THCB

Categories

Tag: Kim Bellard

Your Water, or Your Life

By KIM BELLARD

Matthew Holt, publisher of The Health Care Blog, thinks I worry too much about too many things. He’s probably right. But here’s one worry I’d be remiss in not alerting people to: your water supply is not as safe – not nearly as safe – as you probably assume it is.

I’m not talking about the danger of lead pipes. I’m not even talking about the danger of microplastics in your water. I’ve warned about both of those before (and I’m still worried about them). No, I’m worried we’re not taking the danger of cyberattacks against our water systems seriously enough.

A week ago the EPA issued an enforcement alert about cybersecurity vulnerabilities and threats to community drinking water systems. This was a day after EPA head Michael Regan and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan sent a letter to all U.S. governors warning them of “disabling cyberattacks” on water and wastewater systems and urging them to cooperate in safeguarding those infrastructures.

“Drinking water and wastewater systems are an attractive target for cyberattacks because they are a lifeline critical infrastructure sector but often lack the resources and technical capacity to adopt rigorous cybersecurity practices,” the letter warned. It specifically cited known state-sponsored attacks from Iran and China.

The enforcement alert elaborated:

Cyberattacks against CWSs are increasing in frequency and severity across the country. Based on actual incidents we know that a cyberattack on a vulnerable water system may allow an adversary to manipulate operational technology, which could cause significant adverse consequences for both the utility and drinking water consumers. Possible impacts include disrupting the treatment, distribution, and storage of water for the community, damaging pumps and valves, and altering the levels of chemicals to hazardous amounts.

Next Gov/FCW paints a grim picture of how vulnerable our water systems are:

Multiple nation-state adversaries have been able to breach water infrastructure around the country. China has been deploying its extensive and pervasive Volt Typhoon hacking collective, burrowing into vast critical infrastructure segments and positioning along compromised internet routing equipment to stage further attacks, national security officials have previously said.

In November, IRGC-backed cyber operatives broke into industrial water treatment controls and targeted programmable logic controllers made by Israeli firm Unitronics. Most recently, Russia-linked hackers were confirmed to have breached a slew of rural U.S. water systems, at times posing physical safety threats.

We shouldn’t be surprised by these attacks. We’ve come to learn that China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia have highly sophisticated cyber teams, but, when it comes to water systems, it turns out the attacks don’t have to be all that sophisticated. The EPA noted that over 70% of water systems it inspected did not fully comply with security standards, including such basic protections such as not allowing default passwords.

NextGov/FCW pointed out that last October the EPA was forced to rescind requirements that water agencies at least evaluate their cyber defenses, due to legal challenges from several (red) states and the American Water Works Association. Take that in. I’ll bet China, Iran, and others are evaluating them.

“In an ideal world … we would like everybody to have a baseline level of cybersecurity and be able to confirm that they have that,” Alan Roberson, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, told AP. “But that’s a long ways away.”

Tom Kellermann, SVP of Cyber Strategy at Contrast Security told Security Magazine: “The safety of the U.S. water supply is in jeopardy. Rogue nation states are frequently targetingthese critical infrastructures, and soon we will experience a life-threatening event.” That doesn’t sound like a long ways away.

Continue reading…

Getting the Future of Health Care Wrong

By KIM BELLARD

Sure, there’s lots of A.I. hype to talk about (e.g., the AI regulation proposed by Chuck Schumer, or the latest updates from Microsoft, Google, and OpenAI) but a recent column by Wall Street Journal tech writer Christopher Mims – What I Got Wrong in a Decade of Predicting the Future of Tech —  reminded me how easily we get overexcited by such things.   

I did my own mea culpa about my predictions for healthcare a couple of years ago, but since Mr. Mims is both smarter and a better writer than I am, I’ll use his structure and some of his words to try to apply them to healthcare.  

Mr. Mims offers five key learnings:

  1. Disruption is overrated
  2. Human factors are everything
  3. We’re all susceptible to this one kind of tech B.S.
  4. Tech bubbles are useful even when they’re wasteful
  5. We’ve got more power than we think

Let’s take each of these in turn and see how they relate not just to tech but also to healthcare.

Disruption is overrated

“It’s not that disruption never happens,” Mr. Mims clarifies. “It just doesn’t happen nearly as often as we’ve been led to believe.”  Well, no kidding. I’ve been in healthcare for longer than I care to admit, and I’ve lost count of all the “disruptions” we were promised.

The fact of the matter is that healthcare is a huge part of the economy. Trillions of dollars are at stake, not to mention millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of profits. Healthcare is too big to fail, and possibly too big to disrupt in any meaningful way.

If some super genius came along and offered us a simple solution that would radically improve our health but slash more than half of that spending and most of those jobs, I honestly am not sure we’d take the offer. Healthcare likes its disruption in manageable gulps, and disruptors often have their eye more on their share of those trillions than in reducing them.

For better or worse, change in healthcare usually comes in small increments.

Human factors are everything

“But what’s most often holding back mass adoption of a technology is our humanity,” Mr. Mims points out. “The challenge of getting people to change their ways is the reason that adoption of new tech is always much slower than it would be if we were all coldly rational utilitarians bent solely on maximizing our productivity or pleasure.” 

Boy, this hits the healthcare head on the nail. If we all simply ate better, exercised more, slept better, and spent less time on our screens, our health and our healthcare system would be very different. It’s not rocket science, but it is proven science.

But we don’t. We like our short-cuts, we don’t like personal inconvenience, and why skip the Krispy Kreme when we can just take Wegovy? Figure out how to motivate people to take more charge of their health: that’d be disruption.

We’re all susceptible to this one kind of tech B.S.

Mr. Mims believes: “Tech is, to put it bluntly, full of people lying to themselves,” although he is careful to add: “It’s usually not malicious.” That’s true in healthcare as well. I’ve known many healthcare innovators, and almost without exception they are true believers in what they are proposing. The good ones get others to buy into their vision. The great ones actually make some changes, albeit rarely quite as profoundly as hoped.

But just because someone believes something strongly and articulates very well doesn’t mean it’s true. I’d like to see significant changes as much as anyone, and more than most, and I know I’m too often guilty of looking for what Mr. Mims calls “the winning lottery ticket” when it comes to healthcare innovation, even though I know the lottery is a sucker’s bet.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan (!), hope but verify.

Tech bubbles are useful even when they’re wasteful

 Healthcare has its bubbles as well, many but not all of them tech related. How many health start-ups over the last twenty years can you name that did not survive, much less make a mark on the healthcare system? How many billions of investments do they represent?

But, as Mr. Mims recounts Bill Gates once saying, “most startups were “silly” and would go bankrupt, but that the handful of ideas—he specifically said ideas, and not companies—that persist would later prove to be “really important.”’  

The trick, in healthcare as in tech, is separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff, both in terms of what ideas deserve to persist and in which people/organizations can actually make them work. There are good new ideas out there, some of which could be really important.

We’ve got more power than we think

Many of us feel helpless when encountering the healthcare system. It’s too big, too complicated, too impersonal, and too full of specialized knowledge for us to have the kind of agency we might like.

Mr. Mims advice, when it comes to tech is: “Collectively, we have agency over how new tech is developed, released, and used, and we’d be foolish not to use it.” The same is true with healthcare. We can be the patient patients our healthcare system has come to expect, or we can be the assertive ones that it will have to deal with.

I think about people like Dave deBronkart or the late Casey Quinlan when it comes to demanding our own data. I think about Andrea Downing and The Light Collective when it comes to privacy rights. I think about all the biohackers who are not waiting for the healthcare system to catch up on how to apply the latest tech to their health. And I think about all those patient advocates – too numerous to name – who are insisting on respect from the healthcare system and a meaningful role in managing their health.

Yes, we’ve got way more power than we think. Use it.

————

Mr. Mims is humble in admitting that he fell for some people, ideas, gadgets, and services that perhaps he shouldn’t. The key thing he does, though, to use his words, is “paying attention to what’s just over the horizon.” We should all be trying to do that and doing our best to prepare for it.

My horizon is what a 22nd healthcare system could, will and should look like. I’m not willing to settle for what our early 21st century one does. I expect I’ll continue to get a lot wrong but I’m still going to try.

You Bet Your Life

By KIM BELLARD

America is crazy about gambling. Once you had to gamble illegally with a bookie, or go to Atlantic City or Las Vegas; now 45 states – plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands – have state lotteries. Since the Supreme Court struck down PASPA, the federal ban on sports betting, 38 states – plus the D.C. and Puerto Rico – offer legal sports betting. I didn’t think we could get any crazier, until I saw last week that arcade chain Dave & Busters was going to allow betting on some of its games.

Honestly, healthcare may be the only industry upon which you can’t bet, and I’m beginning to think that’s too bad.

Dave & Busters are working with Lucra Sports, a “white-label gamification” technology company. “We’re thrilled to work with Lucra to bring this exciting new gaming platform to our customers,” said Simon Murray, SVP of Entertainment and Attractions at Dave and Buster’s. “This new partnership gives our loyalty members real-time, unrivaled gaming experiences, and reinforces our commitment to continuing to elevate our customer experience through innovative, cutting-edge technology.”

“Friendly competition really is a big fuel for our economy, whether you’re playing golf on Sunday with your buddies, or you’re going to play pickleball or video games or even cornhole at a tailgate. There’s so many ways that you can compete with friends and family, and I think gamifying that and digitizing all this offline stuff that’s happening is a massive opportunity,” Lucra CEO Dylan Robbins told CNN.

The companies are careful not to describe what they’re doing as gambling; they avoid terms like “bet” or “wager.” Michael Madding, Lucra’s chief operating officer, told The New York Times that the focus was on “skills-based” games, such as Skee-Ball or shooting baskets: i.e., “recreational activities for which the outcome is largely or entirely dependent on the knowledge, ability, strength, speed, endurance, intelligence of the participants and is subject to the control of those participants.”

This falls into a category I had never heard of: “social betting.” With social betting, there is no third party setting the odds, and more head-to-head competition with people you know. You’re not betting against the house; you’re challenging your friends. It is estimated by gaming research firm Eilers & Krejcik to be a $6b market, and its proponents argue that it is not subject to licenses & regulations that other gambling does.

Not everyone agrees. Marc Edelman, a law professor and the director of sports ethics at Baruch College in New York, told NYT:

If two people are competing against one another in Skee-Ball, presuming that there is nothing unusual done in the Skee-Ball game and physical skill is actually going to determine the winner, there is no problem. If I am taking a bet on whether someone else will win a Skee-Ball game, or whether someone else will achieve a particular score in Skee-Ball, if I myself am not engaged in a physical competition, that very likely would be seen as gambling.

Brett Abarbanel, executive director of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, International Gaming Institute, went further, telling CNBC: “regardless of the legal classification of the activity as ‘not gambling’ vs. ‘gambling,’ this is an activity in which participants are risking something of value on an outcome that is uncertain. Therefore, there should be consumer protection measures in place for players, particularly when the target audience is skewed toward younger participants.”

Both Illinois and Ohio gambling authorities have already expressed concerns; Illinois State Rep. Daniel Didech, chairman of the Illinois House Gaming Committee,, told CNBC: “It is inappropriate for family-friendly arcades to facilitate unregulated gambling on their premises. These businesses simply do not have the ability to oversee gambling activity in a safe and responsible manner.”

There are also numerous “social sportsbooks,” including Flitt, PrizePicks, and Underdog Fantasy, that are blurring the line between online sports gambling and social betting, between fantasy leagues and plain old gambling. And they do it with users as young as 13 and with little or no state oversight. Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, told The Washington Post: “What a lot of these social gaming — social casinos, social sportsbooks — have found is that the regulators … either don’t feel like they have the jurisdiction or the time or energy to go after every single app that springs up.” 

Whether we like it or not, people are going to bet. “People will place a bet on ‘Will we have rainfall?’, or ‘How much snow will a certain place get?’, or ‘What will be the first day of snowfall?’” sports policy expert John Holden, JD/PhD, associate professor at Oklahoma State University, told Fox 5 NY last year.

So why shouldn’t they bet on health care?

Let’s face it: we all already bet on health care.

Continue reading…

Ready for Robots?

By KIM BELLARD

When I was young, robots were Robby the Robot (Forbidden Planet, etc.), the unnamed robot in Lost in Space, or The Jetsons’ Rosey the Robot. Gen X and Millennials might think instead of the more malevolent Terminators (which, of course, are actually cyborgs). But Gen Z is likely to think of the running, jumping, back-flipping Atlas from Boston Dynamics, whose videos have entertained millions.

Alas, last week Boston Dynamics announced it was discontinuing Atlas. “For almost a decade, Atlas has sparked our imagination, inspired the next generations of roboticists and leapt over technical barriers in the field,” the company said. “Now it’s time for our hydraulic Atlas robot to kick back and relax.”

The key part of that announcement was describing Atlas as “hydraulic,” because the very next day Boston Dynamics announced a new, all-electric Atlas: “Our new electric Atlas platform is here. Supported by decades of visionary robotics innovation and years of practical experience, Boston Dynamics is tackling the next commercial frontier.” Moreover, the company brags: “The electric version of Atlas will be stronger, with a broader range of motion than any of our previous generations.”

The introductory video is astounding:

Boston Dynamics says: “Atlas may resemble a human form factor, but we are equipping the robot to move in the most efficient way possible to complete a task, rather than being constrained by a human range of motion. Atlas will move in ways that exceed human capabilities.”

They’re right about that.

CEO Robert Playter told Evan Ackerman of IEEE Spectrum: “We’re going to launch it as a product, targeting industrial applications, logistics, and places that are much more diverse than where you see Stretch—heavy objects with complex geometry, probably in manufacturing type environments.”

He went on to elaborate:

This is our third product [following Spot and Stretch], and one of the things we’ve learned is that it takes way more than some interesting technology to make a product work. You have to have a real use case, and you have to have real productivity around that use case that a customer cares about. Everybody will buy one robot—we learned that with Spot. But they won’t start by buying fleets, and you don’t have a business until you can sell multiple robots to the same customer. And you don’t get there without all this other stuff—the reliability, the service, the integration.

The company will work with Hyundai (which, ICYMI, owns Boston Dynamics). Mr. Playter says Hyundai “is really excited about this venture; they want to transform their manufacturing and they see Atlas as a big part of that, and so we’re going to get on that soon.”

Continue reading…

Health Care’s Debt Problem

By KIM BELLARD

Among the many things that infuriate me about the U.S. healthcare system, health systems sending their patients to collections – or even suing them – is pretty high on the list (especially when they are “non-profit” and./or faith-based organizations, which we should expect to behave better).

There’s no doubt medical debt in the U.S. is a huge problem. Studies have found that more than 100 million people have medical debt, many of whom don’t think they’ll ever be able to pay it off. Kaiser Family Foundation estimates Americans owe some $220b in medical debt, with 3 million people owing more than $10,000. It’s oft cited that medical debts are the leading cause of bankruptcy, although it’s quite not clear that is actually true.

So you’d think that helping pay off that debt would be a good thing. But it turns out, it’s not that simple.

A new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) by Raymond Kluender, et. alia, found that, whoops, paying off people’s medical debt didn’t improve their credit score or financial distress, made them less likely to pay future medical bills, and didn’t improve their mental health.

“We were disappointed,” said Professor Kluender told Sarah Kliff in The New York Times. “We don’t want to sugarcoat it.”

The researchers worked with R.I.P. Medical Debt, a non-profit that buys up medical debt “at pennies on the dollar,” to identify people with such debt, and then compared people whom R.I.P. Medical Debt had helped versus those it had not. One set of people had hospital debts that were at the point of being sold to a collection agency, and another had debts that had already been sent to collection. And, perhaps to highlight how little we understand our healthcare system, they asked experts in medical debt what their expectations for the experiment were.

Much to everyone’s surprise, having debt paid off made no difference between control and debt-relief groups. I.e.,

  • “We find no average effects of medical debt relief on the financial outcomes in credit bureau data in either of our experiments.
  • We similarly estimate economically small and statistically insignificant effects on other measures of financial distress, credit access, and credit utilization.
  • We find that debt relief causes a statistically significant and economically meaningful reduction in payment of existing medical bills.
  • We estimate statistically insignificant average effects of medical debt relief on measures of mental and physical health, healthcare utilization, and financial wellness, with “opposite-signed” point estimates for the mental health outcomes relative to our prior.”

In short: 

Our findings contrast with evidence on the effects of non-medical debt relief and evidence on the benefits of upstream relief of medical bills through hospital financial assistance programs. Our results are similarly at odds with views of the experts we surveyed, pronouncements by policymakers funding medical debt relief, and self-reported assessments of recipients of medical debt relief. 

Amy Finkelstein, a health economist at the MIT and a co-director of J-PAL North America, a nonprofit group that provided some funding for the study, told Ms. Kliff: “The idea that maybe we could get rid of medical debt, and it wouldn’t cost that much money but it would make a big difference, was appealing. What we learned, unfortunately, is that it doesn’t look like it has much of an impact.”

If only it was that easy.

To be clear, there were three key statistically significant effects:

  • “small improvements in credit access for the subset of persons whose medical debt would have otherwise been reported to the credit bureaus,
  • modest reduction in payments of future medical bills, and
  • worsened mental health outcomes, concentrated among those who had the largest amount of debt relieved and those who received phone calls to raise awareness and salience of the intervention.”

The authors admitted they had not expected the mental health results and had no good explanation, but their “preferred interpretation is that recipients of the cash payments viewed the transfers as insufficient to close the gap between their resources and needs, raising the salience of their financial distress and harming their mental health.”

As Neale Mahoney, an economist at Stanford and a co-author of the study, told Ms. Kliff: “Many of these people have lots of other financial issues. Removing one red flag just doesn’t make them suddenly turn into a good risk, from a lending perspective.”

The authors concluded:

Nonetheless, our results are sobering; they demonstrate no improvements in financial well-being or mental health from medical debt relief, reduced repayment of medical bills, and, if anything, a perverse worsening of mental health. Moreover, other than modest impacts on credit access for those whose medical debt is reported, we are unable to identify ways to target relief to subpopulations who stand to experience meaningful benefits.

On the other hand, Allison Sesso, R.I.P. Medical Debt’s executive director, told Ms. Kliff that study was at odds with what the group had regularly heard from those it had helped. “We’re hearing back from people who are thrilled,” she said.

As statisticians would say, anecdotes are not data.

————-

Removing medical debt seems like a can’t-lose idea. A number of states and local governments have passed programs to pay off medical debt (most working with R.I.P. Medical Debt) and a number of others are considering it.

Last fall the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau initiated rulemaking that would remove medical bills from credit reports. It has also, according to NPR, “penalized medical debt collectors, issued stern warnings to health care providers and lenders that target patients, and published reams of reports on how the health care system is undermining the financial security of Americans.”

Director Chopra admits: “Of course, there are broader things that we would probably want to fix about our health care system, but this is having a direct financial impact on so many Americans.”

If nothing else, the new study should remind us that our health system is best at putting band-aids on problems rather than solving them. The problems we should be addressing include: why are so many charges so high, why aren’t people better protected against them, and why don’t more Americans have enough resources to pay their bills, especially unpredictable ones like from health care services?

I’m glad R.I.P. Medical Debt is doing what it is doing, but let’s not kid ourselves that it is solving the problem.

Kim is a former emarketing exec at a major Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented Tincture.io, and now regular THCB contributor

Microplastics, Major Problem

By KIM BELLARD

It’s been almost four years since I first wrote about microplastics; long story short, they’re everywhere. In the ground, in the oceans (even at the very bottom), in the atmosphere. More to the point, they’re in the air you breathe and in the food you eat. They’re in you, and no one thinks that is a good thing. But we’re only starting to understand the harm they cause.

The Washington Post recently reported:

Scientists have found microplastics — or their tinier cousins, nanoplastics — embedded in the human placenta, in blood, in the heart and in the liver and bowels. In one recent study, microplastics were found in every single one of 62 placentas studied; in another, they were found in every artery studied.

One 2019 study estimated “annual microplastics consumption ranges from 39,000 to 52,000 particles depending on age and sex. These estimates increase to 74,000 and 121,000 when inhalation is considered.” A more recent study estimated that a single liter of bottled water may include 370,000 nanoplastic particles. “It’s sobering at the very least, if not very concerning,” Pankaj Pasricha, MD, MBBS, chair of the department of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, who was not involved with the new research, told Health. 

But we still don’t have a good sense of exactly what harm they cause. “I hate to say it, but we’re still at the beginning,” Phoebe Stapleton,a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Rutgers University, told WaPo.

A new study sheds some light – and it is not good. It found that people with microplastics in their heart were at higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and death. The researchers looked at the carotid plaque from patients who were having it removed and found 60% of them had microplastics and/or nanoplastics. They followed patients for three years to determine the impacts on patients’ health and found higher morbidity/mortality.

“We are reasonably sure that the problem comes from a frailty of the plaque itself,” says Giuseppe Paolisso, a professor of internal medicine and geriatrics at the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli in Naples, Italy, and one of the study’s authors. “We suppose due to the fact that the plaques with microplastics and nanoplastics have a higher degree of inflammation, this kind of plaque can be broken more easily; and once they are broken, they can go into the blood streams.”

“This is pivotal,” Philip Landrigan, an epidemiologist and professor of biology at Boston College, who was not involved in the study, wrote in an accompanying opinion piece. “For so long, people have been saying these things are in our bodies, but we don’t know what they do.” He went on to add: “If they can get into the heart, why not into the brain, the nervous system? What about the impacts on dementia or other chronic neurological diseases?”

Scary stuff.

If that isn’t scary enough, an article last year in PNAS found: “Indeed, it turns out that a host of potentially infectious disease agents can live on microplastics, including parasites, bacteria, fungi, and viruses.” Even worse: “Beyond their potential for direct delivery of infectious agents, there’s also growing evidence that microplastics can alter the conditions for disease transmission. That could mean exacerbating existing threats by fostering resistant pathogens and modifying immune responses to leave hosts more susceptible.”

However much you’re worrying about microplastics, it’s not enough.

Continue reading…

Wait Till Health Care Tries Dynamic Pricing

By KIM BELLARD

Nice try, Wendy’s. During an earnings call last month, President and CEO Kirk Tanner outlined the company’s plan to try a new form of pricing: “Beginning as early as 2025, we will begin testing more enhanced features like dynamic pricing and day-part offerings along with AI-enabled menu changes and suggestive selling.” 

None of the analysts on the call questioned the statement, but the backlash from the public was immediate — and quite negative. As Reuters described it: “the burger chain was scorched on social media sites.”

Less than two weeks later Wendy’s backtracked – err, “clarified” – the statement. “This was misconstrued in some media reports as an intent to raise prices when demand is highest at our restaurants,” a company blog post explained. “We have no plans to do that and would not raise prices when our customers are visiting us most.”

The company was even firmer in an email to CNN: “Wendy’s will not implement surge pricing, which is the practice of raising prices when demand is highest. This was not a change in plans. It was never our plan to raise prices when customers are visiting us the most.”

OK, then. Apology accepted.

At this point it is worth explaining a distinction between dynamic pricing and the more familiar surge pricing. As Omar H. Fares writes in The Conversation: “Although surge pricing and dynamic pricing are often used interchangeably, they have slightly different definitions. Dynamic pricing refers to any pricing model that allows prices to fluctuate, while surge pricing refers to prices that are adjusted upward.”

Uber and other ride sharing services are well known for their surge pricing, whereas airlines’ pricing is more dynamic, figuring out prices by seat by when purchased by who is purchasing, among other factors.

Wendy’s wouldn’t be the first company to use dynamic pricing and it won’t be the last. Drew Patterson, co-founder of restaurant dynamic pricing provider Juicer, told The Wall Street Journal that dozens of restaurant brands used his company’s software. The company’s website doesn’t publicize those brands, of course. Still, he emphasized: “You need to make it clear that prices go up and they go down.” 

Dave & Busters is public about its pricing strategy. “We’re going to have a dynamic pricing model, so we have the right price at the right time to match the peak demand,” Dave & Buster’s CEO Chris Morris said during an investor presentation last year.  On the other hand, Dine Brands (Applebee’s/IHOP) Chief Executive John Peyton said. “We don’t think it’s an appropriate tool to use for our guests at this time.”

The potential revenue benefits are obvious, but there are risks, as Wendy’s quickly found out. Mr. Fares says: “One of the biggest risks associated with dynamic pricing is the potential negative impact on customer perception and trust. If customers feel that prices are unfair or unpredictable, they may lose trust in the brand.”

What Wendy’s tried to announce is not ground-breaking. Catherine Rampell pointed this out in a Washington Post op-ed:

In other words, things will be cheaper when demand is low to draw in more customers when there’s otherwise idle capacity. Lots of restaurants do this, including other burger chains. It’s usually called “happy hour.” Or the “early-bird special.” Non-restaurants do it, too. Think the weekday matinee deals at your local movie theater or cheaper airfares on low-traffic travel days.

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal reported: “An estimated 61% of adults support variable pricing where a restaurant lowers or raises prices based on business, with younger consumers more in favor of the approach than older ones, according to an online survey of 1,000 people by the National Restaurant Association trade group.” 

I wonder what the support would have been if the question had been about healthcare instead of restaurants. 

Continue reading…

We Freeze People, Don’t We?

By KIM BELLARD

Perhaps you’ve heard about the controversial Alabama Supreme Court ruling about in-vitro fertilization (IVF), in which the court declared that frozen embryos were people. The court stated that it has long held that “unborn children are ‘children,’” with Chief Justice Tom Parker – more on him later – opining in a concurring opinion:

Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.

Seriously.

Many people have already weighed in on this decision and its implications, but I couldn’t resist taking some pleasure in seeing “pro-life” advocates tying themselves in knots trying to explain why, when they legislated that life begins at conception, they didn’t mean this kind of conception and that kind of life.

John Oliver was typically on point, noting that the Alabama ruling was “wrong for a whole bunch of reasons. Mainly, if you freeze an embryo it’s fine. If you freeze a person, you have some explaining to do.”

The case in question wasn’t specifically about IVF, nor did the ruling explicitly outlaw it. It was a case about a patient who removed stored embryos and accidentally dropped them, and the couples whose embryos were destroyed wanted to hold that patient liable under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The court said they could. Note, though, that neither the patient nor the clinic was being charged with murder or manslaughter…yet.

Although the Alabama Attorney General has already indicated he won’t prosecute IVF patients or clinicians, the ruling has had a chilling effect on fertility clinics in the states, with The University of Alabama at Birmingham health system and others indicating they were putting a pause on IVF treatments.

Justice Parker has long been known as something of a theocrat; as The New York Times wrote:

Since he was first elected to the nine-member court in 2004, and in his legal career before it, he has shown no reticence about expressing how his Christian beliefs have profoundly shaped his understanding of the law and his approach to it as a lawyer and judge.

His concurring opinion claimed: the state constitution had adopted a “theologically-based view of the sanctity of life.” Alabama is not alone. Kelly Baden, the vice president for public policy at the Guttmacher Institute, told BBC: “We do see that many elected officials and judges alike are often coming at this debate from a highly religious lens.”

Speaker Johnson has said:

The separation of church and state is a misnomer. People misunderstand it. Of course, it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that Jefferson wrote. It’s not in the Constitution. And what he was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church — not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life. It’s exactly the opposite.

And here we are.

Many Republicans are backtracking on the ruling.

Continue reading…

Why Not, Indeed?

By KIM BELLARD

Recently in The Washington Post, author Daniel Pink initiated a series of columns he and WaPo are calling “Why Not?” He believes “American imagination needs an imagination shot.” As he describes the plan for the columns: “In each installment, I’ll offer a single idea — bold, surprising, maybe a bit jarring — for improving our country, our organizations or our lives.”

I love it. I’m all in. I’m a “why not?” guy from way back, particularly when it comes to health care.

Mr. Pink describes three core values (in the interest of space, I’m excerpting his descriptions):

  • Curiosity over certainty. The world is uncertain. Curiosity and intellectual humility are the most effective solvents for unsticking society’s gears.
  • Openness over cynicism: Cynicism is easy but hollow; openness is difficult but rich.
  • Conversation over conversion: The ultimate dream? That you’ll read what I’ve written and say, “Wait, I’ve got an even better idea,” and then share it.

Again, kudos. One might even say “move fast and break things,” but the bloom has come off that particular rose, so one might just say “take chances” or “think different.” Maybe even “dream big.”


Around the same time I saw Mr. Pink’s column I happened to be reading Adam Nagourney’s The Times: How the Newspaper of Record Survived Scandal, Scorn, and the Transformation of Journalism. In the early 1990’s The Times (and the rest of the world) was struggling to figure out if and how the Internet was going to change things. Mr., Nagourney reports how publisher Arthur Sulzberger (Jr) realized the impact would be profound:

One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that ink on wood delivered by trucks is a time consuming and expensive process.

I.e., contrary to what many people at The Times, and many of its readers, thought at the time, the newspaper wasn’t the physical object they were used to; it was the information it delivers. That may seem obvious now but was not at all then.  

Which brings me to health care. Contrary to what many people working in healthcare, and many people getting care from it, might think, healthcare is not doctors, hospitals, prescriptions, and insurance companies. Those are simply the ink on wood delivered by trucks that we’re used to, to use the metaphor.

And it doesn’t take a rocket science to recognize that what we call health care today is a time consuming and expensive process – not to mention often frustrating and ineffective.

Why not do better?

Continue reading…

Zombie Viruses of the Permafrost

By KIM BELLARD

We’ve had some cold weather here lately, as has much of the nation. Not necessarily record-breaking, but uncomfortable for millions of people. It’s the kind of weather that causes climate change skeptics to sneer “where’s the global warming now?” This despite 2023 being the warmest year on record — “by far” — and the fact that the ten warmest years since 1850 have all been in the last decade, according to NOAA.

One of the parts of the globe warming the fastest is the Arctic, which is warming four times as fast as the rest of the planet. That sounds like good news if you run a shipping company looking for shorter routes (or to avoid the troubled Red Sea area), but may be bad news for everyone else.  If you don’t know why, I have two words for you: zombie viruses.

Most people are at least vaguely aware of permafrost, which covers vast portions of Siberia, Alaska, and Canada. Historically, it’s been literally frozen, not just seasonally but for years, decades, centuries, millennia, or even longer. Well, it’s starting to thaw.

Now, maybe its kind of cool that we’re finding bodies of extinct species like the woolly mammoth (which some geniuses want to revive). But also buried in the permafrost are lots of microorganisms, many of which are not, in fact, dead but are in kind of a statis. As geneticist Jean-Michel Claverie of Aix-Marseille University, recently explained to The Observer: “The crucial point about permafrost is that it is cold, dark and lacks oxygen, which is perfect for preserving biological material. You could put a yoghurt in permafrost and it might still be edible 50,000 years later.”

Dr. Claverie and his team first revived such a virus – some 30,000 years old — in 2014 and last year did the same for some that were 48,000 years old. There are believed to be organisms that ae perhaps a million years old, far older than we’ve been around. Scientists prefer to call them Methuselah microbes, although “zombie viruses” is more likely to get people’s attention.

He’s worried about the risks they pose.

Continue reading…
assetto corsa mods