Podcasts about Population health

New Zealand's youth vaping rates are among the highest in the world. How did we get here and what will this mean for the future of our rangatahi? A 2018 court case paved the way for a loose regulatory start for vaping in New Zealand, and rapid uptake by those aged 14–24 in the years since has led to concerns that a new generation is now addicted to nicotine. New Zealand researchers are investigating how vaping affects our lungs, and the harms young people are experiencing in terms of social connections and mental health. Sign up to the Our Changing World monthly newsletter for episode backstories, science analysis and more.Guests:Dr Lucy Hardie, School of Population Health, University of AucklandDr Kelly Burrowes, Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of AucklandMarizeh Aghababaie, Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of AucklandLani Teddy, Department of Public Health, University of OtagoLearn more:Check out the map mentioned in this episode, which, as well as the school data, also includes an investigation into the overlap of vape store density and area-level deprivation. Lucy and her colleagues have recently written a piece for The Conversation about how vape companies are using global social media accounts to skirt marketing regulations.There are currently no dedicated vaping cessation supports, but a clinical trial is being run to investigate developing one.University of Otago's Professor Janet Hoek spoke to Nine to Noon about the new vaping laws that came into effect in June 2025.References:…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Today's guest is Dr. Abby Armwood, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Population Health and Pathobiology at North Carolina State University, College of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. Armwood sat down with us at the 2024 ACVP/ASVCP Annual Meeting in Seattle, WA, to tell us more about the ACVP Student Engagement Committee (SEC) and their commitment to creating fun and educational events. Hear more about Patheletes, kicking off at the 2025 Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA, and the veterinary student mentoring program. Dr. Armwood also discusses the Pathology Training Committee and its role in enhancing the quality of pathology training programs. And, we hear about her journey in pathology–from an interest in becoming an aquatic veterinarian to expertise in all things aquatic pathology! Grab a snack and join us for a conversation with Dr. Abby Armwood.     If you want to connect with the ACVP SEC, you can find them:  Facebook - ACVP Veterinary Student Engagement Committee ___ More Information on: 2025 ACVP Annual Meeting in NOLA Maintenance of Certification More Information on the ACVP Training Program Accreditation AQUAVET(R) - Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine ACVP Errors in Publications Portal ___ ACVP Social Media Facebook - ACVP Meetings and Topics Instagram - americancollegevetpath X (Twitter) - @ACVP LinkedIn - AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY PATHOLOGISTS  ____ Thank you to Dr. Andrea Kerr, of the MCC Podcast Subcommittee, for editing this episode. Music: Guestlist by Podington Bear, licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 International License.  The contents of this audio do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists (ACVP) or the participants' affiliations. Spoken audio content and associated photos are the property of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists, 2025. 

Join us for a discussion from pharmacy and leadership perspectives about population health end of year efforts to meet quality measures. The information presented during the podcast reflects solely the opinions of the presenter. The information and materials are not, and are not intended as, a comprehensive source of drug information on this topic. The contents of the podcast have not been reviewed by ASHP, and should neither be interpreted as the official policies of ASHP, nor an endorsement of any product(s), nor should they be considered as a substitute for the professional judgment of the pharmacist or physician.

Ali Maffey, Vice President of Social and Behavioral Health at ASTHO, explains how ASTHO's new legal map assists with suicide prevention infrastructure; Noell Stone, Practicum and Capstone Director at the University of New Mexico's College of Population Health, shares why two of New Mexico's universities developed a unified framework for applied public health training; ASTHO is now accepting applications for its DELPH program; ASTHO member Dr. Brooke Cunningham of Minnesota and ASTHO alumni Dr. Nilesh Kalyanaraman of Maryland and Paula Nickelson of Missouri were announced as new board members of the Public Health Accreditation Board; and a new ASTHO blog article describes a recent assessment of public health data aimed at better understanding the health needs of people with disabilities.  ASTHO Web Page: New ASTHO Legal Map Illuminates State and Territorial Suicide Prevention Infrastructure ASTHO Webinar: State and Territorial Infrastructure for Suicide Prevention: Exploring New Legal Maps University of New Mexico: New Mexico Universities Join Forces to Bolster Public Health Training ASTHO Leadership Development Public Health Accreditation Board: PHAB Announces 2025-26 Board of Directors ASTHO Blog: Designing With, Not For: Stakeholder-Centered Approaches to Disability Health Data  

Scott Rosen is a registered nurse with eleven years of experience, including the last nine years as a staff nurse in an emergency department. He also works as a nursing supervisor in home care. Scott is pursuing a Master of Science in Nursing with a concentration in Population Health. Scott also owns True Emergency Education, where he provides CPR, first aid, and advanced-level courses, as well as deliver public speeches on various health and safety topics.https://www.seniorcareauthorit...

A number of experts have raised concerns recently regarding the “way too friendly” relationship between alcohol industry lobbyists and policy makers responsible for alcohol restrictions and laws in New Zealand. While we have had an alcohol harm-reduction levy in place for over forty years, some experts including University of Auckland School of Population Health Professor Peter Adams, believe that this levy isn't as positive as it seems. As alcohol lobbyists have been granted input and influence in the development of alcohol policies, Adams says that the levy is actually a smokescreen that allows the industry to profit from alcohol consumption without tangibly addressing its harms to the population. On Monday, Producer Sam spoke with Professor Peter Adams about this topic. 

This week on the Thursday Wire: For our weekly catch-up with the Labour Party, News and Editorial Director, Joel, spoke to MP Shanon Halbert about the re-establishment on TEN polytechnics that were previously merged under Te Pūkenga, and Te Pāti Māori members accusing the party of being ‘greedy' for running MP Peeni Henare in the upcoming Tāmaki Makaurau by-election. For this week's City Counselling, Producer Sara spoke with Councillor Julie Fairey about her recent biking accident and her hopes for road safety in Auckland, as well as the recently released State of the City report. For International Desk, Wire Host Caeden spoke to Natasha Lindstaedt from the University of Essex on the backslide of democracy in Georgia, particularly due to Russian influence, and the public response. Joel spoke to Tom Wilkinson, a PhD Candidate in History at the University of Auckland, about Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, nominating US President, Donald Trump, for a Nobel Peace Prize. And on Monday, Producer Sam spoke to Peter Adams, a Professor in the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland, about the government's alcohol levy, in light of recent lobbying by the alcohol industry. Whakarongo mai!

The iconic Grade I listed greenhouses at the Royal Botanic Gardens of Kew will experience a major renovation.The world-famous Palm House and Waterlily House date back to around 1848, and haven't been touched for over forty years.To hear more about the reasons behind the £60 million renovation project, and the innovative approaches to make these iconic greenhouses net zero, we spoke to Reuben Briggs, Head of Estate Projects at Kew.‘It's a really aggressive environment. The iron is starting to corrode. Some of the glass is coming loose, and we're getting lots of heat escaping.'Virtual eye clinics in shopping centres could significantly reduce waiting times, as well as support government policies ‘for a future ready NHS'.That's according to Siyabonga Ndwandwe from UCL's Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, who joined us to discuss their latest study in more detail.According to the Association of Optometrists, during the pandemic, waits for NHS eye appointments rose sharply, resulting in a backlog.Also in this episode:-Cyberpunk 2077 is launching for Mac on July 17th-Yoga, tai chi, walking and jogging could be some of the best ways to tackle insomnia-Why the influencer behind Sylvanian Drama TikTok is getting sued Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A number of experts have raised concerns recently regarding the “way too friendly” relationship between alcohol industry lobbyists and policy makers responsible for alcohol restrictions and laws in New Zealand. While we have had an alcohol harm-reduction levy in place for over forty years, some experts including University of Auckland School of Population Health Professor Peter Adams, believe that this levy isn't as positive as it seems. As alcohol lobbyists have been granted input and influence in the development of alcohol policies, Adams says that the levy is actually a smokescreen that allows the industry to profit from alcohol consumption without tangibly addressing its harms to the population. On Monday, Producer Sam spoke with Professor Peter Adams about this topic. 

This week on the Thursday Wire: For our weekly catch-up with the Labour Party, News and Editorial Director, Joel, spoke to MP Shanon Halbert about the re-establishment on TEN polytechnics that were previously merged under Te Pūkenga, and Te Pāti Māori members accusing the party of being ‘greedy' for running MP Peeni Henare in the upcoming Tāmaki Makaurau by-election. For this week's City Counselling, Producer Sara spoke with Councillor Julie Fairey about her recent biking accident and her hopes for road safety in Auckland, as well as the recently released State of the City report. For International Desk, Wire Host Caeden spoke to Natasha Lindstaedt from the University of Essex on the backslide of democracy in Georgia, particularly due to Russian influence, and the public response. Joel spoke to Tom Wilkinson, a PhD Candidate in History at the University of Auckland, about Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, nominating US President, Donald Trump, for a Nobel Peace Prize. And on Monday, Producer Sam spoke to Peter Adams, a Professor in the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland, about the government's alcohol levy, in light of recent lobbying by the alcohol industry. Whakarongo mai!

Ghana's twentieth century was one of dramatic political, economic, and environmental change. Sparked initially by the impositions of colonial rule, these transformations had significant, if rarely uniform, repercussions for the determinants of good and bad nutrition. All across this new and uneven polity, food production, domestic reproduction, gender relations, and food cultures underwent radical and rapid change. This volatile national history was matched only by the scientific instability of nutritional medicine during these same years. Moving between the dry Northern savannah, the mineral-rich and food-secure Southern rainforest, and the youthful, ever-expanding cities, John Nott's Between Feast and Famine: Food, Health, and the History of Ghana's Long Twentieth-Century (UCL Press, 2025) is a comparative history of nutrition in Ghana since the end of the nineteenth century. At the heart of this story is an analysis of how an uneven capitalist transformation variously affected the lives of women and children. It traces the change from sporadic periods of hunger in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, through epidemics of childhood malnutrition during the twentieth century, and into emergent epidemics of diet-related non-communicable disease in the twenty-first century. Employing a novel, critical approach to historical epidemiology, Nott argues that detailing the co-production of science and its subjects in the past is essential for understanding and improving health in the present. John Nott is a Research Fellow in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies at the University of Edinburgh. His research interests sit primarily across the history of medicine and economic history, with a particular focus on colonial and postcolonial contexts. He also has complementary interests in medical anthropology and STS, and is currently a Research Fellow on Lukas Engelmann's ERC-funded project, "The Epidemiological Revolution: A History of Epidemiological Reasoning in the Twentieth Century." Amongst other things, he is working on a monograph detailing the economic and medical history of surveillance in Anglophone Africa. Dr. Nott is also the Principal Investigator of a collaborative British Academy-funded project, "Population Health in Practice: Towards a Comparative Historical Ethnography of the Demographic Health Survey," which explores the history and contemporary production of epidemiological and demographic data in Ghana, Tanzania, and Malawi. Dr. Nott was trained at the University of Leeds, where his PhD focused on the history of nutrition and nutritional medicine in Ghana since the end of the nineteenth century. Immediately before coming to Edinburgh, he was a fellow at the Merian Institute for Advanced Studies in Africa (MIASA) at the University of Ghana. Before this, Dr. Nott was based at Maastricht University as a Research Fellow on Anna Harris' ERC-funded project, “Making Clinical Sense: a Historical-Ethnographic Study of the Technologies Used in Medical Education. The edited collection, “Making Sense of Medicine: Material Culture and the Reproduction of Medical Knowledge,” recently won the Amsterdamska Award by the European Association for the Study of Science & Technology (EASST). You can learn more about his work here. Afua Baafi Quarshie is a Ph.D. candidate in history at the Johns Hopkins University. Her research focuses on mothering and childhood in post-independence Ghana. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In this episode of Value-Based Care Insights, host Daniel Marino explores the evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI) in population health. As AI continues to dominate industry conversations and drive vendor offerings, healthcare leaders are faced with questions: What is real, what is hype, and where does the value lie? Dr. David Nash, Founding Dean Emeritus of Jefferson College of Population Health and a nationally recognized thought leader in value-based care and population health, join the conversation. Additionally, Rick Howard, a seasoned Chief Data Officer and AI Strategist contributes to the conversation with his deep expertise in driving data-driven innovation across healthcare organizations. Together, they break down common misconceptions, highlight the most promising AI applications in care delivery, and offer practical insights into how health systems, providers, and payers can responsibly integrate AI to drive meaningful outcomes and return on investment (ROI).

Ghana's twentieth century was one of dramatic political, economic, and environmental change. Sparked initially by the impositions of colonial rule, these transformations had significant, if rarely uniform, repercussions for the determinants of good and bad nutrition. All across this new and uneven polity, food production, domestic reproduction, gender relations, and food cultures underwent radical and rapid change. This volatile national history was matched only by the scientific instability of nutritional medicine during these same years. Moving between the dry Northern savannah, the mineral-rich and food-secure Southern rainforest, and the youthful, ever-expanding cities, John Nott's Between Feast and Famine: Food, Health, and the History of Ghana's Long Twentieth-Century (UCL Press, 2025) is a comparative history of nutrition in Ghana since the end of the nineteenth century. At the heart of this story is an analysis of how an uneven capitalist transformation variously affected the lives of women and children. It traces the change from sporadic periods of hunger in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, through epidemics of childhood malnutrition during the twentieth century, and into emergent epidemics of diet-related non-communicable disease in the twenty-first century. Employing a novel, critical approach to historical epidemiology, Nott argues that detailing the co-production of science and its subjects in the past is essential for understanding and improving health in the present. John Nott is a Research Fellow in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies at the University of Edinburgh. His research interests sit primarily across the history of medicine and economic history, with a particular focus on colonial and postcolonial contexts. He also has complementary interests in medical anthropology and STS, and is currently a Research Fellow on Lukas Engelmann's ERC-funded project, "The Epidemiological Revolution: A History of Epidemiological Reasoning in the Twentieth Century." Amongst other things, he is working on a monograph detailing the economic and medical history of surveillance in Anglophone Africa. Dr. Nott is also the Principal Investigator of a collaborative British Academy-funded project, "Population Health in Practice: Towards a Comparative Historical Ethnography of the Demographic Health Survey," which explores the history and contemporary production of epidemiological and demographic data in Ghana, Tanzania, and Malawi. Dr. Nott was trained at the University of Leeds, where his PhD focused on the history of nutrition and nutritional medicine in Ghana since the end of the nineteenth century. Immediately before coming to Edinburgh, he was a fellow at the Merian Institute for Advanced Studies in Africa (MIASA) at the University of Ghana. Before this, Dr. Nott was based at Maastricht University as a Research Fellow on Anna Harris' ERC-funded project, “Making Clinical Sense: a Historical-Ethnographic Study of the Technologies Used in Medical Education. The edited collection, “Making Sense of Medicine: Material Culture and the Reproduction of Medical Knowledge,” recently won the Amsterdamska Award by the European Association for the Study of Science & Technology (EASST). You can learn more about his work here. Afua Baafi Quarshie is a Ph.D. candidate in history at the Johns Hopkins University. Her research focuses on mothering and childhood in post-independence Ghana. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-studies

Ghana's twentieth century was one of dramatic political, economic, and environmental change. Sparked initially by the impositions of colonial rule, these transformations had significant, if rarely uniform, repercussions for the determinants of good and bad nutrition. All across this new and uneven polity, food production, domestic reproduction, gender relations, and food cultures underwent radical and rapid change. This volatile national history was matched only by the scientific instability of nutritional medicine during these same years. Moving between the dry Northern savannah, the mineral-rich and food-secure Southern rainforest, and the youthful, ever-expanding cities, John Nott's Between Feast and Famine: Food, Health, and the History of Ghana's Long Twentieth-Century (UCL Press, 2025) is a comparative history of nutrition in Ghana since the end of the nineteenth century. At the heart of this story is an analysis of how an uneven capitalist transformation variously affected the lives of women and children. It traces the change from sporadic periods of hunger in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, through epidemics of childhood malnutrition during the twentieth century, and into emergent epidemics of diet-related non-communicable disease in the twenty-first century. Employing a novel, critical approach to historical epidemiology, Nott argues that detailing the co-production of science and its subjects in the past is essential for understanding and improving health in the present. John Nott is a Research Fellow in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies at the University of Edinburgh. His research interests sit primarily across the history of medicine and economic history, with a particular focus on colonial and postcolonial contexts. He also has complementary interests in medical anthropology and STS, and is currently a Research Fellow on Lukas Engelmann's ERC-funded project, "The Epidemiological Revolution: A History of Epidemiological Reasoning in the Twentieth Century." Amongst other things, he is working on a monograph detailing the economic and medical history of surveillance in Anglophone Africa. Dr. Nott is also the Principal Investigator of a collaborative British Academy-funded project, "Population Health in Practice: Towards a Comparative Historical Ethnography of the Demographic Health Survey," which explores the history and contemporary production of epidemiological and demographic data in Ghana, Tanzania, and Malawi. Dr. Nott was trained at the University of Leeds, where his PhD focused on the history of nutrition and nutritional medicine in Ghana since the end of the nineteenth century. Immediately before coming to Edinburgh, he was a fellow at the Merian Institute for Advanced Studies in Africa (MIASA) at the University of Ghana. Before this, Dr. Nott was based at Maastricht University as a Research Fellow on Anna Harris' ERC-funded project, “Making Clinical Sense: a Historical-Ethnographic Study of the Technologies Used in Medical Education. The edited collection, “Making Sense of Medicine: Material Culture and the Reproduction of Medical Knowledge,” recently won the Amsterdamska Award by the European Association for the Study of Science & Technology (EASST). You can learn more about his work here. Afua Baafi Quarshie is a Ph.D. candidate in history at the Johns Hopkins University. Her research focuses on mothering and childhood in post-independence Ghana. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/food

Ghana's twentieth century was one of dramatic political, economic, and environmental change. Sparked initially by the impositions of colonial rule, these transformations had significant, if rarely uniform, repercussions for the determinants of good and bad nutrition. All across this new and uneven polity, food production, domestic reproduction, gender relations, and food cultures underwent radical and rapid change. This volatile national history was matched only by the scientific instability of nutritional medicine during these same years. Moving between the dry Northern savannah, the mineral-rich and food-secure Southern rainforest, and the youthful, ever-expanding cities, John Nott's Between Feast and Famine: Food, Health, and the History of Ghana's Long Twentieth-Century (UCL Press, 2025) is a comparative history of nutrition in Ghana since the end of the nineteenth century. At the heart of this story is an analysis of how an uneven capitalist transformation variously affected the lives of women and children. It traces the change from sporadic periods of hunger in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, through epidemics of childhood malnutrition during the twentieth century, and into emergent epidemics of diet-related non-communicable disease in the twenty-first century. Employing a novel, critical approach to historical epidemiology, Nott argues that detailing the co-production of science and its subjects in the past is essential for understanding and improving health in the present. John Nott is a Research Fellow in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies at the University of Edinburgh. His research interests sit primarily across the history of medicine and economic history, with a particular focus on colonial and postcolonial contexts. He also has complementary interests in medical anthropology and STS, and is currently a Research Fellow on Lukas Engelmann's ERC-funded project, "The Epidemiological Revolution: A History of Epidemiological Reasoning in the Twentieth Century." Amongst other things, he is working on a monograph detailing the economic and medical history of surveillance in Anglophone Africa. Dr. Nott is also the Principal Investigator of a collaborative British Academy-funded project, "Population Health in Practice: Towards a Comparative Historical Ethnography of the Demographic Health Survey," which explores the history and contemporary production of epidemiological and demographic data in Ghana, Tanzania, and Malawi. Dr. Nott was trained at the University of Leeds, where his PhD focused on the history of nutrition and nutritional medicine in Ghana since the end of the nineteenth century. Immediately before coming to Edinburgh, he was a fellow at the Merian Institute for Advanced Studies in Africa (MIASA) at the University of Ghana. Before this, Dr. Nott was based at Maastricht University as a Research Fellow on Anna Harris' ERC-funded project, “Making Clinical Sense: a Historical-Ethnographic Study of the Technologies Used in Medical Education. The edited collection, “Making Sense of Medicine: Material Culture and the Reproduction of Medical Knowledge,” recently won the Amsterdamska Award by the European Association for the Study of Science & Technology (EASST). You can learn more about his work here. Afua Baafi Quarshie is a Ph.D. candidate in history at the Johns Hopkins University. Her research focuses on mothering and childhood in post-independence Ghana. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode Dan explores the evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI) in population health. As AI continues to dominate industry conversations and drive vendor offerings, healthcare leaders are faced with questions: What is real, what is hype, and where does the value lie? Dr. David Nash, Founding Dean Emeritus of Jefferson College of Population Health and a nationally recognized thought leader in value-based care and population health, join the conversation. Additionally, Rick Howard, a seasoned Chief Data Officer and AI Strategist contributes to the conversation with his deep expertise in driving data-driven innovation across healthcare organizations. Together, they break down common misconceptions, highlight the most promising AI applications in care delivery, and offer practical insights into how health systems, providers, and payers can responsibly integrate AI to drive meaningful outcomes and return on investment (ROI). To stream our Station live 24/7 visit www.HealthcareNOWRadio.com or ask your Smart Device to “….Play Healthcare NOW Radio”. Find all of our network podcasts on your favorite podcast platforms and be sure to subscribe and like us. Learn more at www.healthcarenowradio.com/listen

In this episode, Tracy D. Chu, Corporate VP of Population Health and Chief Executive of the ACO at Scripps Health, shares how integrated leadership across operations and strategy enables better execution in ambulatory care and value-based models. She discusses managing capacity, recognizing early warning signs in teams, and the importance of intentional leadership in supporting high-performing healthcare organizations.

07/06/25The Healthy Matters PodcastS04_E19 - Hunger, Health, and Hope: Tackling Food InsecurityWith Special Guests:  Dr. Dianna Cutts, MD, and Amy HarrisIt's pretty hard to concentrate, work, or pretty much do anything while you're hungry.  And while, for many of us, hunger is a passing moment, there are far too many children and adults living with this as a daily reality.  Food insecurity extends well beyond the physical effects of being hungry.  It can be a major stressor on the daily lives of kids in school, their parents, and our society as a whole.  Hunger, the world over, is a critical issue, and in our first-world, modern American society, this definitely merits a deeper look.On this episode of our show, we'll dig into the complexities of it with the help of two special guests from Hennepin Healthcare. Dr. Diana Cutts is the Chair of Pediatrics and a nationally recognized leader on the subject, and Amy Harris is the Population Health Program Director and a champion of building healthier communities.  We'll go over everything from the impacts food insecurity has on both children and parents, and how those effects play out in our society as a whole.  We'll also talk about the stress it causes on families, the importance of bringing it to the fore in a clinical setting, and what can be done to help at an individual, community, state, and even national level.  Food and nutrition are essential for human survival, so it's safe to say food security is essential for the survival of our society.  We hope you'll join us.We're open to your comments or ideas for future shows!Email - healthymatters@hcmed.orgCall - 612-873-TALK (8255)Here are some links to organizations that make a difference if you want to see how you can help:Feeding America: MNSecond Harvest HeartlandHennepin Healthcare FoundationGet a preview of upcoming shows on social media and find out more about our show at www.healthymatters.org.

Dr. Andres Cardenas, from the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at Stanford University, joins host Dr. Evgeniy Galimov to discuss a research paper he co-authored in Volume 17, Issue 2 of Aging (Aging-US), titled “Exposome-wide association study of environmental chemical exposures and epigenetic aging in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.” DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.206201 Corresponding author - Andres Cardenas - andresca@stanford.edu Video interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1I6qoVwkfM Longevity & Aging Series - https://www.aging-us.com/longevity Abstract Epigenetic clocks can serve as pivotal biomarkers linking environmental exposures with biological aging. However, research on the influence of environmental exposures on epigenetic aging has largely been limited to a small number of chemicals and specific populations. We harnessed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 cycles to examine exposome-wide associations between environmental exposures and epigenetic aging. A total of 8 epigenetic aging biomarkers were obtained from whole blood in 2,346 participants ranging from 50-84 years of age. A total of 64 environmental exposures including phthalates, metals, pesticides, dioxins, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were measured in blood and urine. Associations between log2-transformed/standardized exposure measures and epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) were assessed using survey-weighted generalized linear regression. A 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in log2 serum cadmium levels was associated with higher GrimAge acceleration (beta = 1.23 years, p = 3.63e-06), higher GrimAge2 acceleration (beta = 1.27 years, p = 1.62e-05), and higher DunedinPoAm (beta = 0.02, p = 2.34e-05). A 1 SD increase in log2 serum cotinine levels was associated with higher GrimAge2 acceleration (beta = 1.40 years, p = 6.53e-04) and higher DunedinPoAm (beta = 0.03, p = 6.31e-04). Associations between cadmium and EAA across several clocks persisted in sensitivity models adjusted for serum cotinine levels, and other associations involving lead, dioxins, and PCBs were identified. Several environmental exposures are associated with epigenetic aging in a nationally representative US adult population, with particularly strong associations related to cadmium and cotinine across several epigenetic clocks. Sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article - https://aging.altmetric.com/details/email_updates?id=10.18632%2Faging.206201 Subscribe for free publication alerts from Aging - https://www.aging-us.com/subscribe-to-toc-alerts Keywords - aging, epigenetic aging, environmental exposures, exposome, epigenetics Please visit our website at https://www.Aging-US.com​​ and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/AgingUS/ X - https://twitter.com/AgingJrnl Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/agingjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@AgingJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/aging/ Bluesky - https://bsky.app/profile/aging-us.bsky.social Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/AgingUS/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/1X4HQQgegjReaf6Mozn6Mc MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

LEXINGTON, Ky. (June 26, 2025) – When we think about children's health, we often picture check-ups, vaccinations, and the day-to-day care families receive from their pediatricians. But in Kentucky, the conversation goes much deeper. From rural access to care, to systemic poverty, to the lingering effects of the opioid epidemic, children across the Commonwealth face challenges that begin long before they step into a doctor's office. At the same time, Kentucky Children's Hospital and the University of Kentucky are stepping up with bold strategies aimed not just at treating illness, but at building healthier communities—starting from the ground up. Through statewide partnerships, data-driven interventions, and a renewed focus on population health, leaders are rethinking what pediatric care can and should be. On this episode of Behind the Blue, we speak with Dr. Scottie Day, Chair of the Department of Pediatrics and Physician-in-Chief of Kentucky Children's Hospital, and Dr. Bethany Hodge, Vice Chair for Population Health and Strategy in the Department of Pediatrics. They discuss the evolving needs of Kentucky's youngest patients, the launch of the KCH Affiliate Network, and how a commitment to upstream care and community collaboration is shaping the future of children's health across the state. ‘Behind the Blue' is available via a variety of podcast providers, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Subscribe to receive new episodes each week, featuring UK's latest medical breakthroughs, research, artists, writers and the most important news impacting the university. Behind the Blue is a joint production of the University of Kentucky and UK HealthCare. Transcripts for this or other episodes of Behind the Blue can be downloaded from the show's blog page.  To discover how the University of Kentucky is advancing our Commonwealth, click here.

In this episode of Quality Matters, Jules Reich, NCQA Senior Health Care Analyst in Population Health, and Grace Glennon, NCQA Director of Digital Quality Informatics, join host Andy Reynolds to discuss the latest tool in the long crusade against tobacco use: NCQA's new HEDIS measure, Tobacco Use Screening and Cessation Intervention (TSC-E).This measure replaces an outdated survey-based approach. It also facilitates the transition to digital measurement by using the Electronic Clinical Data Systems (ECDS) reporting method to capture, track and help health plans act on data better and faster.Listen to this episode to discover:·        Why It's Time to Modernize Tobacco Measures. Learn why NCQA replaced its legacy tobacco survey measure, and how TSC-E aligns with updated clinical guidelines and evidence-based interventions.·        The Full Scope of Tobacco Use. Understand how the new measure covers a wide range of nicotine delivery systems—from cigarettes and vapes, to hookahs and dissolvable gels. Also learn why NCQA counts vaping in the measure of tobacco use, but not in the measure of tobacco cessation.·        The Power of Structured Data in Quality Improvement. Discover how the ECDS reporting method promotes standardized, sharable data across health systems, and why that shift supports more actionable insights, better patient care and data interoperability.This conversation is key for quality leaders, digital health pioneers and public health champions who are interested in the modernization of quality measurement, advancing data standards and helping providers reduce tobacco use in the populations they serve.Key Quote:“ Most people would recognize cigarettes, pipes, cigars, maybe chewing tobacco. A lot of people have seen e-cigarettes and vaping devices out and about.But there's also hookers and water pipes. There's cigarillos, small cigars. There's snuff, there's dissolvable gels, orbs. There's a lot of products to list.This measure was developed with all of that in mind. We hope to institute a measure that recognizes the complexity of that, and that providers in different cultural contexts, different regions are able to use the same way.”Jules Reich Time Stamps:(03:08) The Relationship Between Tobacco Screening and Cessation(06:32) Who's Included: Ages 12 to 98 and Beyond(09:10) What's Included: Vapes? It Depends.(11:30) The Difference ECDS Reporting Makes(15:24) The Future: From ECDS to Digital Quality MeasuresDive Deeper:NCQA's Tobacco Cessation HEDIS MeasureConnect with Jules ReichConnect with Grace Glennon

For too long, the narrative around men's health has been one of silence, denial, and “toughing it out.” That needs to change. Basketball legend Alonzo Mourning and Dr. Jonathan Fialkow, cardiologist and Chief Medical Executive of Population Health, Value and Primary Care for Baptist Health, break that silence with an honest, emotional, and empowering discussion about early detection, lifestyle changes, and the mindset it takes to fight back. Mourning shares his personal battles with kidney disease and prostate cancer, and why showing up for your health is the ultimate act of strength, not weakness. The session also features powerful audience Q&A moments that highlight real-life struggles, stories, and support. Listen now to hear life-saving insights and help change the way we talk about men's health — for good.Host:Jonathan Fialkow, M.D., Cardiologist, Chief Medical Executive of Population Health, Value and Primary Care at Baptist HealthGuest:Alonzo Mourning, Professional Basketball Hall of Famer and Community Activist

As hospitals and health systems continue to evolve in value-based care, optimizing the post-acute recovery process has become a top priority. In this episode of Value-Based Care Insights, Diane Shifley, Assistant Vice President of Population Health and Post-Acute Services at a major Chicago health system joins us to discuss how robust transitions-in-care programs can drive better patient outcomes. She shares insights on the critical role of early patient evaluation—whether at hospital admission or pre-surgery—in shaping effective transitions. We explore how transitional care models that include post-acute facilities and home care can reduce readmission rates, improve patient satisfaction, and control post-acute costs. This episode offers actionable strategies to strengthen your transitions-in-care to support patients through successful recovery.

As hospitals and health systems continue to evolve in value-based care, optimizing the post-acute recovery process has become a top priority. On this episode Dan is joined by Diane Shifley, Assistant Vice President of Population Health and Post-Acute Services at a major Chicago health system to discuss how robust transitions-in-care programs can drive better patient outcomes. She shares insights on the critical role of early patient evaluation—whether at hospital admission or pre-surgery—in shaping effective transitions. They explore how transitional care models that include post-acute facilities and home care can reduce readmission rates, improve patient satisfaction, and control post-acute costs. This episode offers actionable strategies to strengthen your transitions-in-care to support patients through successful recovery. To stream our Station live 24/7 visit www.HealthcareNOWRadio.com or ask your Smart Device to “….Play Healthcare NOW Radio”. Find all of our network podcasts on your favorite podcast platforms and be sure to subscribe and like us. Learn more at www.healthcarenowradio.com/listen

In this episode of the NASP Podcast, Sheila Arquette, President & CEO  of NASP, speaks with Dr Andrew Lindsley, US Medical Director at  Amgen and Dr Ash Davé, Director, Medical Value and Population  Health at Amgen, to discuss TEZSPIRE® (tezepelumab-ekko). 

Today's episode of the Faculty Factory Podcast explores strategies for embracing a new career challenge or retirement itself. This broadcast features a recording from a recent lecture led by Faculty Factory Podcast host Kimberly Skarupski, PhD, MPH. Dr. Skarupski is Associate Vice Provost, Leadership Development, in the Office of Faculty Affairs with UTMB Health in Galveston, Texas. She is a tenured Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatrics in the John Sealy School of Medicine and in the Department of Epidemiology in the School of Public and Population Health. If you'd like to see the slides from the lecture that this podcast is based on, you can access them here. More Faculty Factory Resources: https://facultyfactory.org/ 

CUNY recently lost federal funding for more than 70 research grants. Denis Nash, professor of epidemiology at the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy and executive director of CUNY's Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health, talks about the funding he recently lost on research related to COVID vaccine uptake, plus comments on the changes coming to how the COVID vaccine is rolled out for the next season.

New York City's CUNY system  recently lost federal funding for more than 70 research grants.On Today's Show:Denis Nash, professor of epidemiology at the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy and executive director of CUNY's Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health, talks about the funding he recently lost on research related to COVID vaccine uptake, plus comments on the changes coming to how the COVID vaccine is rolled out for the next season.

JCO PO author Dr. Dean A. Regier at the Academy of Translational Medicine, University of British Columbia (UBC), and the School of Population and Public Health, BC Cancer Research Institute shares insights into his JCO PO article, “Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Melanoma: A Population-Level Real-World Target Trial Emulation.” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Regier discuss the real-world clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multigene panels compared with single-gene BRAF testing to guide therapeutic decisions in advanced melanoma. Transcript Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Podcast Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center in the University of Oklahoma. Today, we are excited to be joined by Dr. Dean A. Regier, Director at the Academy of Translational Medicine, Associate Professor at the School of Population and Public Health, UBC Senior Scientist at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, and also the senior author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Melanoma: A Population-Level Real-World Target Trial Emulation." At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dean, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Dean Regier:Thank you. I'm delighted to be here. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:So, obviously, you are from Canada, and medicine, or approvals of drugs to some extent, and in fact approvals of gene testing to some extent is slightly different, which we'll come to learn about more today, compared to what we do in the US—and in fact, similarly, Europe versus North America to a large extent as well. Most of the time, we end up talking about gene testing in lung cancer. There is a lot of data, a lot of papers around single-gene panel testing in non-small cell lung cancer versus multigene testing. In fact, a couple of those papers have been published in JCO PO, and it has shown significant cost-effectiveness and benefit and outcomes benefit in terms of multigene testing. So this is slightly, you know, on a similar approach, but in a different tumor type. So, could you tell us first why you wanted to investigate this question? What was the background to investigating this question? And given your expertise in health economics and policy, what are some of the aspects that one tends or should tend to understand in terms of cost-effectiveness before we go into the results for this very interesting manuscript? Dr. Dean Regier:Yeah, of course, delighted to. So, one of the reasons why we're deeply interested in looking at comparative outcomes with respect to single- versus multigene testing— whether that's in a public payer system like Canada or an insurer system, a private system in the United States— is that the question around does multigene versus single-gene testing work, has not typically tested in randomized controlled trials. You don't have people randomized to multigene versus single-gene testing. And what that does, it makes the resulting evidence base, whether it's efficacy, safety, or comparative cost-effectiveness, highly uncertain. So, the consequence of that has been uneven uptake around the world of next-generation sequencing panels. And so if we believe that next-gen sequencing panels are indeed effective for our patients, we really need to generate that comparative evidence around effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. So we can go to payers, whether it be single payer or a private insurer, to say, "Here are the comparative outcomes." And when I say that uptake has been uneven, uptake there's been actually plenty, as you know, publications around that uneven uptake, whether it be in Europe, in the United States, in Canada. And so we're really interested in trying to produce that evidence to create the type of deliberations that are needed to have these types of technologies accessible to patients. And part of those deliberations, of course, is the clinical, but also in some contexts, cost-effectiveness. And so, we really start from the perspective of, can we use our healthcare system data, our learning healthcare system, to generate that evidence in a way that emulates a randomized controlled trial? We won't be able to do these randomized controlled trials for various, like really important and and reasons that make sense, quite frankly. So how can we mimic or emulate randomized controlled trials in a way that allows us to make inference around those outcomes? And for my research lab, we usually think through how do we do causal inference to address some of those biases that are inherent in observational data. So in terms of advanced melanoma, we were really interested in this question because first of all, there have been no randomized controlled trials around next-gen sequencing versus single-gene testing. And secondly, these products, these ICIs, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and BRAF and MEK inhibitors, they are quite expensive. And so the question really becomes: are they effective? And if so, to what extent are they cost-effective? Do they provide a good reason to have information around value for money? Dr. Rafeh Naqash:So now going to the biology of melanoma, so we know that BRAF is one of the tumor-agnostic therapies, it has approvals for melanoma as well as several other tumor types. And in fact, I do trials with different RAF-RAS kinase inhibitors. Now, one of the things that I do know is, and I'm sure some of the listeners know, is the DREAMseq trial, which was a melanoma study that was an NCI Cooperative Group trial that was led by Dr. Mike Atkins from Georgetown a couple of years back, that did show survival benefit of first-line immunotherapy sequencing. It was a sequencing study of whether to do first-line BRAF in BRAF-mutant melanoma followed by checkpoint inhibitors, or vice versa. And the immune checkpoint inhibitors followed by BRAF was actually the one that showed benefit, and the trial had to stop early, was stopped early because of the significant benefit seen. So in that context, before we approach the question of single-gene versus multigene testing in melanoma, one would imagine that it's already established that upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab, for that matter, doublet checkpoint inhibitor therapy is better for BRAF-mutant melanoma. And then there's no significant other approvals for melanoma for NRAS or KIT, you know, mucosal melanomas tend to have KIT mutations, for example, or uveal melanomas, for that matter, have GNAQ, and there's no targeted therapies. So, what is the actual need of doing a broader testing versus just testing for BRAF? So just trying to understand when you started looking into this question, I'm sure you kind of thought about some of these concepts before you delved into that. Dr. Dean Regier:I think that is an excellent question, and it is a question that we asked ourselves: did we really expect any differences in outcomes between the testing strategies? And what did the real-world implementation, physician-guided, physician-led implementation look like? And so, that was kind of one of the other reasons that we really were interested is, why would we go to expanded multigene panel sequencing at all? We didn't really expect or I didn't expect an overall survival a priori. But what we saw in our healthcare system, what happened in our healthcare system was the implementation in 2016 of this multigene panel. And this panel covered advanced melanoma, and this panel cost quite a bit more than what they were doing in terms of the single-gene BRAF testing. And so when you're a healthcare system, you have to ask yourself those questions of what is the additional value associated with that? And indeed, I think in a healthcare system, we have to be really aware that we do not actually follow to the ideal extent randomized controlled trials or trial settings. And so that's the other thing that we have to keep in mind is when these, whether it's an ICI or a BRAF MEK inhibitor, when these are implemented, they do not look like randomized controlled trials. And so, we really wanted to emulate not just a randomized controlled trial, but a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to really answer those real-world questions around implementation that are so important to decision making. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Sure. And just to understand this a little better: for us in the United States, when we talk about multigene testing, we generally refer to, these days, whole-exome sequencing with whole-transcriptome sequencing, which is like the nuclear option of of the testings, which is not necessarily cheap. So, when you talk about multigene testing in your healthcare system, what does that look like? Is it a 16-gene panel? Is it a 52-gene panel? What is the actual makeup of that platform? Dr. Dean Regier:Excellent question. Yeah, so at the time that this study is looking at, it was 2016, when we, as BC Cancer—so British Columbia is a population right now of 5.7 million people, and we have data on all those individuals. We are one healthcare system providing health care to 5.7 million people. In 2016, we had what I call our "home-brew" multigene panel, which was a 53-gene panel that was reimbursed as standard of care across advanced cancers, one of them being advanced melanoma. We have evolved since then. I believe in 2022, we are using one of the Illumina panels, the Focus panel. And so things have changed; it's an evolving landscape. But we're specifically focused on the 53-gene panel. It was called OncoPanel. And that was produced in British Columbia through the Genome Sciences Centre, and it was validated in a single-arm trial mostly around validity, etc. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Thank you for explaining that. So now, onto the actual meat and the science of this project. So, what are some of the metrics from a health economy standpoint that you did look at? And then, methodology-wise, I understand, in the United States, we have a fragmented healthcare system. I have data only from my institution, for that matter. So we have to reach out to outside collaborators and email them to get the data. And that is different for you where you have access to all the data under one umbrella. So could you speak to that a little bit and how that's an advantage for this kind of research especially? Dr. Dean Regier:Yeah. In health economics, we look at the comparative incremental costs against the incremental effectiveness. And when we think about incremental costs, we think not just about systemic therapy or whether you see a physician, but also about hospitalizations, about all the healthcare interactions related to oncology or not that a patient might experience during their time or interactions with the healthcare system. You can imagine with oncology, there are multiple interactions over a prolonged time period depending on survival. And so what we try to do is we try to—and the benefit of the single-payer healthcare system is what we do is we link all those resource utilization patterns that each patient encounters, and we know the price of that encounter. And we compare those incremental costs of, in this case, it's the multigene panel versus the single-gene panel. So it's not just the cost of the panel, not just the cost of systemic therapy, but hospitalizations, physician encounters, etc. And then similarly, we look at, in this case, we looked at overall survival - we can also look at progression-free survival - and ask the simple question, you know, what is the incremental cost per life-year gained? And in that way, we get a metric or an understanding of value for money. And how we evaluate that within a deliberative priority setting context is we look at safety and efficacy first. So a regulatory package that you might get from, in our case, Health Canada or the FDA, so we look at that package, and we deliberate on, okay, is it safe and is it effective? How many patients are affected, etc. And then separately, what is the cost-effectiveness? And at what price, if it's not cost-effective, at what price would it be cost-effective? Okay, so for example, we have this metric called the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which is incremental cost in the numerator, and in this case, life-years gained in the denominator. And if it is around $50,000 or $100,000 per life-year gained—so if it's in that range, this ratio—then we might say it's cost-effective. If it's above this range, which is common in oncology, especially when we talk about ICIs, etc., then you might want to negotiate a price. And indeed, when we negotiate that price, we use the economic evaluation, that incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, as a way to understand at what price should we negotiate to in order to get value for money for the healthcare system. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Thank you for explaining those very interesting terminologies. Now, one question I have in the context of what you just mentioned is, you know, like the drug development space, you talked about efficacy and safety, but then on the safety side, we talk about all-grade adverse events or treatment-related adverse events—two different terminologies. From a healthcare utilization perspective, how do you untangle if a patient on a BRAF therapy got admitted for a hypoxic respiratory failure due to COPD, resulting in a hospitalization from the cost, overall cost utilization, or does it not matter? Dr. Dean Regier:We try to do as much digging into those questions as possible. And so, this is real-world data, right? Real-world data is not exactly as clean as you'd get from a well-conducted clinical trial. And so what we do is we look at potential adverse event, whether it's hospitalization, and the types of therapies around that hospitalization to try- and then engage with clinicians to try to understand or tease out the different grades of the adverse event. Whether it's successful or not, I think that is a real question that we grapple with in terms of are we accurate in delineating different levels of adverse events? But we try to take the data around the event to try to understand the context in which it happens. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Thank you for explaining that, Dean. So, again to the results of this manuscript, could you go into the methodology briefly? Believe you had 147 patients, 147 patients in one arm, 147 in the other. How did you split that cohort, and what were some of the characteristics of this cohort? Dr. Dean Regier:So, the idea, of course, is that we have selection criteria, study inclusion criteria, which included in our case 364 patients. And these were patients who had advanced melanoma within our study time period. So that was 2016 to 2018. And we had one additional year follow. So we had three total years. And what we did is that we linked our data, our healthcare system data. During this time, because the policy change was in 2016, we had patients both go on the multigene panel and on the single-gene BRAF testing. So, the idea was to emulate a pragmatic randomized controlled trial where we looked at contemporaneous patients who had multigene panel testing versus single-gene BRAF testing. And then we did a matching procedure—we call it genetic matching. And that is a type of matching that allows us to balance covariates across the patient groups, across the multigene versus BRAF testing cohorts. The idea again is, as you get in a randomized controlled trial, you have these baseline characteristics that look the same. And then the hope is that you address any source selection or confounding biases that prohibit you to have a clean answer to the question: Is it effective or cost-effective? So you address all those biases that may prohibit you to find a signal if indeed a signal is there. And so, what we did is we created—we did this genetic matching to balance covariates across the two cohorts, and we matched them one-to-one. And so what we were able to do is we were able to find, of those 364 patients in our pool, 147 in the multigene versus 147 in the single-gene BRAF testing that were very, very similar. In fact, we created what's called a directed acyclic graph or a DAG, together with clinicians to say, “Hey, what biases would you expect to have in these two cohorts that might limit our ability to find a signal of effectiveness?” And so we worked with clinicians, with health economists, with epidemiologists to really understand those different biases at play. And the genetic matching was able to match the cohorts on the covariates of interest. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:And then could you speak on some of the highlights from the results? I know you did survival analysis, cost-effectiveness, could you explain that in terms of what you found? Dr. Dean Regier:We did two analyses. The intention-to-treat analysis is meant to emulate the pragmatic randomized controlled trial. And what that does is it answers the question, for all those eligible for multigene or single-gene testing: What is the cost-effectiveness in terms of incremental life-years gained and incremental cost per life-years gained? And the second one was around a protocol analysis, which really answered the question of: For those patients who were actually treated, what was the incremental effectiveness and cost-effectiveness? Now, they're different in two very important ways. For the intention-to-treat, it's around population questions. If we gave single-gene or multigene to the entire population of advanced melanoma patients, what is the cost-effectiveness? The per-protocol is really around that clinical question of those who actually received treatment, what was the incremental cost and effectiveness? So very different questions in terms of population versus clinical cost and effectiveness. So, for the intention-to-treat, what we found is that in terms of life-years gained is around 0.22, which is around 2.5 months of additional life that is afforded to patients who went through the multigene panel testing versus the single-gene testing. That was non-statistically significant from zero at the 5% level. But on average, you would expect this additional 2.5 months of life. The incremental costs were again non-statistically significant, but they're around $20,000. And so when we look at incremental cost-effectiveness, we can also look at the uncertainty around that question, meaning what percentage of incremental cost-effectiveness estimates are likely to be cost-effective at different willingness-to-pay thresholds? Okay? So if you are willing to pay $100,000 to get one gain of life-years, around 52.8% of our estimates, in terms of when we looked at the entire uncertainty, would be cost-effective. So actually that meets the threshold of implementation in our healthcare system. So it's quite uncertain, just over 50%. But what we see is that decision-makers actually have a high tolerance for uncertainty around cost-effectiveness. And so, while it is uncertain, we would say that, well, the cost-effectiveness is finely balanced. Now, when we looked at the population, the per-protocol population, those folks who just got treatment, we actually have a different story. We have all of a sudden around 4.5 or just under 5 months of life gained that is statistically significantly different from zero, meaning that this is a strong signal of benefit in terms of life-years gained. In terms of the changes in costs or the incremental costs, they are larger again, but statistically insignificant. So the question now is, to what extent is it cost-effective? What is the probability of it being cost-effective? And at the $100,000 per life-year gained willingness-to-pay, there was a 73% chance that multigene panel testing versus single-gene testing is cost-effective. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:So one of the questions I have here, this is a clarification both for myself and maybe the listeners also. So protocol treatment is basically if you had gene testing and you have a BRAF in the multigene panel, then the patient went on a BRAF treatment. Is that correct? Dr. Dean Regier:It's still physician choice. And I think that's important to say that. So typically what we saw in both in our pre- and post-matching data is that we saw around 50% of patients, irrespective of BRAF status, get an ICI, which is appropriate, right? And so the idea here is that you get physician-guided care, but if the patient no longer performs on the ICI, then it gives them a little bit more information on what to do next. Even during that time when we thought it wasn't going to be common to do an ICI, but it was actually quite common. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Now, did you have any patients in this study who had the multigene testing done and had an NRAS or a KIT mutation and then went on to those therapies, which were not captured obviously in the single-gene testing, which would have just tried to look at BRAF? Dr. Dean Regier:So I did look at the data this morning because I thought that might come up in terms of my own questions that I had. I couldn't find it, but what we did see is that some patients went on to clinical trials. So, meaning that this multigene panel testing allowed, as you would hope in a learning healthcare system, patients to move on to clinical trials to have a better chance at more appropriate care if a target therapy was available. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:And the other question in that context, which is not necessarily related to the gene platform, but more on the variant allele frequency, so if you had a multigene panel that captured something that was present at a high VAF, with suspicion that this could be germline, did you have any of those patients? I'm guessing if you did, probably very low number, but I'm just thinking from a cost-effective standpoint, if you identify somebody with germline, their, you know, first-degree relative gets tested, that ends up, you know, prevention, etc. rather than somebody actually developing cancer subsequently. That's a lot of financial gains to the system if you capture something early. So did you look at that or maybe you're planning to look at that? Dr. Dean Regier:We did not look at that, but that is a really important question that typically goes unanswered in economic evaluations. And so, the short answer is yes, that result, if there was a germline finding, would be returned to the patient, and then the family would be able to be eligible for screening in the appropriate context. What we have found in economic evaluations, and we've recently published this research, is that that scope of analysis is rarely incorporated into the economic evaluation. So those downstream costs and those downstream benefits are ignored. And when you- especially also when you think about things like secondary or incidental findings, right? So it could be a germline finding for cancer, but what about all those other findings that we might have if you go with an exome or if you go with a genome, which by the way, we do have in British Columbia—we do whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing through something called the Personalized OncoGenomics program. That scope of evaluation, because it's very hard to get the right types of data, because it requires a decision model over the lifetime of both the patients and potentially their family, it becomes very complicated or complex to model over patients' and families' lifetime. That doesn't mean that we should not do it, however. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:So, in summary Dean, could you summarize some of the known and unknowns of what you learned and what you're planning in subsequent steps to this project? Dr. Dean Regier:Our North Star, if you will, is to really understand the entire system effect of next-generation sequencing panels, exome sequencing, whole genomes, or whole genomes and transcriptome analysis, which we think should be the future of precision oncology. The next steps in our research is to provide a nice base around multigene panels in terms of multigene versus single-gene testing, whether that be colorectal cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, etc., and to map out the entire system implications of implementing next-generation sequencing panels. And then we want to answer the questions around, “Well, what if we do exomes for all patients? What if we do whole genomes and transcriptomes for all patients? What are the comparative outcomes for a true tumor-agnostic precision oncology approach, accounting for, as you say, things like return of results with respect to hereditary cancers?” I think the challenge that's going to be encountered is really around the persistent high costs of something like a whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing approach. Although we do see the technology prices going down—the "$1,000 genome" or “$6,000 genome" on whatever Illumina machine you might have—that bioinformatics is continuing to be expensive. And so, there are pipelines that are automated, of course, and you can create a targeted gene report really rapidly within a reasonable turnaround time. But of course, for secondary or what I call level two analysis, that bioinformatics is going to continue to be expensive. And so, we're just continually asking that question is: In our healthcare system and in other healthcare systems, if you want to take a precision oncology approach, how do you create the pipelines? And what types of technologies really lend themselves to benefits over and above next-generation sequencing or multigene panels, allowing for access to off-label therapies? What does that look like? Does that actually improve patients? I think some of the challenges, of course, is because of heterogeneity, small benefiting populations, finding a signal if a signal is indeed there is really challenging. And so, what we are thinking through is, with respect to real-world evidence methods and emulating randomized controlled trials, what types of evidence methods actually allow us to find those signals if indeed those signals are there in the context of small benefiting populations? Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Thank you so much, Dean. Sounds like a very exciting field, especially in the current day and age where cost-effectiveness, financial toxicity is an important aspect of how we improve upon what is existing in oncology. And then lots more to be explored, as you mentioned. The last minute and a half I want to ask about you as an individual, as a researcher. There's very few people who have expertise in oncology, biomarkers, and health economics. So could you tell us for the sake of our trainees and early career physicians who might be listening, what was your trajectory briefly? How did you end up doing what you're doing? And maybe some advice for people who are interested in the cost of care, the cost of oncology drugs - what would your advice be for them very briefly? Dr. Dean Regier:Sure. So I'm an economist by training, and indeed I knew very little about the healthcare system and how it works. But I was recruited at one point to BC Cancer, to British Columbia, to really try to understand some of those questions around costs, and then I learned also around cost-effectiveness. And so, I did training in Scotland to understand patient preferences and patient values around quality of care, not just quantity of life, but also their quality of life and how that care was provided to them. And then after that, I was at Oxford University at the Nuffield Department of Population Health to understand how that can be incorporated into randomized control trials in children. And so, I did a little bit of learning about RCTs. Of course, during the way I picked up some epidemiology with deep understanding of what I call econometrics, what others might call biostatistics or just statistics. And from there, it was about working with clinicians, working with epidemiologists, working with clinical trialists, working with economists to understand the different approaches or ways of thinking of how to estimate efficacy, effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness. I think this is really important to think through is that we have clinical trialists, we have people with deep understanding of biostatistics, we have genome scientists, we have clinicians, and then you add economists into the mix. What I've really benefited from is that interdisciplinary experience, meaning that when I talk to some of the world's leading genome scientists, I understand where they're coming from, what their hope and vision is. And they start to understand where I'm coming from and some of the tools that I use to understand comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. And then we work together to actually change our methods in order to answer those questions that we're passionate about and curious about better for the benefit of patients. So, the short answer is it's been actually quite a trajectory between Canada, the UK. I spent some time at the University of Washington looking at the Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center, looking at precision oncology. And along the way, it's been an experience about interdisciplinary research approaches to evaluating comparative outcomes. And also really thinking through not just at one point in time on-off decisions—is this effective? Is it safe? Is it cost-effective?—not those on-off decisions, but those decisions across the lifecycle of a health product. What do those look like at each point in time? Because we gain new evidence, new information at each point in time as patients have more and more experience around it. And so what really is kind of driving our research is really thinking about interdisciplinary approaches to lifecycle evaluation of promising new drugs with the goal of having these promising technologies to patients sooner in a way that is sustainable for the healthcare system. Dr. Rafeh Naqash:Awesome. Thank you so much for those insights and also giving us a sneak peek of your very successful career. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. Thank you. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

Kimberly Shoaf, Professor of Public Health and the Director of the Rocky Mountains and High Plains Center for Emergency Public Health, discusses how a data-ready ecosystem for public health response can be beneficial; Ashley Cram, ASTHO Senior Analyst for Population Health, tells us about ASTHO's new web page dedicated to the support of Community Health Workers in island jurisdictions; and the Be Ready for Measles toolkit from CDC is online now. ASTHO Webinar: INSPIRE – Readiness - Building a Data-Ready Ecosystem for Public Health Response ASTHO Web Page: Tools That Support Community Health Worker Programs in Island Jurisdictions CDC Web Page: Be Ready for Measles Toolkit ASTHO Public Health Review Podcast Episode: Why We Serve – An Inside Look at Public Health AmeriCorps  

Dr. Sandra Hassink is joined by Dr. Asheley C. Skinner, Professor of Population Health at Duke University School of Medicine. Dr. Skinner also served as the methodologist on the Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for the Evaluation and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Obesity. Together, they discuss the evidence behind the CPG. Related Resources: • Obesity CPG Homepage (tinyurl.com/52nz6m2m) • CPG Technical Report (I) (https://tinyurl.com/y7bnnsmc) • CPG Technical Report (II) (https://tinyurl.com/mv3s6eau)

In this episode, Dr. Mary Kim, Chief Medical Officer at Adventist HealthCare Physician Enterprise and VP of Population Health, shares how partnering with Culina Health is transforming access to personalized nutrition care. She highlights the role of digital platforms in closing care gaps, improving chronic disease outcomes, and advancing whole-person, community-focused healthcare.

In this episode of The Authority Company Podcast, Joe Pardavila speaks with Dr. Harm Scherpbier, physician and leading expert in healthcare IT, to explore the future of healthcare technology. Dr. Scherpbier, author of UN Vendor: Innovative Healthcare with a Diverse IT Stack, discusses the critical shift from single-vendor reliance to a more flexible, interoperable tech ecosystem.Key topics include:*The evolution from paper records to digital health systems and the ongoing challenges of interoperability.*How embracing third-party technologies—like AI-driven ambient clinical documentation—can enhance patient care, clinician efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.*The pitfalls of long-term vendor contracts and "all-in pricing," and strategies for healthcare systems to innovate without being locked into monolithic solutions.*Practical steps for healthcare leaders to diversify their IT stacks and foster a culture of innovation.Tune in for actionable insights on navigating the complexities of healthcare IT and preparing for a future where technology truly serves patients and providers alike.Dr. HARM SCHERPBIER is a physician and leading expert in health information technology with a career dedicated to improving healthcare through innovative IT solutions. Born in the Netherlands, Dr. Scherpbier earned his medical degree and a master's in medical informatics before moving to the United States, where he has served as a CMIO and health IT strategy advisor. He has partnered with organizations to implement clinical systems, data analytics, and population health solutions while teaching at Jefferson College of Population Health. A fellow of HIMSS and AMIA, Dr. Scherpbier is passionate about advancing modular and agile healthcare IT systems. When not transforming healthcare, he enjoys outdoor adventures with his family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The future of senior care is here—and it's powered by technology, personalized support, and the strength of strategic partnerships. In this special episode, we're joined by three visionary leaders transforming the way seniors receive care: Dr. Ali Khan, Chief Medical Officer for Medicare at Aetna; Dr. Marc Watkins, Chief Medical Officer at Kroger Health; and Brian Urban, Head of Commercial Strategy and Population Health at Best Buy Health. Together, they explore how technology, access to nutrition, human-centered design, and collaboration can solve some of the most pressing challenges in senior care. Dr. Khan emphasizes building ecosystems that blend tech with human touch, from broadband infrastructure to virtual PT with language support. Dr. Watkins highlights the role of pharmacists and retailers in delivering smarter, more accessible care through food scoring systems and telehealth integration. Brian Urban explains how smart home devices, personal tech support, and AI are helping seniors live safely and independently—while reducing social isolation and hospital visits. From personalized nutrition to AI-powered care delivery, tune in to discover how these cross-industry leaders are taking bold action to build a more connected, compassionate future for aging adults! Resources:  Connect and follow Dr. Ali Khan on LinkedIn. Learn more about Aetna, a CVS Health Company, on their LinkedIn and website. Connect and follow Dr. Marc Watkins on LinkedIn. Learn more about Kroger on their LinkedIn and website. Connect and follow Brian Urban on LinkedIn. Learn more about Best Buy Health on their LinkedIn and website.

Today's episode of the Faculty Factory Podcast is about the need for strong leadership in the face of uncertainty. It features a recording from a recent lecture led by Faculty Factory Podcast host Kimberly Skarupski, PhD, MPH. If you'd like to see any visuals from the lecture, please visit our Faculty Factory YouTube channel here: https://youtu.be/VxcRU1ZzGow  Dr. Skarupski is Associate Vice Provost, Leadership Development, in the Office of Faculty Affairs with UTMB Health in Galveston, Texas. She is a tenured Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatrics in the John Sealy School of Medicine and in the Department of Epidemiology in the School of Public and Population Health. The talk explores strategies for staying grounded, communicating with clarity, and supporting your postdocs through uncertain times. This lecture has been edited and repurposed to provide a friendly podcast listening experience. Learn more about the Faculty Factory: https://facultyfactory.org/ 

Parenthood is hard, and expensive. Over the course of 18 years, it costs nearly $300,000 to raise a child in the state of Connecticut. So is a $5000 baby bonus really going to inspire prospective parents to have children? Today, we talk about some of the Trump administration’s recent proposals to increase the birthrate. Ahead of Mother’s Day, we dig into solutions to supporting parents. We hear from parents who will share the ways they’d like to be supported throughout their parenthood journey. And we want to hear from you, what’s parenthood like right now? What support systems would you like to see? GUESTS: Sarah Donaldson: graduate student at Southern Connecticut State University Jessica Holzer: Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Population Health and Leadership Malissa Griffith: Program Manager of Parents Connecting Parents and family engagement at the Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Are you ready to discover how technology can revolutionize healthcare delivery? In this podcast hosted by Cognizant Product Director Chenny Solaiyappan, Best Buy Health Head of Population Health Brian Urban speaks on transforming patient care through innovative technology solutions. Brian shares insights on Best Buy Health's unique approach to enabling care through meaningful technological connections, revealing how they're reimagining healthcare for seniors and chronically ill populations.

We kicked off the program with four news stories we thought you'd like to know more about!Emily Sweeney, Cold Case Reporter for the Boston Globe, discussed the unsolved 1973 killings of Maureen Moynihan and her young daughter, Jennifer.Paula Fleming, Chief Marketing and Sales Officer and Chief Spokesperson for the Better Business Bureau of Eastern Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island & Vermont, checked in about the upcoming Real ID deadline and potential scams.What is the possible link between heart disease and household plastics? Dr. Leonardo Trasande, Professor of Pediatrics and Professor, Department of Population Health, at New York University Grossman School of Medicine explained.Nicole Narea, Senior Politics Writer at Vox, discussed President Trump's tariff shock fading on Wall Street.Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!

What if the biggest reason women stop life-saving treatment isn't the medication—but clinicians talk to them about it?In this eye-opening episode, I talk with Dr. Janeane Anderson, a powerhouse researcher and faculty member at the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, about the hidden reasons so many women stop taking critical medications like tamoxifen. It's not just about the side effects—it's about the silence surrounding them.We dig into her research on how poor communication, racial bias, trauma, and lack of sexual health conversations lead to lower adherence rates, especially for Black women. We also explore the idea of epistemic injustice—how patients are often dismissed, even when they know something is wrong. Janeane shares how this harm shows up in the room and what clinicians can do to build trust and improve care.From religious shame to relationship dynamics, sexual trauma, and systemic inequality, this conversation doesn't shy away from the messy, painful, and very real barriers women face in their health journeys. But we also talk about hope—what it looks like to listen better, ask different questions, and create safer spaces for patients to advocate for themselves.If you're a patient who's ever felt unheard, or a clinician who wants to do better, this one's for you.Highlights:Why Black women are disproportionately affected by advanced-stage breast cancer.The link between sexual dysfunction and stopping cancer treatment.How religion, shame, and duty shape sexual health after diagnosis.What epistemic injustice means and how it plays out in exam rooms.Simple but powerful questions doctors can ask to avoid retraumatizing patients.If this episode resonated with you, please hit subscribe, leave a review on Apple Podcasts, and share it with someone who needs to hear it. Let's change how we talk about women's health—together.Dr. Janeane N. Anderson Bio:Janeane N. Anderson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Community and Population Health in the College of Nursing at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC) in Memphis, TN. Dr. Anderson completed postdoctoral research fellowships at Emory University and UTHSC. She earned a Ph.D. in Communication and a Master of Public Health degree from the University of Southern California.Dr. Anderson's research targets the relationship between patient-clinician communication practices and clinical and quality of life outcomes among Black adults with chronic health conditions, specifically breast cancer, HIV/AIDS, and vulvovaginal and pelvic pain.Past extramural funding from National Cancer Institute supported studies that explored patient-clinician communication, treatment adherence, and sexual health challenges among women with early-stage, HR+ breast cancer. Funding from the Washington DC Center for AIDS Research supported development of a shared decision-making tool to improve uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among Black sexual minority men; the Tennessee Department of Health funding supported development and implementation of a training for healthcare professional students to improve communication practices for PrEP education and counseling.Currently, she is the Co-PI of a $1.58 million industry-sponsored grant to investigate multilevel barriers to healthcare access and utilization among Black women with de novo metastatic breast cancer and those with increased risk for advanced breast disease in the U.S. Mid-South region.Dr. Anderson's professional activities also include developing faculty resources and university-level programming to address diversity, equity, and inclusion goals and objectives. She is frequently invited to give lectures on systems of oppression, patient-centered communication practices, and sensitive and socially...

In today's episode, we explore some big questions about community health — and how hospitals and health care workers can help promote equitable health outcomes in their communities. The Community Health Needs Assessment, or CHNA, is a  powerful tool for promoting health equity, says Leslie Marshburn, Vice President of Strategy & Population Health at Grady Health System. “We want to be hearing directly from the individuals that we serve — what they believe their community health needs are,” Marshburn says. The information is coupled with public data, “ideally at the most granular level, like the census track or zip code. And so those national data sets can help inform what the needs are, and then layering that with the community voice through your primary data collection and synthesizing all of that helps you identify your priorities.” When it comes to improving health outcomes in communities, it's also critical that health care providers understand health disparities, says Dr. Maura George, an associate professor in the Department of Medicine and an internist at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, where she also serves as Medical Director of Ethics.  “I think clinicians who don't know how to recognize disparities are going to perpetuate them, and we can all do that unintentionally,” George says. “I think knowing our own internalized bias, implicit bias is important, because you have to realize how that can interact in the patient care space.” Marshburn and George joined Movement Is Life's summit as workshop panelists, and spoke with steering committee member Dr. Zachary Lum for this podcast episode. Never miss an episode – be sure to subscribe to The Health Disparities podcast from Movement Is Life on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

What if a simple conversation in the emergency room could reveal who's most at risk for PTSD before symptoms even begin? Katharina Schultebraucks, PhD, shares her innovative work on using machine learning to forecast mental health outcomes and explains how AI could revolutionize how we detect, prevent, and treat psychiatric disorders. Dr. Schultebraucks is Co-Director of the Computational Psychiatry Program and Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Population Health at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

Dr. Joseph Ladapo is a Nigerian-American physician and health policy researcher currently serving as the Surgeon General of Florida since 2021. Born in Nigeria, he immigrated to the United States at the age of 5 with his family when his father, a microbiologist, came to continue his studies. Dr. Ladapo completed his undergraduate studies at Wake Forest University, where he was a decathlete and captain of the varsity track and field team. He then went on to earn his MD from Harvard Medical School and a PhD in Health Policy from Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. He completed his clinical training in internal medicine. Throughout his career, Dr. Ladapo has held various academic positions. He served as a faculty member in the Department of Population Health at NYU School of Medicine and as a Staff Fellow at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Prior to his current role, he was an Associate Professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Dr. Ladapo's research focuses on clinical trial interventions and reducing the population burden of cardiovascular disease. His work has been funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and his studies have been published in leading medical journals. In recent years, Dr. Ladapo has gained prominence for his bold stance on COVID-19 mitigation measures, in which he opposed mask and vaccine mandates, questioned the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, and approved alternative treatments. Currently, Dr. Ladapo serves as a Professor of Medicine at the University of Florida College of Medicine in addition to his role as Florida's Surgeon General. He is married and has three young children.

I sit down with Dr Aasma Shaukat, Gastroenterologist and Professor of Population Health, who is also trained in Epidemiology and Clinical Research, and Director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health, Grossman School of Medicine.  We talk about progress in healthcare fields including gastroenterology.  We talk microbiome (I compared my digestive tract to the ocean).  We did talk colonoscopy prep in quite a bit of detail.  We also talk about screening rates in the NYC area< C5 and how fortunate we are to work and live in an area that really tries to be inclusive and proactive.  Gastroenterology has incorporated AI tools, so far in polyp detection, but also summarizing patient history and creating a whole picture, which is also helpful in oncology and more.  Note that this was originally recorded just after the New Year in early January.  

Visionary healthcare leaders from The Permanente Medical Group, UC Davis Health, UNC Health, Summit Medical Group and Navina joined Eric Glazer to explore how artificial intelligence transforms clinical workflows and enables better value-based care. Discover how AI-driven chart prep, ambient scribe technology, and risk models streamline provider workflows, improve patient outcomes, and reduce clinician burnout. From overcoming implementation roadblocks to building cross-functional frameworks that promote trust and equity, this episode is packed with strategic insights and real-world success stories you can apply at your organization. Panelists Include: Brian Hoberman, MD, EVP & CIO, The Permanente Medical Group Reshma Gupta, MD, Chief of Population Health and Accountable Care, UC Davis Health Ram Rimel, Manager of Data Science Engineering, UNC Health Eric Penniman, D.O. Executive Medical Director, Summit Medical Group Dana McCalley, VP of Value-Based Care, Navina https://www.brightspotsinhealthcare.com/events/the-new-physician-playbook-ai-workflows-value-based-care-in-action/#url This episode is sponsored by Navina Navina is the clinician-first AI copilot for value-based care. Recently named Best in KLAS for clinician digital workflows, Navina turns fragmented patient data into actionable clinical insights right at the point of care. Natively integrated into the clinical workflow, their AI copilot helps improve risk adjustment, quality metrics, and population health – while significantly easing the administrative burden. Navina has earned the trust of more than 10,000 clinicians and care team members across 1,300 clinics, from some of the leading value-based care organizations in the country like Privia Health, Agilon Health, and Millennium Physician Group. About Bright Spots in Healthcare Bright Spots in Healthcare is produced by Bright Spots Ventures Bright Spots Ventures brings healthcare leaders together to share working solutions or "bright spots" to common challenges. We build valuable and meaningful relationships through our Bright Spots in Healthcare podcast, webinar series, leadership councils, customized peer events, and sales and go-to-market consulting. We believe that finding a bright spot and cloning it is the most effective strategy to improve healthcare in our lifetime. Visit our website at www.brightspotsinhealthcare.com

An interview with Jeff Jeran, Senior Director at Power Wellness. And I think that's, that's what makes a medical fitness center so special. It's just, it's a community very similar to group exercise. The reason why group exercise is so successful is it builds a tribe, and everyone is part of that, and hold each other kind of accountable when they show up. So I think that's, that's kind of the big part of what makes medical fitness successful.Jeff JeranMedical fitness callingMedical fitness reaching the 80%Medical and commercial fitnessMobile app connecting members and physiciansIntegrating into the electronic medical recordExpanding access to medical fitnessFinding a fitness center that meets your needs Building a community in a medical fitness centerhttps://www.movetolivemore.com/https://www.movetolivemore.com/bookhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/move-to-live-more@MovetoLiveMore

In this episode of Mavericks in Healthcare, hosts Ajay Mody and Asher Perzigian sit down with trailblazing leader Beth Dolan, Dean of the College of Health at Lehigh University. Beth isn't just rethinking healthcare education—she's turning it on its head. From championing interdisciplinary learning to weaving data science into the fabric of public health, Beth shares how Lehigh is preparing students to tackle today's most urgent health challenges. Discover how the College's bold initiatives—like its cutting-edge Population Health program and hands-on community-based research—are shaping a new kind of health professional. Plus, Beth opens up about the critical role of mental health in academia and what it really means to build a truly supportive student experience. If you're curious about the future of healthcare, education, and innovation, this conversation is a must-listen. Beth Dolan is on a mission—and she's inviting the next generation to lead the way.

In this episode, Dr. Ruchi Talwar, Medical Director of Episodes of Care Population Health at Vanderbilt Health, joins Jakob Emerson to discuss how provider-led bundled payment programs are improving outcomes, reducing costs, and delivering value for both employers and patients. She shares insights into Vanderbilt's innovative “My Health Bundles” and their real-world success in reshaping specialty care.

In this episode of the Brain & Life Podcast, co-host Dr. Katy Peters is joined by Hide Harashima, dad, advocate, and founder and president of Love4Lucas Foundation. He discusses creating the Love4Lucas Foundation in honor of his son Lucas, who was diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG). Dr. Peters is then joined by Dr. Paul Fisher, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, and by courtesy, Neurosurgery and Epidemiology and Population Health, Beirne Family Professor of Pediatric Neuro-Oncology, Dunlevie Family University Fellow in Undergraduate Education at Stanford University, and Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Pediatrics. Dr. Fisher explains DIPG and other similar cancers, discusses treatment options, and what new research is being done today.   Additional Resources Love4Lucas Patients and Their Loved Ones Find New Roles as Advocates After Diagnoses Lawyer and Model Who Survived Brain Tumors Focuses on Giving Back   Other Brain & Life Podcast Episodes Actor Craig Russell on Staying Positive during his Brain Tumor Diagnosis Lawyer, Model Victoria Vesce Uses Her Platform for Brain Tumor Advocacy BMX Athlete Josh Perry's Perseverance Living with Brain Tumors We want to hear from you! Have a question or want to hear a topic featured on the Brain & Life Podcast? ·       Record a voicemail at 612-928-6206 ·       Email us at BLpodcast@brainandlife.org   Social Media: Hide Harashima @love4lucasfoundation; Dr. Paul Fisher @stanfordchildrens Hosts: Dr. Daniel Correa @neurodrcorrea; Dr. Katy Peters @KatyPetersMDPhD

Despite affecting more Americans than diabetes, substance use is often left out of routine medical care. In this episode, NYU Langone Health's Jennifer McNeely, MD—a clinician investigator, primary care and addiction medicine physician—explains why that must change. From the surprising history behind addiction's exclusion from mainstream medicine to the innovative screening tools shaping the future of care, this conversation is a must-listen for anyone interested in addiction care and healthcare policy.Jennifer McNeely, MD, is an Associate Professor of Medicine and Population Health at NYU Grossman School of Medicine and co-director of the Section on Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drug Use.