Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
#Expert Research: Incentives Speed Up Operating Room Turnover Procedures
The operating room (OR) is the economic hub of most healthcare systems in the United States today, generating up to 70% of hospital revenue. Ensuring these financial powerhouses run efficiently is a major priority for healthcare providers. But there’s a challenge. Turnovers—cleaning, preparing, and setting up the OR between surgeries—are necessary and unavoidable processes. OR turnovers can incur significant costs in staff time and resources, but at the same time, do not generate revenue. For surgeons, the lag between wheels out and wheels in is idle time. For incoming patients, who may have spent hours fasting in preparation for a procedure, it is also a potential source of frustration and anxiety. Reducing OR turnover time is a priority for many US healthcare providers, but it’s far from simple. For one thing, cutting corners in pursuit of efficiency risks patient safety. Then there’s the makeup of OR teams themselves. As a rule, well-established or stable teams work fastest and best, their efficiency fueled by familiarity and well-oiled interpersonal dynamics. But in hospital settings, staff work in shifts and according to different schedules, which creates a certain fluidity in the way turnover teams amalgamate. These team members may not know each other or have any prior experience working together. For hospital administrators this represents a quandary. How do you cut OR turnover time without compromising patient care or hiring in more staff to build more stable teams? To put that another way: how do you motivate OR workers to maintain standards and drive efficiency—irrespective of the team they work with at any given time? One novel approach instituted by Georgia’s Phoebe Putney Health System is the focus of new research by Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Accounting, Karen Sedatole PhD. Under the stewardship of perioperative medical director and anesthesiologist, Jason Williams MD 02MR 20MBA, and with support from Sedatole and co-authors, Ewelina Forker 23PhD of the University of Wisconsin and Harvard Business School’s Susanna Gallini PhD, staff at Phoebe ran a field experiment incentivizing individual OR workers to ramp up their own performance in turnover processes. What they have found is a simple and cost-effective intervention that reduces the lag between procedures by an average of 6.4 percent. Homing in on the Individual Williams and his team at Phoebe kicked off efforts to reduce OR turnover times by first establishing a benchmark to calculate how long it should take to prepare for different types of procedure or surgery. This can vary significantly, says Williams: while a gallbladder removal should take less than 30 minutes, open-heart surgery might take an hour or longer to prepare. “There’s a lot of variation in predicting how long it should take to get things set up for different procedures. We got there by analyzing three years of data to create a baseline, and from there, having really homed in on that data, we were able to create a set of predictions and then compare those with what we were seeing in our operating rooms—and track discrepancies, over-, and underachievement.” Williams, a Goizueta MBA graduate who also completed his anesthesiology residency at Emory University’s School of Medicine, then enlisted the support of Sedatole and her colleagues to put together a data analysis system that would capture the impact of two distinct mechanisms, both designed to incentivize individual staff members to work faster during turnovers. The first was a set of electronic dashboards programmed to record and display the average OR turnover performance for teams on a weekly basis, and segment these into averages unique to individuals working in each of the core roles within any given OR turnover team. The dashboard displayed weekly scores and ranked them from best to worst on large TV monitors with interactive capabilities—users could filter the data for types of surgery and other dimensions. Broadcasting metrics this way afforded Williams and his team a means of identifying and then publicly recognizing top-performing staff, but that’s not all. The dashboards also provided a mechanism with which to filter out team dynamics, and home in on individual efforts. “If you are put in a room with one team, and they are slower than others, then you are going to be penalized. Your efforts will not shine. Now, say you are put in with a bigger or faster team, your day’s numbers are going to be much higher. So, we had to find a way to accommodate and allow for the team effect, to observe individual effort. The dashboards meant we could do this. Over the period of a week or a month, the effect of other people in the team is washed out. You begin to see the key individuals pop up again and again over time, and you can see those who are far above their peers versus those who, for whatever reason, are not so efficient.” Sharing “relative performance” information has been shown to be highly motivating in many settings. The hope was that it would here, too. Three core roles: Who’s who in the Operating Room turnover team? OR turnover teams consist of three roles: circulating nurse, scrub tech, and anesthetist. While other surgery staff might be present during a turnover, depending on the needs of consecutive procedures, these are the three core roles in the team, and they are not interchangeable in any way: each individual assumes the same responsibilities in every team they join. Typically, turnover tasks will include removing instruments and equipment from the previous surgery and setting up for the next: restocking supplies and restoring the sterile environment. Turnover tasks and activities will vary according to the type of procedure coming next, but these tasks are always performed by the same three roles: nurse, scrub tech, and anesthetist, working within their own area of expertise and specialty. OR turnover teams are assembled based on staff schedules and availability, making them highly fluid. Different nurses will work with different scrub techs and different anesthetists depending on who is free and available at any given time. With dashboards on display across the hospital’s surgery department, Williams decided to trial a second motivational mechanism; this time something more tangible. “We decided to offer a simple $40 Dollar Store gift card to each week’s top performing anesthetist, nurse, or scrub technician to see if it would incentivize people even more. And to keep things interesting, and sustain motivation, we made sure that anyone who’d won the contest two weeks in a row would be ineligible to win the gift card the following week,” says Williams. “It was a bit of a shot in the dark, and we didn’t know if it would work.” Altogether, the dashboards remained in situ over a period of about 33 months while the gift card promotion ran for 73 weeks. It was important to stress the foundational importance of safety and then allow individuals to come up with their own ways to tighten procedures. This was a bottom-up, grassroots experience where the people doing the work came up with their own ways to make their times better, without cutting corners, without cutting quality, and without cutting any safety measures. Jason Williams MD 02MR 20MBA Incentives: Make it Something Special and Unique Crunching all of this data, Sedatole and her colleagues could isolate the effect of each mechanism on performance and turnover times at Phoebe. While the dashboards had “negligible” effect on productivity, the addition of the store gift cards had immediate, significant, and sustained impact on individuals’ efforts. Differences in the effectiveness of the two incentives—the relative performance dashboard and the gift cards—are attributable to team fluidity, says Sedatole. “It’s all down to familiarity. Dashboards are effective if you care about your reputation and your standing with peers. And in fluid team settings, where people don’t really know each other, reputation seems to matter less because these individuals may never work together again. They simply care less about rankings because they are effectively strangers.” Tangible rewards, on the other hand, have what Sedatole calls a “hedonic” value: they can feel more special and unique to the recipient, even if they carry relatively little monetary value. Something like a $40 gift card to Target can be more motivating to individuals even than the same amount in cash. There’s something hedonic about a prize that differentiates it from cash—after all, you will just end up spending that $40 on the electricity bill. Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Accounting, Karen Sedatole “A tangible reward is something special because of its hedonic nature and the way that human beings do mental accounting,” says Sedatole. “It occupies a different place in the brain, so we treat it differently.” In fact, analyzing the results, Sedatole and her colleagues find that the introduction of gift cards at Phoebe equates to an average incremental improvement of 6.4% in OR turnover performance; a finding that does not vary over the 73-week timeframe, she adds. To get the same result by employing more staff to build more stable teams, Sedatole calculates that the hospital would have to increase peer familiarity to the 98th percentile: a very significant financial outlay and a lot of excess capacity if those additional team members are not working 100% of the time. These are key findings for healthcare systems and for administrators and decision-makers in any setting or sector where fluid teams are the norm, says Sedatole: from consultancy to software development to airline ground crews. Wherever diverse professionals come together briefly or sporadically to perform tasks and then disperse, individual motivation can be optimized by simple mechanisms—cost-effective tangible rewards—that give team members a fresh opportunity to earn the incentive in different settings on different occasions—a recurring chance to succeed that keeps the incentive systems engaging and effective over time. For healthcare in particular, this is a win-win-win, says Williams. “In the United States we are faced with lower reimbursements and higher costs, so we have to look for areas where we can gain efficiencies and minimize costs. In the healthcare value model, time and costs are denominators, and quality and service are numerators. Any way we can save on costs and improve efficiencies allows us to take care of more patients, and to be able to do that effectively. “We made some incredible improvements here. We went from just average to best in class, right to the frontier of operative efficiency. And there is so much more opportunity out there to pull more levers and reach new levels, which is truly encouraging.” Looking to know more or connect with Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Accounting, Karen Sedatole? Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview or time to talk today.
Twenty years ago, Hurricane Katrina hit the southeastern coast of the United States, devastating cities and towns across Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama and beyond. The storm caused nearly 1,400 fatalities, displaced more than 1 million people and generated over $125 billion in damages. Rob Traver, PhD, P.E., D. WRE, F.EWRI, F.ASCE, professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Villanova University, assisted in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) investigation of the failure of the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System during Hurricane Katrina, and earned an Outstanding Civilian Service Medal from the Commanding General of USACE for his efforts. Dr. Traver reflected on his experience working in the aftermath of Katrina, and how the findings from the investigation have impacted U.S. hurricane responses in the past 20 years. Q: What was your role in the investigation of the failure of the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System? Dr. Traver: Immediately after Hurricane Katrina, USACE wanted to assess what went wrong with flood protections that had failed during the storm in New Orleans, but they needed qualified researchers on their team who could oversee their investigation. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), an organization I have been a part of for many years, was hired for this purpose. Our job was to make sure that USACE was asking the right questions during the investigation that would lead to concrete answers about the causes of the failure of the hurricane protection system. My team was focused on analyzing the risk and reliability of the water resource system in New Orleans, and we worked alongside the USACE team, starting with revising the investigation questions in order to get answers about why these water systems failed during the storm. Q: What was your experience like in New Orleans in the aftermath of the hurricane? DT: My team went down to New Orleans a few weeks after the hurricane, visited all the sites we were reviewing and met with infrastructure experts along the way as progress was being made on the investigation. As we were flying overhead and looking at the devastated areas, seeing all the homes that were washed away, it was hard to believe that this level of destruction could happen in a city in the United States. As we started to realize the errors that were made and the things that went wrong leading up to the storm, it was heartbreaking to think about how lives could have been saved if the infrastructure in place had been treated as one system and undergone a critical review. Q: What were the findings of the ASCE and USACE investigation team? DT: USACE focused on New Orleans because they wanted to figure out why the city’s levee system—a human-made barrier that protects land from flooding by holding back water—failed during the hurricane. The city manages pump stations that are designed to remove water after a rainfall event, but they were not well connected to the levee system and not built to handle major storms. So, one of the main reasons for the levee system failure was that the pump stations and levees were not treated as one system, which was one of the causes of the mass flooding we saw in New Orleans. Another issue we found was that the designers of the levee system never factored in a failsafe for what would happen if a bigger storm occurred and the levee overflowed. They had the right idea by building flood protection systems, but they didn’t think that a larger storm the size of Katrina could occur and never updated the design to bring in new meteorological knowledge on size of potential storms. Since then, the city has completely rebuilt the levees using these lessons learned. Q: What did researchers, scientists and the general population learn from Katrina? DT: In areas that have had major hurricanes over the past 20 years, it’s easy to find what went wrong and fix it for the future, so we don’t necessarily worry as much about having a hurricane in the same place as we’ve had one before. What I worry about is if a hurricane hits a new town or city that has not experienced one and we have no idea what the potential frailties of the prevention systems there could be. Scientists and researchers also need to make high-risk areas for hurricane activity in the United States known for those who live there. People need to know what their risk is if they are in areas where there is increased risk of storms and flooding, and what they should do when a storm hits, especially now with the changes we are seeing in storm size.
Largest Cohort in LSU History: Six Distinguished Faculty Members Named Boyd Professors
Named in honor of brothers Thomas and David Boyd, early presidents and faculty members of LSU, the Boyd Professorship recognizes faculty who bring honor and prestige to LSU through their national and, as appropriate, international recognition for outstanding achievements. Before today, only 79 faculty members from all of LSU’s campuses have ever achieved this distinguished rank. The newest cohort of Boyd Professors represent a wide variety of disciplines and hail from three of LSU’s eight campuses: LSU A&M, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, and LSU Shreveport. This group includes LSU Shreveport’s first-ever Boyd Professor, a landmark achievement for the campus and a testament to its academic distinction. As the largest group of Boyd Professors ever named at one time, this cohort underscores LSU’s rising reputation for research excellence across all of its campuses. “This is a moment of real pride for LSU. Naming six new Boyd Professors is not only historic in scale, it's a clear reflection of the extraordinary strength and momentum of our academic enterprise,” said Interim LSU President Matt Lee. “These scholars are advancing knowledge in ways that reach far beyond our campuses, and their work is helping to define LSU’s place on the national and global stage. I am especially proud to see LSU Shreveport represented for the first time, a milestone that reflects the growing excellence across our campuses. This achievement is a powerful reminder of our commitment to advancing scholarship and shaping the future through research, education, and service.” The newest Boyd Professors are: Mette Gaarde, Les and Dot Broussard Alumni Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, College of Science, LSU A&M John Maxwell Hamilton, Hopkins P. Breazeale LSU Foundation Professor, Manship School of Mass Communication, LSU A&M Steven Heymsfield, Professor of Metabolism and Body Composition, Pennington Biomedical Research Center Michael Khonsari, Dow Chemical Endowed Chair and Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, LSU A&M Alexander Mikaberidze, Professor of History, Ruth Herring Noel Endowed Chair, College of Arts & Sciences, LSU Shreveport R. Kelley Pace, Professor, Department of Finance, E. J. Ourso College of Business, LSU A&M Nominations for the Boyd Professorship are initiated in the college, routed for review and support at the campus level, then considered by the LSU Boyd Professorship Review Committee, which seeks confidential evaluations from dozens of distinguished scholars in the candidate’s field of expertise. Once endorsed by the review committee, the nomination is forwarded to the LSU President and Board of Supervisors for consideration. With this distinction, a Boyd Professor’s compensation is elevated to reflect the stature of LSU’s most distinguished faculty, with a salary set at no less than the 95th percentile of full professors in comparable disciplines at peer public institutions across the southeastern United States. They also receive an annual stipend to further support their research and scholarly pursuits. Please join us in congratulating these faculty on this outstanding accomplishment.
Behind the image of a horse brain cell infected with Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) lies a sobering truth: this mosquito-borne virus is far more lethal than commonly understood, and pathologists, virologists, and researchers at LSU Diagnostics are working to better understand and fight it. EEE is found in the eastern, Gulf Coast and north-central regions of the United States, as well as parts of Central and South America and the Caribbean. Horses in areas with dense mosquito populations—such as swamps, coastal marshes, and coves—are at greater risk of contracting the virus. The sedentary “black tail mosquito” (Culiseta melanura) primarily transmits the virus to birds. However, other very active common mosquito species, referred to as "bridge vectors," can transmit the virus from birds to mammals such as humans and horses. "As the summer goes on, we typically have more positive cases as the temperature goes up," says Alma Roy, Ph.D. (LSU 2000), interim director of LSU Diagnostics. Louisiana is no stranger to West Nile virus, but Roy says LSU Diagnostics is seeing an unusual uptick in EEE this year. Though most common in horses, the disease can also strike humans, leading to deadly brain inflammation. In horses, it may cause inflammation of both the brain and the heart. "Necropsy and serological testing at LSU Diagnostics have confirmed at least fourteen positive cases in horses thus far. It's early in the year to see this many. We're seeing some West Nile, but more EEE than West Nile," Roy said. Horses are especially vulnerable to EEE, with mortality rates ranging from 75% to 90%. Survivors frequently suffer lasting neurological damage. Humans fare somewhat better, but the disease remains serious—about 30% of people who develop severe EEE die from the infection. "Many survive a West Nile virus infection, but EEE can be unforgiving. Be careful," warns Dr. Fabio Del Piero, pathologist at LSU Diagnostics and professor at LSU Vet Med. Since treatment is limited and mostly supportive, prevention is critical. Every day, LSU Diagnostics works to make that prevention possible. Roy reminds the public that vaccination and mosquito bite prevention are key: "Horses can be vaccinated. We encourage animals to be vaccinated for EEE and West Nile virus. And for humans, of course, it's the prevention of mosquito bites.” EEE is one of several life-threatening diseases diagnosed by LSU Diagnostics. Our team provides rapid, accurate disease detection through tissue and fluid testing as well as post-mortem diagnostics. LSU Diagnostics also supports statewide mosquito-virus surveillance to protect both animals and people. Together, LSU Diagnostics and LSU Vet Med play a critical role in diagnosing and responding to threats like EEE and West Nile virus — for the health of horses, livestock, wildlife, and the people who care for them. Original article posted here.
LSU Expert Christine Navarre on the Threat of New World Screwworms
The New World screwworm (NWS), also known as the primary screwworm, is the larvae of the fly Cochliomyia hominivorax. Unlike the larvae (maggots) of other flies that only feed on dead tissue, the NWS feeds on live tissue. This leads to more severe and potentially deadly consequences which threatens livestock and wildlife populations. Prior to their eradication form the United States, NWS were a major economic burden to the production of livestock, especially in the in the southwestern U.S. and Florida. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that the U.S. livestock industry saves approximately $900 million a year as a result of NWS eradication. Other benefits of eradication and control are enhanced human and animal health and welfare and increased survival of endangered wild animal species. The NWS fly was eradicated from the U.S. in 1966 with the release of sterile male flies to control the population. This status is maintained through the Panama-U.S. Commission for the Eradication and Prevention of the Cattle Borer Worm (COPEG) which releases millions of sterile flies weekly along the Panama-Colombia border to create a barrier preventing the northward spread of screwworms. Due to these efforts, it is now found primarily in tropical areas of South America and some Caribbean Islands, including Cuba. In 2016 NWS were found in Key Deer in the Florida Keys. The source of the outbreak was never determined. Rapid recognition of the problem and response with the release of sterile flies quickly eradicated the problem but this incident illustrates the importance of remaining vigilant. In November, NWS was detected in Mexico near the Guatemala border. The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has imposed immediate import restrictions on animal commodities from Mexico. They are also intensifying efforts to prevent the northward spread of NWS by collaborating with Mexican and Central American authorities and urging livestock producers along the southern U.S. border to monitor their livestock and pets for signs of NWS. Any suspected cases should be reported immediately. Clinical Signs NWS can infest any warm-blooded animal including livestock, pets, wildlife, birds and occasionally humans. Common sites of infestation are any fresh or old wounds, warts, tumors, tick bites and antlers in shedding. Wounds left from management procedures, such as dehorning, branding, ear tagging, tail docking and shearing, can become infested. The eyes, nose, vulva and prepuce are also vulnerable, as well as the umbilicus in newborn mammals. Animals infested with NWS may show the following signs: Presence of maggots in wounds or body openings Wounds with a foul odor, bloody drainage or white/cream-colored drainage (eggs) Depression, reduced appetite, weight loss Isolation and/or signs of discomfort, head shaking Fever and other signs of secondary infection Diagnosis and Reporting Maggots found on animals showing the above clinical signs should be sent to a veterinarian or veterinary diagnostic lab for identification to distinguish NWS larvae from other more common fly larvae. In Louisiana larvae can be sent to the Louisiana Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (www.lsu.edu/vetmed/laddl). Larvae should be placed in 70% alcohol for submission to the diagnostic laboratory. It is very important to immediately report any NWS infestations to the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry. A reported case will not result in herd depopulation but will allow animal health officials to take steps to help you manage your animals and prevent spread. Early detection and rapid response are critical to controlling this parasite. Treatment Immediate veterinary care should be sought to remove larvae and properly treat with insecticides. Wound care is also important to speed healing and prevent reinfestation. Prevention Treatment of NWS can be difficult, and eradication is very costly, so prevention of infestations is essential. Adult NWS flies can travel up to 12 miles to lay eggs, and eggs can be transported by animals and people traveling from infested areas. This necessitates constant vigilance to ensure that reintroduction into the U.S. does not occur. Preventative steps include: Regularly inspect livestock and pets for cuts, wounds, scabs and tick infestations. Closely monitor the umbilicus of newborn livestock, vulva of females and prepuce of males. Use insect repellant and wound dressings to prevent fly strike. Report any unusual wildlife or bird deaths to the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries. Pay close attention to nasal passages and eyes for signs of larvae (maggot) infestation. Seek veterinary advice for immediate treatment of open wounds, including dehorning and castration sites and preventive use of topical and systemic insecticides. Review biosecurity plans with the farm or ranch veterinarian. Original article by the LSU AgCenter here.
ExpertSpotlight: The History of Labor Day
What began as a modest parade in New York City has grown into a national holiday that honors the contributions of American workers and continues to spark conversations about labor rights today. Observed on the first Monday of September, Labor Day is both a tribute to the workforce and a cultural milestone marking the close of summer. From Parade to Holiday The first Labor Day celebration took place on September 5, 1882, when roughly 10,000 workers marched through New York City in a demonstration organized by the Central Labor Union. The parade, followed by a picnic and speeches, was designed to showcase the unity and strength of trade and labor organizations. The origins of the idea remain contested. Some credit Peter J. McGuire, co-founder of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, while others point to Matthew Maguire, a machinist and secretary of the Central Labor Union. Regardless of its champion, the concept spread quickly. By the late 1880s, states began adopting Labor Day as an official holiday. In 1894, following a wave of labor unrest that included the Pullman Strike, President Grover Cleveland signed legislation declaring the first Monday in September a federal holiday. Labor Day vs. May Day Unlike May Day (May 1)—which became closely associated with international labor movements and the more radical legacy of the Haymarket Affair of 1886—Labor Day was intended as a uniquely American holiday. Its September placement emphasized unity and recognition without the confrontational overtones of May Day. Over time, this distinction gave Labor Day a broader cultural resonance in the United States. A Living Tradition While barbecues, parades, and retail sales now dominate many Labor Day weekends, the holiday’s deeper meaning endures. It is a reminder of the hard-won gains of the labor movement, from the eight-hour workday to workplace safety protections, as well as the continuing debates over wages, unionization, and economic fairness. Even traditions like the etiquette rule of not wearing white after Labor Day reflect how the holiday shaped cultural norms at the turn of the 20th century. Today, beyond its role as summer’s unofficial finale, Labor Day continues to honor the dignity and achievements of working people across the country. Connect with our experts about the History of Labor Day. Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com
President Puts the Heat on U.S. CEOs
The Wall Street Journal interviewed Dr. Meena Bose about President Donald Trump upping public pressure on CEOs and telling them how to conduct their business. Recently he called for Intel’s chief executive to resign and told Detroit carmakers not to raise prices. Dr. Bose explained that this level of interference is highly unusual. “This is certainly not an approach the United States has seen in modern American politics,” she said. “It’s government bending economic interests.” Dr. Bose is a Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.
Tariffs fuel global sourcing shakeup for fashion in the U.S.
Be prepared to see more Made in Vietnam or Made in Bangladesh labels on clothing in the coming years. That’s because U.S. fashion companies are rethinking their global sourcing strategies and operations in response to the Trump administration’s trade policies and tariffs, according to new research by the University of Delaware's Sheng Lu. Lu, professor and graduate director in the Department of Fashion and Apparel Studies, partners with the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), on an annual survey of executives at the top 25 U.S. fashion brands, retailers, importers and wholesalers doing business globally. Members include well-known names like Levi’s, Macy’s, Ralph Lauren and Under Armour, among others. The report covers business challenges and outlook, sourcing practices and views on trade policy. “We wear more than just clothes; we wear the global economy, the supply chain and the public policies that jointly make fashion and affordable clothing available to American families,” Lu said. “We want to know where these companies source their products and what factors matter to them the most. It’s a classic question and it evolves each year.” This year’s report, released on July 31, shows tariffs and protectionist policies are the top business challenge for companies, with nearly half reporting declining sales and more than 20% saying they have had to lay off employees. This was followed closely by uncertainty around inflation and the economy, increasing sourcing and production costs, and changes in trade policies from other countries. In response, more than 80% of companies said they will diversify the countries from which they source their products, focusing on vendors in Asian countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Indonesia. Despite the push for “Made in USA” garments, only 17% of respondents plan to increase sourcing from the U.S. Lu shared his findings in the following Q&A: What surprised you about the survey results? Two things surprised me. First, contrary to common perception, the results do not indicate that the tariff policy so far has effectively supported or encouraged more textile and apparel production in the U.S. This actually makes sense. U.S. mills are as uncertain about the tariff rates as our trading partners are. A U.S. company may manufacture the clothes here, but use yarns, fabrics and zippers from other countries. When tariffs drive up the cost of these raw materials, it reduces the price competitiveness of apparel “Made in the USA.” Many domestic factories are in a “wait and see” mode, holding back on making critical investments to expand production due to the lack of a clear policy signal. Second, I was struck by the wide-ranging impact of the tariffs, which has gone far beyond what I originally imagined. Tariffs have not only increased U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing costs but have also affected their product development, shipping and overall supply chain management. Nearly 70% of the survey respondents said they have delayed or canceled some sourcing orders due to tariff hikes. Should consumers be prepared for less variety in clothing or shortages? Later this year, we may see fewer clothing items from our favorite brands on store shelves — especially during the holiday shopping season — and many of those items may come with a higher price tag. That said, fashion companies are doing what they can to avoid passing on tariff costs across the board, as they recognize that consumers are price sensitive. Many surveyed U.S. fashion companies say they intend to strengthen relationships with key vendors as a strategic move, and there is a growing public call for U.S. companies to provide more support and resources to their suppliers in developing countries. Sustainability is a huge issue in the fashion industry, as millions of tons of textiles end up in landfills every year. Companies say they are spending less on sustainability efforts. What would you tell companies about their sustainability efforts? Our survey suggests that sustainability can open up new business opportunities for U.S. fashion companies. Respondents said that when sourcing clothing made from sustainable fibers — like recycled, organic, biodegradable and regenerative materials — they are more likely to rely on a U.S. sourcing base or suppliers in the Western Hemisphere. In other words, even if apparel “Made in the USA” or nearby cannot always compete on price with lower-cost Asian suppliers, there is a better chance to compete on sustainability. Based on what I’ve learned from our Gen Z students — who expect better quality and more sustainable products if they have to pay more, and are critical consumers for many brands and retailers — it is unwise to hold back on investments in sustainability. What do you see as the biggest takeaway from the survey? One key takeaway is that the $4 trillion fashion and apparel business today is truly “made anywhere in the world and sold anywhere in the world.” In such a highly global and interconnected industry, everyone is a stakeholder — meaning there are no real winners in a tariff war. The study is also a powerful reminder that fashion is far more than just creating stylish clothing. Today’s fashion industry is deeply intertwined with sustainability, international relations, trade policy and technology. I hope the findings will be timely, informative and useful to fashion companies, policymakers, suppliers and fellow researchers. I plan to incorporate the insights, as well as the valuable industry connections developed through my long term partnership with USFIA, in my classroom, giving UD students fresh, real-world perspectives on the often “unfashionable” but essential side of the industry. Reporters interested in speaking with Lu can contact him directly by visiting his profile and clicking on the contact button. UD's media relations team can be reached via email.
Emil Bove’s appeals court nomination echoes earlier controversies, but with a key difference
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. President Donald Trump’s nomination of his former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, has been mired in controversy. On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked with Bove, released an extensive, 27-page whistleblower report. Reuveni claimed that Bove, as the Trump administration’s acting deputy attorney general, said “that it might become necessary to tell a court ‘fuck you’” and ignore court orders related to the administration’s immigration policies. Bove’s acting role ended on March 6 when he resumed his current position of principal associate deputy attorney general. When asked about this statement at his June 25 Senate confirmation hearing, Bove said, “I don’t recall.” And on July 15, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing Bove’s nomination. The letter argued that “Mr. Bove’s egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.” A day later, more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys submitted their own letter opposing Bove’s confirmation. The attorneys argued that “Few actions could undermine the rule of law more than a senior executive branch official flouting another branch’s authority. But that is exactly what Mr. Bove allegedly did through his involvement in DOJ’s defiance of court orders.” On July 17, Democrats walked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote, in protest of the refusal by Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to allow further investigation and debate on the nomination. Republicans on the committee then unanimously voted to move the nomination forward for a full Senate vote. As a scholar of the courts, I know that most federal court appointments are not as controversial as Bove’s nomination. But highly contentious nominations do arise from time to time. Here’s how three controversial nominations turned out – and how Bove’s nomination is different in a crucial way. Robert Bork Bork is the only federal court nominee whose name became a verb. “Borking” is “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification,” according to Merriam-Webster. This refers to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 appointment of Bork to the Supreme Court. Reagan called Bork “one of the finest judges in America’s history.” Democrats viewed Bork, a federal appeals court judge, as an ideologically extreme conservative, with their opposition based largely on his extensive scholarly work and opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In opposing the Bork nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts took the Senate floor and gave a fiery speech: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.” Ultimately, Bork’s nomination failed by a 58-42 vote in the Senate, with 52 Democrats and six Republicans rejecting the nomination. Ronnie White In 1997, Democratic President Bill Clinton nominated White to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. White was the first Black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court. Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, from White’s home state of Missouri, led the fight against the nomination. Ashcroft alleged that White’s confirmation would “push the law in a pro-criminal direction.” Ashcroft based this claim on White’s comparatively liberal record in death penalty cases as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court. However, there was limited evidence to support this assertion. This led some to believe that Ashcroft’s attack on the nomination was motivated by stereotypes that African Americans, like White, are soft on crime. Even Clinton implied that race may be a factor in the attacks on White: “By voting down the first African-American judge to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Republicans have deprived both the judiciary and the people of Missouri of an excellent, fair, and impartial Federal judge.” White’s nomination was defeated in the Senate by a 54-45 party-line vote. In 2014, White was renominated to the same judgeship by President Barack Obama and confirmed by largely party-line 53-44 vote, garnering the support of a single Republican, Susan Collins of Maine. Miguel Estrada Republican President George W. Bush nominated Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2001. Estrada, who had earned a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, faced deep opposition from Senate Democrats, who believed he was a conservative ideologue. They also worried that, if confirmed, he would later be appointed to the Supreme Court. However, unlike Bork – who had an extensive paper trail as an academic and judge – Estrada’s written record was very thin. Democrats sought to use his confirmation hearing to probe his beliefs. But they didn’t get very far, as Estrada dodged many of the senators’ questions, including ones about Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and judges he admired. Democrats were particularly troubled by allegations that Estrada, when he was screening candidates for Justice Anthony Kennedy, disqualified applicants for Supreme Court clerkships based on their ideology. According to one attorney: “Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.” When asked about this at his confirmation hearing, Estrada initially denied it but later backpedaled. Estrada said, “There is a set of circumstances in which I would consider ideology if I think that the person has some extreme view that he would not be willing to set aside in service to Justice Kennedy.” Unlike the Bork nomination, Democrats didn’t have the numbers to vote Estrada’s nomination down. Instead, they successfully filibustered the nomination, knowing that Republicans couldn’t muster the required 60 votes to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in Senate history that a court of appeals nomination was filibustered. Estrada would never serve as a judge. Bove stands out As the examples of Bork, Estrada and White make clear, contentious nominations to the federal courts often involve ideological concerns. This is also true for Bove, who is opposed in part because of the perception that he is a conservative ideologue. But the main concerns about Bove are related to a belief that he is a Trump loyalist who shows little respect for the rule of law or the judicial branch. This makes Bove stand out among contentious federal court nominations.
Poll finds bipartisan agreement on a key issue: Regulating AI
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. In the run-up to the vote in the U.S. Senate on President Donald Trump’s spending and tax bill, Republicans scrambled to revise the bill to win support of wavering GOP senators. A provision included in the original bill was a 10-year moratorium on any state law that sought to regulate artificial intelligence. The provision denied access to US$500 million in federal funding for broadband internet and AI infrastructure projects for any state that passed any such law. The inclusion of the AI regulation moratorium was widely viewed as a win for AI firms that had expressed fears that states passing regulations on AI would hamper the development of the technology. However, many federal and state officials from both parties, including state attorneys general, state legislators and 17 Republican governors, publicly opposed the measure. In the last hours before the passage of the bill, the Senate struck down the provision by a resounding 99-1 vote. In an era defined by partisan divides on issues such as immigration, health care, social welfare, gender equality, race relations and gun control, why are so many Republican and Democratic political leaders on the same page on the issue of AI regulation? Whatever motivated lawmakers to permit AI regulation, our recent poll shows that they are aligned with the majority of Americans who view AI with trepidation, skepticism and fear, and who want the emerging technology regulated. Bipartisan sentiments We are political scientists who use polls to study partisan polarization in the United States, as well as the areas of agreement that bridge the divide that has come to define U.S. politics. In April 2025, we fielded a nationally representative poll that sought to capture what Americans think about AI, including what they think AI will mean for the economy and society going forward. The public is generally pessimistic. We found that 65% of Americans said they believe AI will increase the spread of false information. Fifty-six percent of Americans worry AI will threaten the future of humanity. Fewer than 3 in 10 Americans told us AI will make them more productive (29%), make people less lonely (21%) or improve the economy (22%). While Americans tend to be deeply divided along partisan lines on most issues, the apprehension regarding AI’s impact on the future appears to be relatively consistent across Republicans and Democrats. For example, only 19% of Republicans and 22% of Democrats said they believe that artificial intelligence will make people less lonely. Respondents across the parties are in lockstep when it comes to their views on whether AI will make them personally more productive, with only 29% − both Republicans and Democrats − agreeing. And 60% of Democrats and 53% Republicans said they believe AI will threaten the future of humanity. On the question of whether artificial intelligence should be strictly regulated by the government, we found that close to 6 in 10 Americans (58%) agree with this sentiment. Given the partisan differences in support for governmental regulation of business, we expected to find evidence of a partisan divide on this question. However, our data finds that Democrats and Republicans are of one mind on AI regulation, with majorities of both Democrats (66%) and Republicans (54%) supporting strict AI regulation. When we take into account demographic and political characteristics such as race, educational attainment, gender identity, income, ideology and age, we again find that partisan identity has no significant impact on opinion regarding the regulation of AI. State of anxiety In the years ahead, the debate over AI and the government’s role in regulating it is likely to intensify, on both the state and federal levels. As each day seems to bring new advances in AI’s capability and reach, the future is shaping up to be one in which human beings coexist – and hopefully flourish – alongside AI. This new reality has made the American public, both Democrats and Republicans, justifiably nervous, and our polling captures this widespread trepidation. Lawmakers and technology leaders alike could address this anxiety by better communicating the pitfalls and potential of AI, and take seriously the concerns of the public. After all, the public is not alone in its trepidation. Many experts in the field also have substantial worries about the future of AI. One of the fundamental political questions moving forward, then, will be to what degree regulators put guardrails on this emerging and transformative technology in order to protect Americans from AI’s negative consequences. Adam Eichen is a doctoral candidate in political science at UMass Amherst. Alexander Theodoridis is associate professor of political science and co-director of the UMass Amherst Poll at UMass Amherst. Sara M. Kirshbaum is a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer of political science at UMass Amherst. Tatishe Nteta is provost professor of political science and director of the UMass Amherst Poll at UMass Amherst.
