Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Expert Q&A: Should We Permit AI to Determine Gender and Race from Resumes?

The banner ads on your browser, the route Google maps suggests for you, the song Spotify plays next: algorithms are inescapable in our daily lives. Some of us are already aware of the mechanisms behind a targeted ad or a dating profile that lights up our phone screen. However, few of us may actually stop to consider how this technology plays out in the hiring sector. As with any major technological advancement, it usually takes society (and legislation) a while to catch up and adjust for unintended consequences. Ultimately, algorithms are powerful tools. Like any tool, they have the potential for societal benefit or harm, depending on how they’re wielded. Here to weigh in on the matter is Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management Prasanna Parasurama, who recently joined Emory Goizueta Business School’s faculty in fall of 2023. This interview has been edited for clarity. Describe your research interests in six words. Six words…that’s difficult to do on the spot. How about “the impact of AI and other digital technologies on hiring.” Is that condensed enough? That works! What first interested you in the intersection of AI and hiring practices? Before I did my PhD, I was working as a data scientist in the HR analytics space at a start-up company. That is where my interest in the topic began. But this was a long time ago. People hadn’t started talking much about AI, or algorithmic hiring. The conversation around algorithmic bias and algorithmic fairness picked up steam in the second or third year of my PhD. That had a strong influence on my dissertation focus. And naturally, one of the contexts in which both these matters have large repercussions is in the hiring space. What demographics does your research focus on (gender identity, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, all of the above)? Do you focus on a particular job sector? My research mostly looks at gender and race for two main reasons. First, prior research has typically looked at race and gender, which gives us a better foundation to build on. Second, it’s much easier to measure gender and race based on the data that we have available—from resumes, from hiring data, like what we collect from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They typically collect data on gender and race, and our research requires those really large data sets to draw patterns. They don’t ask for socioeconomic status or have an easy way to quantify that information. That’s not to say those are less important factors, or that no one is looking at them. One of the papers you’re working on examines resumes written by self-identified men and women. It looks at how their resumes differ, and how that influenced their likelihood of being contacted for an interview. So in this paper, we’re essentially looking at how men and women write their resumes differently and if that impacts hiring outcomes. Take resume screening algorithms, for example. One proposed way to reduce bias in these screening algorithms is to remove names from resumes to blind the applicant’s gender to the algorithm. But just removing names does very little, because there are so many other things that serve as proxies to someone’s gender. While our research is focused on people applying to jobs in the tech sector, this is true across occupations. "We find it’s easy to train an algorithm to accurately predict gender, even with names redacted." Prasanna Parasurama What are some of those gendered “tells” on a resume? People write down hobbies and extracurricular activities, and some of those are very gendered. Dancing and ballet tend to denote female applicants; you’re more likely to see something like wrestling for male applicants. Beyond hobbies, which is sort of obvious, is just how people write things, or the language they use. Female applicants tend to use a lot more affective words. Men, on the other hand, use more of what we call agentic words. Can you explain that a little more? In social psychology, social role theory argues that men are stereotyped to be more agentic, whereas women are stereotyped to be more communal, and that their communication styles reflect this. There’s essentially a list of agentic words that researchers have come up with that men use a lot more than women. And women are more likely to use affective words, like “warmly” or “closely,” which have to do with emotions or attitudes.  These communication differences between men and women have been demonstrated in social sciences before, which has helped inform our work. But we’re not just relying on social science tools—our conclusions are driven by our own data. If a word is able to predict that an applicant’s resume belongs to a female versus male applicant, then we assign different weights, depending on how accurately it can predict that. So we’re not just operating on theories. Were there any gendered patterns that surprised you? If you were to assign masculinity and femininity to particular words, an algorithm would likely assign “married” to be a feminine term in most contexts. But in this particular case, it’s actually more associated with men. Men are much more likely to use it in resumes, because it signals something different to society than when women use it. "One of the most predictive terms for men was references to parenthood. It’s much easier for men to reference kids than for women to reveal information about their household status. Women face a penalty where men receive a boost." Prasanna Parasurama Studies show that people perceive fathers as being more responsible employees, whereas mothers are regarded as less reliable in the workplace. We haven’t studied this, but I would speculate that if you go on a platform like LinkedIn, men are more likely to disclose details about fatherhood, marriage, and kids than women are. There were some other tidbits that I didn’t see coming, like the fact that women are much less likely to put their addresses on their resume. Can AI predict race from a resume as easily as it can predict gender? There’s surprisingly very little we know on that front. From existing literature outside of algorithmic literature, we know differences exist in terms of race, not just on the employer side, where there might be bias, but we also on the worker side. People of different races search for jobs differently. The question is, how do we take this into account in the algorithm? From a technical standpoint, it should be feasible to do the same thing we do with gender, but it just becomes a little bit harder to predict race in practice. The cues are so variable. Gender is also more universal – no matter where you live, there are probably men and women and people who identify as in between or other. Whereas the concept of race can be very specific in different geographic regions. Racial identities in America are very different from racial identities in India, for instance. And in a place like India, religion matters a lot more than it does in the United States. So this conversation around algorithms and bias will look different across the globe. Beyond screening resumes, how does AI impact people’s access to job opportunities? A lot of hiring platforms and labor market intermediaries such as LinkedIn use AI. Their task is to match workers to these different jobs. There’s so many jobs and so many workers. No one can manually go through each one. So they have to train algorithms based on existing behavior and existing design decisions on the platform to recommend applicants to particular jobs and vice versa. When we talk about algorithmic hiring, it’s not just hiring per se, but spaces like these which dictate what opportunities you’re exposed to. It has a huge impact on who ends up with what job. What impact do you want your research to have in the real world? Do you think that we actually should use algorithms to figure out gender or race? Is it even possible to blind AI to gender or race? Algorithms are here to stay, for better or worse. We need them. When we think about algorithmic hiring, I think people picture an actual robot deciding who to hire. That’s not the case. Algorithms are typically only taking the space of the initial part of hiring. "I think overall, algorithms make our lives better. They can recommend a job to you based on more sophisticated factors than when the job was chronologically posted. There’s also no reason to believe that a human will be less biased than an algorithm." Prasanna Parasurama I think the consensus is that we can’t blind the algorithm to gender or other factors. Instead, we do have to take people’s demographics into account and monitor outcomes to correct for any sort of demonstrable bias. LinkedIn, for example, does a fairly good job publishing research on how they train their algorithms. It’s better to address the problem head on, to take demographic factors into account upfront and make sure that there aren’t drastic differences in outcomes between different demographics. What advice would you give to hopeful job candidates navigating these systems? Years of research have shown that going through a connection or a referral is by far the best way to increase your odds of getting an interview—by a factor of literally 200 to 300 percent. Hiring is still a very personal thing. People typically trust people they know. Prasanna Parasurama is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Prasanna’s research areas include algorithmic hiring, algorithmic bias and fairness, and human-AI interaction. His research leverages a wide array of quantitative methods including econometrics, machine learning, and natural language processing. Prasanna is available to talk about this important and developing topic - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Cosmetic or Drug? The FDA's Classification of Sunscreen Limits Which Products Hit US Shelves

As stifling rays of sunshine beat down across the United States, it’s the time of year citizens flock to the store to load up on sun protection. It’s also the time of year consumers and media raise the annual question of why Europe is able to market sunscreen that contains more potentially effective ingredients, but the U.S. isn’t. The answer is not related to sunscreen or its ingredients, but rather how the country’s regulatory body – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – legally operates. “In order for the FDA to legally regulate products, those products are given classifying labels,” said Ana Santos Rutschman, a professor of law at Villanova University who studies health law. “A toothbrush, for instance, is labeled a medical device. That’s because it has to fit in one of the sources of authority of the FDA and the FDA, per the law, regulates drugs or medical devices.” Here is where it gets tricky. The FDA does not have to approve cosmetics, aside from certain color additives, before those products go to market. In the European Union’s European Medicines Agency (EMA), sunscreen is labeled as a cosmetic. Many other countries also classify it as such. In the U.S., however, sunscreen is labeled a drug because it has a therapeutic effect, and thus falls under the authority of the FDA. To make the classification system even more convoluted, some items are labeled as both a cosmetic and drug by the FDA. Shampoo, for instance, is inherently cosmetic. “But if it’s anti-dandruff shampoo, then it’s also a pharmaceutical,” said Santos Rutschman. “It’s super common for this to happen with a lot of products that you and I would not think are classified as drugs. It’s very natural under the regulatory regime that we have, but then it is very hard to bring anything to market – harder than other countries.” Case in point, sunscreen used in the EU that contains ingredients which may be more effective against certain types of ultraviolet rays cannot simply just come to market in the U.S. “If sunscreen fits the definition of a drug, then it must meet drug requirements,” said Santos Rutschman. “If you want a new drug to enter the U.S., you have to show efficacy and safety. But in order to do that, there must be clinical trials, and if those trials happened elsewhere, they would not conform to our domestic protocols. “Even if another country performed their own clinical trials, the odds the FDA would utilize the data are not incredibly high. If you think another country recognizes something we should, based on their data, then immediately this is going to raise questions of why we are deferring to a foreign regulator.” The FDA could go through the process of approving ingredients in question – and has indicated it will do so – but it’s a complicated process, and there is “also a matter of risk,” according to Santos Rutschman. “The FDA has always been less risk averse than its counterparts in Europe. I understand the market concerns, but this seems about right from a regulatory perspective… We aren’t talking about a specific drug that people need and cannot access. Sunscreen is available for the average American to purchase.” Barring an overhaul to the regulatory system in the U.S. to include an agency for cosmetics – an idea some argue has merit, but Santos Rutschman described as “not feasible” with the available funding – the only way Europe’s sunscreen would be available for Americans to purchase is if the FDA moved forward in regulating the ingredients. And that will continue to take time. “The FDA has never moved quickly on anything,” said Santos Rutschman. “It just can't.”

Expert Insight: Training Innovative AI to Provide Expert Guidance on Prescription Medications

A new wave of medications meant to treat Type II diabetes is grabbing headlines around the world for their ability to help people lose a significant amount of weight. They are called GLP-1 receptor agonists. By mimicking a glucagon-like peptide (GLP) naturally released by the body during digestion, they not only lower blood sugar but also slow digestion and increase the sense of fullness after eating. The two big names in GLP-1 agonists are Ozempic and Wegovy, and both are a form of semaglutide. Another medication, tirzepatide, is sold as Mounjaro and Zepbound. It is also a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist as well as GLP-1. Physicians have been prescribing semaglutide and tirzepatide with increasing frequency. However, both medications come with a host of side effects, including nausea and stomach pain, and are not suitable for every patient. Many clinics and physicians do not have immediate access to expert second opinions, as do the physicians at Emory Healthcare. Creating a Digital Twin That lack of an expert is one of the reasons Karl Kuhnert, professor in the practice of organization and management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School, is using artificial intelligence to capture the expertise of physicians like Caroline Collins MD through the Tacit Object Modeler™, or TOM. By using TOM, developed by Merlynn Intelligence Technologies, Kuhnert and Collins can create her “decision-making digital twin.” This allows Collins to reveal her expertise as a primary care physician with Emory Healthcare and an Assistant Professor at Emory School of Medicine, where she has been leading the field in integrating lifestyle medicine into clinical practices and education. Traditional AI, like ChatGPT, uses massive amount of data points to predict outcomes using what’s known as explicit knowledge. But it isn’t necessarily learning as it goes. According to Kuhnert, TOM has been designed to learn how an expert, like Collins, decides whether or not to prescribe a drug like semaglutide to a patient. Wisdom or tacit knowledge is intuitive and rooted in experience and context. It is hard to communicate, and usually resides only in the expert’s mind. TOM’s ability to “peek into the expert’s mind makes it a compelling technology for accessing wisdom.” “Objective or explicit knowledge is known and can be shared with others,” says Kuhnert. "For example, ChatGPT uses explicit knowledge in its answers. It’s not creating something new. It may be new to you as you read it, but somebody, somewhere, before you, has created it. It’s understood as coming from some source." Karl Kuhnert “Tacit knowledge is subjective wisdom. Experts offer this, and we use their tacit know-how, their implicit knowledge, to make their decisions. If it were objective, everyone could do it. This is why we hire experts: They see things and know things others don’t; they see around corners.” Mimicking the Mind of a Medical Expert Teaching TOM to see around the corners requires Collins to work with the AI over the course of a few days. “Essentially what I do is I sit down with, in this case, a physician, and ask them, ‘What are thinking about when you make this decision?'” says Kuhnert. “The layperson might think that there are hundreds of variables in making a medical decision like this. With the expert’s tacit knowledge and experience, it is usually between seven and twelve variables. They decide based on these critical variables,” he says. "These experts have so much experience, they can cut away a lot of the noise around a decision and get right to the point and ask, ‘What am I looking at?’" Karl Kuhnert As TOM learns, it presents Collins with more and different scenarios for prescribing semaglutide. As she makes decisions, it remembers the variables present during her decision-making process. “Obviously, some variables are going to be more important than other variables. Certain combinations are going to be challenging,” says Collins. “Sometimes there are going to be some variables where I think, yes, this patient needs a GLP-1. Then there may be some variables where I think, no, this person really doesn’t need that. And which ones are going to win out? That’s really where TOM is valuable. It can say, okay, when in these difficult circumstances where there are conflicting variables, which one will ultimately be most important in making that decision?” The Process: Trusting AI After working with TOM for several hours, Collins will have reacted to enough scenarios for TOM to learn to make her decision. The Twin will need to demonstrate that it can replicate her decision-making with acceptable accuracy—high 90s to 100 percent. Once there, Collins’ Twin is ready to use. “I think it’s important to have concordance between what I would say in a situation and then what my digital twin would say in a situation because that’s our ultimate goal is to have an AI algorithm that can duplicate what my recommendation would be given these circumstances for a patient,” Collins says. “So, someone, whether that be an insurance company, or a patient themselves or another provider, would be able to consult TOM, and in essence, me, and say, in this scenario, would you prescribe a GLP-1 or not given this specific patient’s situation?” The patient’s current health and family history are critical when deciding whether or not to prescribe semaglutide. For example, according to Novo Nordisk, the makers of Ozempic, the drug should not be prescribed to patients with a history of problems with the pancreas or kidneys or with a family history of thyroid cancer. Those are just the start of a list of reasons why a patient may or may not be a good candidate for the medication. Kuhnert says, “What we’re learning is that there are so many primary care physicians right now that if you come in with a BMI over 25 and are prediabetic, you’re going to get (a prescription). But there’s much more data around this to suggest that there are people who are health marginalized, and they can’t do this. They should not have this (medication). It’s got to be distributed to people who can tolerate it and are safe.” Accessing the Digital Twin on TOM Collins’s digital twin could be available via something as easy to access as an iPhone app. “Part of my job is to provide the latest information to primary care physicians. Now, I can do this in a way that is very powerful for primary care physicians to go on their phones and put it in. It’s pretty remarkable, according to Colllins.” It is also transparent and importantly sourced information. Any physician using a digital twin created with TOM will know exactly whose expertise they are accessing, so anyone asking for a second opinion from Colllins will know they are using an expert physician from Emory University. In addition to patient safety, there are a number of ways TOM can be useful to the healthcare industry when prescribing medications like semaglutide. This includes interfacing with insurance companies and the prior approval process, often lengthy and handled by non-physician staff. “Why is a non-expert at an insurance company determining whether a patient needs a medication or not? Would it be better to have an expert?” says Collins. “I’m an expert in internal medicine and lifestyle medicine. So, I help people not only lose weight, but also help people change their behaviors to optimize their health. My take on GLP-1 medications is not that everyone needs them, it’s that they need to be utilized in a meaningful way, so patients will get benefit, given risks and benefits for these medications.” The Power of a Second Opinion Getting second, and sometimes third, opinions is a common practice among physicians and patients both. When a patient presents symptoms to their primary care physician, that physician may have studied the possible disease in school but isn’t necessarily an expert. In a community like Emory Healthcare, the experts are readily available, like Collins. She often serves as a second opinion for her colleagues and others around the country. “What we’re providing folks is more of a second opinion. Because we want this actually to work alongside someone, you can look at this opinion that this expert gave, and now, based on sourced information, you can choose. This person may be one of the best in the country, if not the world, in making this decision. But we’re not replacing people here. We’re not dislocating people with this technology. We need people. We need today’s and tomorrow’s experts as well,” according to Kuhnert. But also, you now have the ability to take an Emory physician’s diagnosing capabilities to physicians in rural areas and make use of this information, this knowledge, this decision, and how they make this decision. We have people here that could really help these small hospitals across the country. Caroline Collin MD Rural Americans have significant health disparities when compared to those living in urban centers. They are more likely to die from heart disease, cancer, injury, chronic respiratory disease, and stroke. Rural areas are finding primary care physicians in short supply, and patients in rural areas are 64 percent less likely to have access to medical specialists for needed referrals. Smaller communities might not have immediate access to experts like a rheumatologist, for example. In addition, patients in more rural areas might not have the means of transportation to get to a specialist, nor have the financial means to pay for specialized visits for a diagnosis. Collins posits that internal medicine generalists might suspect a diagnosis but want to confirm before prescribing a course of treatment. “If I have a patient for whom I am trying to answer a specific question, ‘Does this patient have lupus?’, for instance. I’m not going to be able to diagnose this person with lupus. I can suspect it, but I’m going to ask a rheumatologist. Let’s say I’m in a community where unfortunately, we don’t have a rheumatologist. The patient can’t see a rheumatologist. That’s a real scenario that’s happening in the United States right now. But now I can ask the digital twin acting as a rheumatologist, given these variables, ‘Does this patient have lupus?’ And the digital twin could give me a second opinion.” Sometimes, those experts are incredibly busy and might not have the physical availability for a full consult. In this case, someone could use TOM to create the digital twin of that expert. This allows them to give advice and second opinions to a wider range of fellow physicians. As Kuhnert says, TOM is not designed or intended to be a substitute for a physician. It should only work alongside one. Collins agreed, saying, “This doesn’t take the place of a provider in actual clinical decision-making. That’s where I think someone could use it inappropriately and could get patients into trouble. You still have to have a person there with clinical decision-making capacity to take on additional variables that TOM can’t yet do. And so that’s why it’s a second opinion.” “We’re not there yet in AI says Collins. We have to be really careful about having AI make actual medical decisions for people without someone there to say, ‘Wait a minute, does this make sense?’” AI Implications in the Classroom and Beyond Because organizations use TOM to create digital twins of their experts, the public cannot use the twins to shop for willing doctors. “We don’t want gaming the system,” says Collins. “We don’t want doctor shopping. What we want is a person there who can utilize AI in a meaningful way – not in a dangerous way. I think we’ll eventually get there where we can have AI making clinical decisions. But I don’t think I’d feel comfortable with that yet.” The implications of using decision-making digital twins in healthcare reach far beyond a second opinion for prescription drugs. Kuhnert sees it as an integral part of the future of medical school classrooms at Emory. In the past, teaching case studies have come from books, journals, and papers. Now, they could come alive in the classroom with AI simulation programs like TOM. "I think this would be great for teaching residents. Imagine that we could create a simulation and put this in a classroom, have (the students) do the simulation, and then have the physician come in and talk about how she makes her decisions." Karl Kuhnert “And then these residents could take this decision, and now it’s theirs. They can keep it with them. It would be awesome to have a library of critical health decisions made in Emory hospitals,” Kuhnert says. Collins agreed. “We do a lot of case teaching in the medical school. I teach both residents and medical students at Emory School of Medicine. This would be a really great tool to say, okay, given these set of circumstances, what decision would you make for this patient? Then, you could see what the expert’s decision would have been. That could be a great way to see if you are actually in lockstep with the decision-making process that you’re supposed to be learning.” Kuhnert sees decision-making twins moving beyond the healthcare system and into other arenas like the courtroom, public safety, and financial industries and has been working with other experts to digitize their knowledge in those fields. "The way to think about this is: say there is a subjective decision that gets made that has significant ramifications for that company and maybe for the community. What would it mean if I could digitize experts and make it available to other people who need an expert or an expert’s decision-making?" Karl Kuhnert “You think about how many people aren’t available. Maybe you have a physician who’s not available. You have executives who are not available. Often expertise resides in the minds of just a few people in an organization,” says Kuhnert. “Pursuing the use of technologies like TOM takes the concept of the digital human expert from simple task automation to subjective human decision-making support and will expand the idea of a digital expert into something beyond our current capabilities,” Kuhnert says. “I wanted to show that we could digitize very subjective decisions in such areas as ethical and clinical decision-making. In the near future, we will all learn from the wisdom codified in decision-making digital twins. Why not learn from the best? There is a lot of good work to do.” Karl Kuhnert is a Professor in the Practice of Organization & Management and Associate Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Senior Faculty Fellow of the Emory Ethics Center. If you're looking to connect with Karl to know more - simply click on his icon now to arrange a time to talk today.

Celebrating on July 4th! Let us help if you need a quick history lesson about Independence Day

Independence Day marks the historic moment when the nation declared its independence from British rule. This event is deeply significant to the public as it symbolizes the birth of the United States as a sovereign nation, highlighting themes of freedom, democracy, and national pride. It is not only a day of celebration with fireworks, parades, and barbecues but also an opportunity for reflection on the country's history, values, and ongoing struggles for equality and justice. The significance of Independence Day offers a rich tapestry of story angles for journalists to explore, including: Historical Perspectives: Examining the events leading up to the Declaration of Independence, the key figures involved, and the document's lasting impact on American society and governance. Modern Interpretations of Freedom: Discussing how the concepts of liberty and independence have evolved over time and what they mean to different communities in contemporary America. Patriotic Celebrations: Covering local and national festivities, exploring how communities across the country celebrate Independence Day and what traditions they uphold. Civic Engagement and Activism: Highlighting how modern movements for civil rights and social justice draw inspiration from the principles of independence and freedom. Immigrant Experiences: Sharing stories of immigrants and how they perceive and celebrate Independence Day, adding depth to the national narrative of inclusion and diversity. Educational Initiatives: Showcasing efforts by schools and organizations to educate the public, especially the younger generation, about the historical significance and values associated with Independence Day. Independence Day is more than a historical milestone; it is a lens through which to view the American experience, providing ample material for journalists to craft compelling and diverse stories that resonate with a broad audience. Connect with an Expert about American History: Patrick Jung, Ph.D. Professor · Milwaukee School of Engineering Kevin P. McDonald Associate Professor of History · Loyola Marymount University Micki McElya, Ph.D. Professor of History · University of Connecticut Michelle Orihel Associate Professor of History · Southern Utah University Chris DeRose Attorney and Author · Movable Type Management Blaine McCormick, Ph.D. Professor of Management · Baylor University To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo credit: Camylla Battani

Expert Research: Mandated Restrictions on Opioid Prescriptions Have Unintended—and Deadly—Consequences

New research from Goizueta’s Diwas KC unpacks the dual impact of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs on opioid prescriptions and heroin overdose deaths. More than two million individuals in the US are experiencing Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). The CDC defines OUD as “a problematic pattern of opioid use that causes significant impairment or distress.” Around 130 people die of opioid overdoses every day. Perhaps more startlingly, four million people over the age of 12 have reported using pain medication recreationally, including opioids. Prescription opioids are a highly-regulated class of drug. They interact with the opioid receptors on nerve cells throughout the body, as well as the brain, which reduces the intensity of pain signals to the body. For many, they are a necessary prescription to get through the pain of surgery or injury, as the body heals itself. Unfortunately, the function of opioids in the body—releasing endorphins and boosting feelings of pleasure, as well as reducing pain—also make them highly addictive. PDMP: A Successful Federal Mandate The United States continues to see increases in deaths from opioid overdoses. So, federal and state governments have been working in enact policies that are designed to decrease those fatalities. One of the methods states are using to prevent common abuse patterns like “doctor shopping,” which is the pattern of visiting multiple physicians to obtain prescriptions, is the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), designed to be used in conjunction with Health Information Technology (HIT) programs. PDMP serve two purposes: identifying drug-seeking behaviors in patients, and identifying physicians with patterns of inappropriate prescribing. Nearly all 50 states have enacted PDMPs of some degree. Some programs require physicians to check the PDMP before prescribing restricted pharmaceuticals, but in others it’s only suggested. Intrastate communication between PDMPs is not always possible, however. The Unintended Consequences The use of PDMPs has been shown to reduce the number of opioid prescriptions, the intended outcome of the program. Enter a recently published study by Diwas KC, Goizueta Foundation Term Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management. The research shows that during time the research was conducted, prescriptions for opioids declined by 6.1%. However, the research also brought to light a very serious and unintended consequence of the implementation of PDMPs. The study concluded that while the implementation of PDMPs did reduce opioid prescriptions, it did not reduce overall numbers of prescription opioid deaths. In fact, it may have contributed to a 50% increase in heroin overdose fatalities. “The heroin increase was definitely something we were not expecting, it was a total surprise,” says KC. "It was something that we had hypothesized. You’ve got a bunch of individuals who have used prescription opiates and had presumably been dependent. Now with the passage of this PDMP law, it has become more difficult to obtain prescription opiates. Therefore, some people might be forced to turn to the street version of it." Diwas KC “We didn’t expect the effect size it to be as significant as it is,” says KC. Heroin and commonly prescribed opioids like oxycodone and hydrocodone are very similar on a biochemical level. What’s more, they generate a similar sensation in the body, according to KC. That’s why he and his team had the initial hypothesis that some addicted individuals, when unable to get prescription medication, might turn to street drugs, which are much more dangerous on many levels. “There are many aspects to this. One has to do with the potency and the toxicity of the things you get on the streets. There are very little checks and balances on those. There’s no control in quality for sure,” KC says. He also notes the lack of checks and balances on the frequency of usage. “So the frequency of usage, the quality of the substances you’re putting inside your body, and possibly the circumstances of acquiring it might also be very risky too.” A Dual Impact The research concludes that mandating PDMP use is an example of a successful use of policy for intervention. It does, in fact, decrease the number of opioid prescriptions available to patients. That’s critical information for policy makers and physicians to take in. And it’s a solid reason to keep using and expanding PDMP usage, according to KC. "I should point out very clearly that the policy did have the intended effect of reducing prescriptions. So, it definitely benefited people who might otherwise have become addicted." Diwas KC “By reducing unnecessary prescriptions it might have limited the number of people who would have gotten hooked on the drugs in the first place. So there’s definitely the benefit of that,” says KC. “It’s just that when the policy was implemented, there was also this side effect because of people who were already using it. So, when those people were forced to look for alternatives, that’s when things got bad.” Research papers like this one show an important side of using data to mark successes and failures of government policies. Taken on the surface, data can show a policy’s impact for the greater good. But a deeper dive into the surrounding data—like the increase in heroin use after the implementation of PDMPs—gives everyone a better idea of the full impact of this mandate. "Policies have intended as well as unintended consequences. In this case of PDMP it had the desired effect of reducing prescriptions. That probably helped a lot of people not get addicted to opiates in the first place." Diwas KC “But sometimes policies also have unintended consequences,” says KC. “Like in the case of people who were already addicted to painkillers suddenly stopping it, causing them to take drastic actions, and that’s what happened for some of the people in the study. Policies need to consider the possibility of unintended consequences and take actions to also mitigate those unintended consequences.” Interested in knowing more? Diwas KC is the Goizueta Foundation Term Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management. He is available to talk about this important topic - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today

Expert Research: Hurricanes and Natural Disasters Linked to “Grocery Tax” for Lower-Income Americans

Research from Goizueta’s William Schmidt uncovers the disproportionate impact of natural disasters on low-income families’ access to essentials. Global warming is accelerating severe weather with cataclysmic outcomes for communities all over the world. In 2023, the hottest year on record, no fewer than 23 weather-related disasters struck the United States. These natural disasters claimed hundreds of lives and caused $57 billion in damage. Recently, the federal government has come under scrutiny for uneven aid response to communities affected by hurricanes, fires, and flooding in America. William Schmidt But might there be other factors at play that see disadvantaged groups more vulnerable to the impact of severe weather events? Weighing into this is award-winning research by Goizueta Business School’s William Schmidt, associate professor of Information Systems and Operations Management. He and Xabier Barriola from INSEAD Business School look at the effect of three major hurricanes in the U.S. in the last 20 years. They find evidence of higher paid prices for basic groceries in the aftermath of each storm that disproportionately impact lower-income communities in affected states. In fact, says Schmidt, when severe weather hits communities, these families end up paying anywhere between one and five percent more relative to high income households for essential food and goods. This puts a major strain on already-strained resources in times of massive disruption. "We see a spike in the prices paid for household groceries of up to five percent hitting low-income groups immediately after a major storm hits." William Schmidt “Then you have to factor in the reality that poorer households spend around eight times more of their disposable income on basic groceries than high-income households,” says Schmidt. “It becomes clear that the aftermath of severe weather is harder for them to bear. And in our research, this is an effect that lasts for months, not weeks or days.” Exposing Hidden Costs on Those Hit Hardest To get to these findings, Schmidt and Barriola worked from a hunch. They figured that in low-income areas, a lack of infrastructure, lower-quality construction, and fewer grocery store outlets could translate into supply shortages in emergencies. Ensuing stockouts might then lead to knock-on price inflation for customers. These are low-income families for whom inflation has serious and significant consequences, Schmidt says. "We know that inflation hurts poorer communities. High-income families have the option of switching between high and low-priced goods according to needs or preference. But families with lower incomes are already purchasing low-priced groceries." William Schmidt “When there are disaster-induced stockouts to their preferred products, those families are forced to substitute to higher priced groceries,” Schmidt continues. Then there’s retailer behavior. Following large environmental disasters, store managers may be unable to keep necessities in stock. Under those circumstances, it is difficult to justify running promotions or implementing planned price decreases. To test these ideas, Schmidt and his colleagues looked at data from the weeks and months following Hurricanes Katarina (2005), Ike (2008), and Sandy (2012). They decided to pinpoint those locations immediately impacted at the county level. To do so, they used major disaster declarations issued by the federal government at the time. Then they integrated this with detailed grocery store sales data provided by Information Resources Inc (IRI) with zip code-level household income and demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau. With each hurricane, the researchers looked at IRI data covering 30 different product categories and around 200 million transactions over a 12-week period. Schmidt and his colleagues then ran a set of analyses comparing prices paid by communities before and after each hurricane. They also contrasted price increases paid by low-income and high-income households as well as communities outside of the areas affected by the storms. Crunching the Numbers “Doing this triple-difference regression analysis, we find that lower-income communities pay an average 2.9 percent more for their groceries. That’s in the eight weeks following each of these disasters,” says Schmidt. "The effect varies. But it is roughly commensurate with the overall economic damage wrought by each hurricane, with Katrina being the worst. Here low-income families were seeing a 5.1 percent increase in the cost of food and basic goods, relative to richer households." William Schmidt The study points to a variety of mechanisms driving these effects. As Schmidt and his co-authors hypothesize, there is evidence that the same disruptions lead to fewer price promotions. They also see more frequent stockouts of low-priced goods. At the same time, there’s a shift in household purchasing from low to higher-priced products. These effects are long-lasting, says Schmidt. According to the study, post-hurricane inflation in the prices paid by consumers continues to affect poorer families for eight or more weeks. This amounts to months of economic hardship for those least resilient to its effects. Schmidt calls this “permanent inflation.” Pursuing Equity in Crisis Operations managers and policymakers should factor these findings into emergency relief efforts, say Schmidt and his colleague. The goal should be to service communities more equitably. So, there should be more thought to the provision of essential food and household goods. Also, there should be a particular focus on those most vulnerable to natural disasters and their effects. Current disaster nutrition relief programs are typically short. Authorities might do better by vulnerable communities by also extending things like cash and voucher programs, says Schmidt. And they should prioritize the ordering, shipment, and warehousing of essential goods. “Our research shows that hurricanes cost certain groups of Americans more than others in the longer run. The permanent inflation on food stuff and household necessities that we find constitutes an additional burden on part of our national fabric. These are people who are least positioned to afford it.” Hurricanes and the economy are both sought-after topics - and if you're covering, we can help. William Schmidt is an associate professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. His research focuses on understanding and mitigating operational disruptions, and applications of machine learning in operational decision making.  To connect with William to arrange an interview - simply click his icon now.

The EPA Cracks Down on "Forever Chemicals" in Drinking Water

For many years, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have contaminated drinking water supplies across the United States. But in April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced major steps to rein in these stubborn "forever chemicals." In a groundbreaking move, the EPA set strict new limits on six types of PFAS that are currently present in drinking water. Permitted levels of these chemicals are now close to zero, as water suppliers will be required to reduce them to the lowest level that can possibly be measured. These are the first-ever nationwide drinking water regulations for PFAS issued by the federal government. "The EPA is asking water companies to try to get PFAS levels to zero because there's no safe level. It's very difficult to test below four parts per trillion with the equipment and the testing mechanisms we have right now, so the levels will be reduced as much as they possibly can," said Laura Anderko, PhD, co-director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the Environment at Villanova University's M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing. So, what's driving this urgency to minimize exposure to PFAS? Our children's health is one big reason. As Dr. Anderko explains, "Children are more susceptible and vulnerable to the health impacts of PFAS because their bodies are still growing. Some of the health issues resulting from PFAS exposure are high cholesterol and a decrease in infant growth and fetal growth—so much so that there's a tendency towards low birth weight." Adults aren't spared either. PFAS has been linked to health issues including kidney cancer, liver problems and reduced antibody response from vaccines. For pregnant women, PFAS can increase the risk of high blood pressure. "These chemicals do impact pretty much every organ system of the body," Dr. Anderko said. With many different PFAS compounds used in products from fast food packaging to Band-Aids to carpeting, avoiding exposure to them can be difficult. Dr. Anderko's advice to reduce exposure is to educate yourself on what products contain PFAS and purchase alternative options when possible. She also cautions against relying solely on bottled water, which isn't necessarily safer than tap water. "We have this idea that bottled water is safe because it's packaged, but a lot of times that water is not tested, and we know for a fact that bottled water is filled with microplastics," she said. "You're better off not relying on bottled water unless you absolutely have to." Per Dr. Anderko, in the United States, chemicals can be inserted into some products without stringent testing for human health effects beforehand, so the EPA's new PFAS limits represent a major step toward putting human health first. While there is still a long road ahead to completely eliminate PFAS from our daily lives, these new regulations signal a welcome shift toward protecting public health in our country.

Need to know more about the importance of Miranda Rights? Our experts are here to help

The anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, which established the Miranda Rights, is a pivotal moment in American legal history. This ruling, which ensures that individuals are informed of their rights during an arrest, has profound implications for the criminal justice system, civil liberties, and police procedures. The importance of Miranda Rights remains a relevant and critical topic, especially in discussions about law enforcement practices and legal protections. Understanding the impact of this decision helps to illuminate broader issues of justice and rights in the United States. Key story angles include: Historical Context and Significance: Exploring the background of the Miranda v. Arizona case, its significance at the time, and its long-term effects on the criminal justice system. Impact on Law Enforcement: Analyzing how the Miranda ruling has changed police procedures, training, and accountability measures. Civil Liberties and Legal Protections: Investigating the role of Miranda Rights in protecting individual freedoms and ensuring fair treatment under the law. Contemporary Legal Challenges: Discussing ongoing legal debates and challenges related to Miranda Rights, including Supreme Court interpretations and potential reforms. Public Awareness and Education: Examining efforts to educate the public about their rights during interactions with law enforcement and the importance of knowing one's rights. Personal Stories and Case Studies: Sharing stories of individuals whose cases were affected by Miranda Rights, highlighting the human impact of this legal protection. These angles provide journalists with a comprehensive framework to explore the historical significance and enduring impact of Miranda Rights on the American legal landscape. Connect with an Expert about the importance of Miranda Rights: Christopher Smith Professor of Criminal Justice · Michigan State University Patricia Wilson, J.D. Associate Dean & Professor of Law · Baylor Law School Stephen Griffin W.R. Irby Chair and Rutledge C. Clement Jr. Professor in Constitutional Law · Tulane University Julian Ku Professor of Law and Interim Dean · Hofstra University Ganesh Sitaraman New York Alumni Chancellor's Chair in Law · Vanderbilt University To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo credit: Claire Anderson

Presidential Race Continues After Trump’s Guilty Verdict

Dr. Meena Bose, professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, was interviewed by Courthouse News about the guilty verdict in former President Donald Trump’s “hush money” trial and how it might impact voters this coming election. Trump is the first U.S. president to be charged with — and now convicted of — a crime “The presidency is the highest office in the land, and there is an expectation that presidents are supposed to represent kind of the best the United States has as far as character, leadership, responsibility,” said Dr. Bose. “And the convicted felon obviously doesn’t meet those expectations.” Dr. Bose added that Trump has proven himself repeatedly to be a “different candidate” from any other who has preceded him, primarily for his ability to evade career-crushing consequences since he first emerged on the presidential ticket in 2016. “Politically, other politicians would feel pressure to step aside,” she said. “But Donald Trump didn’t do so in 2016, he did everything he could to try and stay in office in 2020, and even after January 6 and an unprecedented second impeachment in 2021, ran for reelection and kind of effectively ended the primary contest very early without participating in a single primary debate.” Dr. Meena Bose is Executive Dean of Hofstra University’s Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs. She is available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

Today is the Anniversary of the approval of the 19th Amendment. Let our experts help with your stories.

The anniversary of the approval of the 19th Amendment marks a pivotal moment in history when women in the United States were granted the right to vote, symbolizing a major victory in the women's suffrage movement. This event is newsworthy because it represents a fundamental shift towards gender equality and has had profound implications for democratic participation and women's rights. Celebrating this milestone also provides an opportunity to reflect on the progress made and the ongoing struggles for gender equity. Key story angles include: Historical Context: Exploring the history and significance of the women's suffrage movement and the efforts leading up to the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Impact on Women's Political Participation: Analyzing how the 19th Amendment has shaped women's involvement in politics and governance over the past century. Contemporary Gender Equality Issues: Investigating current challenges in achieving gender equality in various sectors, including the workplace, education, and politics. Role of Women in Social Movements: Highlighting the contributions of women to various social justice movements and their leadership in advocating for change. Legal and Policy Developments: Reviewing significant legal and policy changes since the 19th Amendment that have advanced or hindered women's rights. Global Perspective: Comparing the women's suffrage movement in the United States with similar movements around the world and their respective impacts on global gender equality. Connect with an Expert about the 19th Amendment and the women's suffrage movement : Carla Bittel Professor of History · Loyola Marymount University Kathy Roberts Forde Professor of Journalism · University of Massachusetts Amherst Catherine Cerulli Director, Susan B. Anthony Center · University of Rochester Christopher M. Curtis Professor of History · Georgia Southern University Mary Anne Trasciatti Professor of Writing Studies and Rhetoric · Hofstra University To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo Credit: Library of Congress