastructures. Advancing momentum in these directions, in turn, will require displacing dominant cultural narratives. As the health arena pursues change in the face of real obstacles, recent efforts reinvigorating industrial policy and addressing concentrated market power can serve as inspiration.

A Public Option for Clinical Trials? Lessons from Convalescent Plasma.

The case of clinical trials for convalescent plasma during COVID-19 illustrates important lessons for realizing public sector approaches to biomedical research and development. These lessons, centering on mission, transparency, and spillover effects, can be translated to wider efforts to develop a "public option" for clinical trials.

Adoption of methadone take home policy by U.S. state opioid treatment authorities during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients face well documented problems accessing methadone from opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in the U.S., yet addressing these barriers has proven difficult due in part to the sheer number of actors governing treatment, including state authorities. Changes in federal methadone regulations during COVID-19 offer an opportunity to study the timing and extent of U.S. state opioid treatment authority (SOTA) adoption of policies expanding take home dosing for methadone treatment since March 2020. METHODS: We completed a policy scan between February 23 and May 2, 2023 on state adoption and subsequent rescinding of federal regulatory exemptions for expanded take-home dosing. This scan involved three components: a policy survey of SOTAs, a freedom of information act (FOIA) request of SAMHSA, and outreach to members of National Survivors Union (NSU)'s methadone work group. RESULTS: Of the 39 of 50 (78 %) SOTAs that responded, only 2 states (HI and MT) indicated that they never adopted federal exemptions for expanded take-home dosing. Of the 37 adopting states, all adopted the exemptions within the first month after the agency's announcement. Additionally, four SOTAs (OH, IN, FL, MS) indicated that their state subsequently rescinded expanded take-home dosing for methadone. CONCLUSIONS: Among responding states, regulations expanding take-home dosing appear to have been adopted by U.S. SOTAs in a widespread and rapid manner at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but some states have begun to rescind such policies. Our findings suggest that state regulators can rapidly modify OTP regulations in response to federal policy changes. SOTA policies are likely to become critical factors in the adoption of methadone treatment innovations if new federal regulatory flexibilities become permanent.

Resident Outcomes and Perspectives Over 2 Years of a New Scholarship Curriculum.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Scholarship is recognized as a challenge in many family medicine residency programs. Among evaluations of scholarship curricula, few describe resident experiences of such interventions. To bridge this gap in knowledge, we measured resident confidence, satisfaction, and participation before and after implementing a new scholarship curriculum. METHODS: The redesigned curriculum included a structured project timeline, resident research in progress meetings, faculty mentorship, scholarly skills workshops, and mentored journal clubs. We conducted a curriculum evaluation via surveys of residents prior to implementation and after years 1 and 2, measuring satisfaction with the scholarly environment and opportunities, and confidence and participation in specific scholarly activities using Likert scales from 1 (least confidence) to 5. RESULTS: Compared to baseline (n=28), after 2 years (n=27) of the curriculum, residents reported increased mean confidence in critical appraisal of scientific articles (2.6±1.1 to 3.3±0.7, P=.007), carrying out a scholarly project (2.5±0.8 to 3.4±1.0, P=.005), and writing an abstract (3.0±0.8 to 3.8±0.7, P=.002). As compared to the first year, more residents in the second year participated in quality improvement projects (7.1% vs 29.6%, P=.031) and wrote conference abstracts (10.7% vs 37.0%, P=.022). Over the same period, those very satisfied with the scholarly environment increased from 0 (0%) to 8 (29.6%, P=.017). The June 2020 survey identified increased interest in scholarship because of the antiracism movement (51.9%) and COVID-19 pandemic (40.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a redesigned scholarship curriculum was associated with increases in family medicine resident scholarship confidence and satisfaction.