MLive Media Group file photo 

Michigan lawmakers are setting the stage for some final budget-related votes within the next few weeks.

Last week, the House and Senate took some preliminary budget votes — while addressing some non-budget topics as well. Among the highlights:

Public health budget: The Senate approved its initial version of a Department of Community Health budget for the fiscal year that begins in October. It covers several facets of the state’s community health budget (see analysis). It does not include an expansion of Medicaid, but that proposal could be dealt with separately in a different bill.

Senate Bill 198 was approved by a 20-18 vote. It next advances to the House, which already has passed its own version. Differences between the two versions are expected to be reconciled within the next few weeks. By the time the Senate takes a final vote on the community health budget, several details could be different from the version approved this week.

The Senate vote from Thursday:

Jim Ananich, D-Flint – No
Glenn Anderson, D-Westland – No
Steve Bieda, D-Warren – No
Darwin Booher, R-Evart – Yes
Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township – No
Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba – Yes
Bruce Caswell, R-Hillsdale – Yes
Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township – No
Judy Emmons, R-Sheridan – Yes
Mike Green, R-Mayville – Yes
Vincent Gregory, D-Southfield – No
Goeff Hansen, R-Hart – Yes
Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell – Yes
Morris Hood III, D-Detroit – No
Hoon-Yung Hopgood, D-Taylor – No
Joe Hune, R-Hamburg – No
Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit – No
Mark Jansen, R-Gaines Township – Yes
Bert Johnson, D-Highland Park – No
Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge – No
Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw Township – Yes
Mike Kowall, R-White Lake Township – Yes
James Marleau, R-Lake Orion – Yes
Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive – Yes
John Moolenaar, R-Midland – Yes
Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek – Yes
John Pappageorge, R-Troy – Yes
Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair – Yes
John Proos, R-St. Joseph – Yes
Randy Richardville, R-Monroe – Yes
Dave Robertson, R-Grand Blanc – Yes
Tory Rocca, R-Sterling Heights – No
Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton – No
Virgil Smith, D-Detroit – No
Howard Walker, R-Traverse City – Yes
Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor – No
Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing – No
Coleman Young II, D-Detroit – No

Health claims: The Senate approved a measure that would continue a 1 percent tax or assessment on health insurance claims that first took effect in early 2012.

Senate Bill 335 was approved by a 25-13 vote, sending the measure to the House. Most Democrats supported the “health insurance claims assessment act” and Republicans were split.

Republicans voting against the bill: Brandenburg, Colbeck, Hildenbrand, Hune, Jones, Kowall, Nofs, Pavlov, Proos, Robertson, Rocca and Schuitmaker. The only Democrat to vote against the measure was Young.

Presence at meetings: The House approved a measure aimed at requiring members of government boards and other public bodies to be physically present at meetings when they vote. The bill — which would change the Open Meetings Act — is aimed at cracking down on the practice of board members voting remotely via teleconference instead of being physically present at meetings.

House Bill 4363 was approved by a 92-14 vote in the House. The legislation advances to the Senate.

Most of the 14 lawmakers voting against the proposal were Democrats. The full list of ‘no’ votes: Terry Brown, D-Pigeon; Scott Dianda, D-Calumet; Fred Durhal Jr., D-Detroit; Pam Faris, D-Clio; John Kivela, D-Marquette; Phil Potvin, R-Cadillac; Sarah Roberts, D-St. Clair Shores; Sam Singh, D-East Lansing; Charles Smiley, D-Burton; Thomas Stallworth III, D-Detroit; Alberta Tinsley-Talabi, D-Detroit; Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit; Henry Yanez, D-Sterling Heights; and Adam Zemke, D-Ann Arbor.

Three lawmakers did not vote – Rudy Hobbs, D-Southfield; John Olumba, I-Detroit; and Rose Mary Robinson, D-Detroit.

Email Tim Martin at tmartin4@mlive.com. Follow him on Twitter: @TimMartinMI

Article source: http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/michigan_medicaid_community_he.html

MLive Media Group file photo 

Michigan lawmakers are setting the stage for some final budget-related votes within the next few weeks.

Last week, the House and Senate took some preliminary budget votes — while addressing some non-budget topics as well. Among the highlights:

Public health budget: The Senate approved its initial version of a Department of Community Health budget for the fiscal year that begins in October. It covers several facets of the state’s community health budget (see analysis). It does not include an expansion of Medicaid, but that proposal could be dealt with separately in a different bill.

Senate Bill 198 was approved by a 20-18 vote. It next advances to the House, which already has passed its own version. Differences between the two versions are expected to be reconciled within the next few weeks. By the time the Senate takes a final vote on the community health budget, several details could be different from the version approved this week.

The Senate vote from Thursday:

Jim Ananich, D-Flint – No
Glenn Anderson, D-Westland – No
Steve Bieda, D-Warren – No
Darwin Booher, R-Evart – Yes
Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township – No
Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba – Yes
Bruce Caswell, R-Hillsdale – Yes
Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township – No
Judy Emmons, R-Sheridan – Yes
Mike Green, R-Mayville – Yes
Vincent Gregory, D-Southfield – No
Goeff Hansen, R-Hart – Yes
Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell – Yes
Morris Hood III, D-Detroit – No
Hoon-Yung Hopgood, D-Taylor – No
Joe Hune, R-Hamburg – No
Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit – No
Mark Jansen, R-Gaines Township – Yes
Bert Johnson, D-Highland Park – No
Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge – No
Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw Township – Yes
Mike Kowall, R-White Lake Township – Yes
James Marleau, R-Lake Orion – Yes
Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive – Yes
John Moolenaar, R-Midland – Yes
Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek – Yes
John Pappageorge, R-Troy – Yes
Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair – Yes
John Proos, R-St. Joseph – Yes
Randy Richardville, R-Monroe – Yes
Dave Robertson, R-Grand Blanc – Yes
Tory Rocca, R-Sterling Heights – No
Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton – No
Virgil Smith, D-Detroit – No
Howard Walker, R-Traverse City – Yes
Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor – No
Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing – No
Coleman Young II, D-Detroit – No

Health claims: The Senate approved a measure that would continue a 1 percent tax or assessment on health insurance claims that first took effect in early 2012.

Senate Bill 335 was approved by a 25-13 vote, sending the measure to the House. Most Democrats supported the “health insurance claims assessment act” and Republicans were split.

Republicans voting against the bill: Brandenburg, Colbeck, Hildenbrand, Hune, Jones, Kowall, Nofs, Pavlov, Proos, Robertson, Rocca and Schuitmaker. The only Democrat to vote against the measure was Young.

Presence at meetings: The House approved a measure aimed at requiring members of government boards and other public bodies to be physically present at meetings when they vote. The bill — which would change the Open Meetings Act — is aimed at cracking down on the practice of board members voting remotely via teleconference instead of being physically present at meetings.

House Bill 4363 was approved by a 92-14 vote in the House. The legislation advances to the Senate.

Most of the 14 lawmakers voting against the proposal were Democrats. The full list of ‘no’ votes: Terry Brown, D-Pigeon; Scott Dianda, D-Calumet; Fred Durhal Jr., D-Detroit; Pam Faris, D-Clio; John Kivela, D-Marquette; Phil Potvin, R-Cadillac; Sarah Roberts, D-St. Clair Shores; Sam Singh, D-East Lansing; Charles Smiley, D-Burton; Thomas Stallworth III, D-Detroit; Alberta Tinsley-Talabi, D-Detroit; Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit; Henry Yanez, D-Sterling Heights; and Adam Zemke, D-Ann Arbor.

Three lawmakers did not vote – Rudy Hobbs, D-Southfield; John Olumba, I-Detroit; and Rose Mary Robinson, D-Detroit.

Email Tim Martin at tmartin4@mlive.com. Follow him on Twitter: @TimMartinMI

Article source: http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/michigan_medicaid_community_he.html

MLive Media Group file photo 

Michigan lawmakers are setting the stage for some final budget-related votes within the next few weeks.

Last week, the House and Senate took some preliminary budget votes — while addressing some non-budget topics as well. Among the highlights:

Public health budget: The Senate approved its initial version of a Department of Community Health budget for the fiscal year that begins in October. It covers several facets of the state’s community health budget (see analysis). It does not include an expansion of Medicaid, but that proposal could be dealt with separately in a different bill.

Senate Bill 198 was approved by a 20-18 vote. It next advances to the House, which already has passed its own version. Differences between the two versions are expected to be reconciled within the next few weeks. By the time the Senate takes a final vote on the community health budget, several details could be different from the version approved this week.

The Senate vote from Thursday:

Jim Ananich, D-Flint – No
Glenn Anderson, D-Westland – No
Steve Bieda, D-Warren – No
Darwin Booher, R-Evart – Yes
Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township – No
Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba – Yes
Bruce Caswell, R-Hillsdale – Yes
Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township – No
Judy Emmons, R-Sheridan – Yes
Mike Green, R-Mayville – Yes
Vincent Gregory, D-Southfield – No
Goeff Hansen, R-Hart – Yes
Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell – Yes
Morris Hood III, D-Detroit – No
Hoon-Yung Hopgood, D-Taylor – No
Joe Hune, R-Hamburg – No
Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit – No
Mark Jansen, R-Gaines Township – Yes
Bert Johnson, D-Highland Park – No
Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge – No
Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw Township – Yes
Mike Kowall, R-White Lake Township – Yes
James Marleau, R-Lake Orion – Yes
Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive – Yes
John Moolenaar, R-Midland – Yes
Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek – Yes
John Pappageorge, R-Troy – Yes
Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair – Yes
John Proos, R-St. Joseph – Yes
Randy Richardville, R-Monroe – Yes
Dave Robertson, R-Grand Blanc – Yes
Tory Rocca, R-Sterling Heights – No
Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton – No
Virgil Smith, D-Detroit – No
Howard Walker, R-Traverse City – Yes
Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor – No
Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing – No
Coleman Young II, D-Detroit – No

Health claims: The Senate approved a measure that would continue a 1 percent tax or assessment on health insurance claims that first took effect in early 2012.

Senate Bill 335 was approved by a 25-13 vote, sending the measure to the House. Most Democrats supported the “health insurance claims assessment act” and Republicans were split.

Republicans voting against the bill: Brandenburg, Colbeck, Hildenbrand, Hune, Jones, Kowall, Nofs, Pavlov, Proos, Robertson, Rocca and Schuitmaker. The only Democrat to vote against the measure was Young.

Presence at meetings: The House approved a measure aimed at requiring members of government boards and other public bodies to be physically present at meetings when they vote. The bill — which would change the Open Meetings Act — is aimed at cracking down on the practice of board members voting remotely via teleconference instead of being physically present at meetings.

House Bill 4363 was approved by a 92-14 vote in the House. The legislation advances to the Senate.

Most of the 14 lawmakers voting against the proposal were Democrats. The full list of ‘no’ votes: Terry Brown, D-Pigeon; Scott Dianda, D-Calumet; Fred Durhal Jr., D-Detroit; Pam Faris, D-Clio; John Kivela, D-Marquette; Phil Potvin, R-Cadillac; Sarah Roberts, D-St. Clair Shores; Sam Singh, D-East Lansing; Charles Smiley, D-Burton; Thomas Stallworth III, D-Detroit; Alberta Tinsley-Talabi, D-Detroit; Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit; Henry Yanez, D-Sterling Heights; and Adam Zemke, D-Ann Arbor.

Three lawmakers did not vote – Rudy Hobbs, D-Southfield; John Olumba, I-Detroit; and Rose Mary Robinson, D-Detroit.

Email Tim Martin at tmartin4@mlive.com. Follow him on Twitter: @TimMartinMI

Article source: http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/michigan_medicaid_community_he.html

Robyn Beck/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Paro, a therapeutic robot.

In the opening scene of the movie “Robot Frank,” which takes place in the near future, Frank, an elderly man who lives alone, is arguing with his son about going to a medical center for Alzheimer’s treatment when the son interrupts him. “I brought you something,” he says to Frank. Then the son pulls a large, white humanoid robot from the trunk of his car.

Frank watches in disbelief. “You have got to be kidding me,” he says as a robot helper, called the VGC-60L, stands in front of him. “I’m not this pathetic!”

But as Frank soon learns, he doesn’t have much of a choice. His new robot helper is there to cook, clean, garden and keep him company. His son, mired in family and work life, is too busy to care for his ailing father.

Just like Frank, as the baby boomer generation grows old and if the number of elderly care workers fails to grow with it, many people might end up being cared for by robots. According to the Health and Human Services Department, there will be 72.1 million Americans over the age of 65 by 2030, which is nearly double the number today. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the country will need 70 percent more home aide jobs by 2020, long before that bubble of retirees. But filling those jobs is proving to be difficult because the salaries are low. In many states, in-home aides make an average of $20,820 annually.

“There are two trends that are going in opposite directions. One is the increasing number of elderly people, and the other is the decline in the number of people to take care of them,” said Jim Osborn, a roboticist and executive director of the Robotics Institute’s Quality of Life Technology Center at Carnegie Mellon University. “Part of the view we’ve already espoused is that robots will start to fill in those gaps.”

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have developed Cody, a robotic nurse the university says is “gentle enough to bathe elderly patients.” There is also HERB, which is short for Home Exploring Robot Butler. Made by researchers at Carnegie Mellon, it is designed to fetch household objects like cups and can even clean a kitchen. Hector, a robot that is being developed by the University of Reading in England, can remind patients to take their medicine, keep track of their eyeglasses and assist in the event of a fall.

The technology is nearly there. But some researchers worry that we are not asking a fundamental question: Should we entrust the care of people in their 70s and older to artificial assistants rather than doing it ourselves?

Sherry Turkle, a professor of science, technology and society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of the book “Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other,” did a series of studies with Paro, a therapeutic robot that looks like a baby harp seal and is meant to have a calming effect on patients with dementia, Alzheimer’s and in health care facilities. The professor said she was troubled when she saw a 76-year-old woman share stories about her life with the robot.

“I felt like this isn’t amazing; this is sad. We have been reduced to spectators of a conversation that has no meaning,” she said. “Giving old people robots to talk to is a dystopian view that is being classified as utopian.” Professor Turkle said robots did not have a capacity to listen or understand something personal, and tricking patients to think they can is unethical.

That’s the catch. Leaving the questions of ethics aside for a moment, building robots is not simply about creating smart machines; it is about making something that is not human still appear, somehow, trustworthy.

A recent Georgia Tech study found that older people were intrigued by the idea of robotic assistants in the home, but a robot’s appearance played a large role in what they will trust the machines to do. Older people want robots that look human for tasks that involve intelligence, like recommending which medicine they need to take. But they want a more sterile-looking machine for manual labor tasks, like cleaning and cooking, so they do not feel guilty bossing it about.

Wendy A. Rogers, a professor at Georgia Tech and director of the university’s Human Factors and Aging Laboratory, said concerns about older people developing relationships with their in-home helper robots were no different than the bond we develop with other inanimate objects.

Dr. Rogers has been experimenting with a large robot called the PR2, made by Willow Garage, a robotics company in Palo Alto, Calif., which can fetch and administer medicine, a seemingly simple act that demands a great deal of trust between man and machine.

“We are social beings, and we do develop social types of relationships with lots of things,” she said. “Think about the GPS in your car, you talk to it and it talks to you.” Dr. Rogers noted that people developed connections with their Roomba, the vacuum robot, by giving the machines names and buying costumes for them. “This isn’t a bad thing, it’s just what we do,” she said.

In fact, Mr. Osborn’s laboratory at Carnegie Mellon has designed a robot to work with therapists and people with autism. The machine can develop a personality and blinks and giggles as people interact with it. “Those we tested it with love it and hugged it,” he said. “You begin to think of it as something that is more than a machine with a computer.”

In the movie “Robot Frank,” technologists have raced ahead of society’s collective conscience with their robot caregivers. But the movie still leaves its audience with a question: Will it one day be morally acceptable to unload your parents’ care to a machine?

As the actor Frank Langella, who plays Frank in the movie, told NPR last year: “Every one of us is going to go through aging and all sorts of processes, many people suffering from dementia,” he said. “And if you put a machine in there to help, the notion of making it about love and buddy-ness and warmth is kind of scary in a way, because that’s what you should be doing with other human beings.”

Article source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/disruptions-helper-robots-are-steered-tentatively-to-elder-care/

Robyn Beck/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Paro, a therapeutic robot.

In the opening scene of the movie “Robot Frank,” which takes place in the near future, Frank, an elderly man who lives alone, is arguing with his son about going to a medical center for Alzheimer’s treatment when the son interrupts him. “I brought you something,” he says to Frank. Then the son pulls a large, white humanoid robot from the trunk of his car.

Frank watches in disbelief. “You have got to be kidding me,” he says as a robot helper, called the VGC-60L, stands in front of him. “I’m not this pathetic!”

But as Frank soon learns, he doesn’t have much of a choice. His new robot helper is there to cook, clean, garden and keep him company. His son, mired in family and work life, is too busy to care for his ailing father.

Just like Frank, as the baby boomer generation grows old and if the number of elderly care workers fails to grow with it, many people might end up being cared for by robots. According to the Health and Human Services Department, there will be 72.1 million Americans over the age of 65 by 2030, which is nearly double the number today. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the country will need 70 percent more home aide jobs by 2020, long before that bubble of retirees. But filling those jobs is proving to be difficult because the salaries are low. In many states, in-home aides make an average of $20,820 annually.

“There are two trends that are going in opposite directions. One is the increasing number of elderly people, and the other is the decline in the number of people to take care of them,” said Jim Osborn, a roboticist and executive director of the Robotics Institute’s Quality of Life Technology Center at Carnegie Mellon University. “Part of the view we’ve already espoused is that robots will start to fill in those gaps.”

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have developed Cody, a robotic nurse the university says is “gentle enough to bathe elderly patients.” There is also HERB, which is short for Home Exploring Robot Butler. Made by researchers at Carnegie Mellon, it is designed to fetch household objects like cups and can even clean a kitchen. Hector, a robot that is being developed by the University of Reading in England, can remind patients to take their medicine, keep track of their eyeglasses and assist in the event of a fall.

The technology is nearly there. But some researchers worry that we are not asking a fundamental question: Should we entrust the care of people in their 70s and older to artificial assistants rather than doing it ourselves?

Sherry Turkle, a professor of science, technology and society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of the book “Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other,” did a series of studies with Paro, a therapeutic robot that looks like a baby harp seal and is meant to have a calming effect on patients with dementia, Alzheimer’s and in health care facilities. The professor said she was troubled when she saw a 76-year-old woman share stories about her life with the robot.

“I felt like this isn’t amazing; this is sad. We have been reduced to spectators of a conversation that has no meaning,” she said. “Giving old people robots to talk to is a dystopian view that is being classified as utopian.” Professor Turkle said robots did not have a capacity to listen or understand something personal, and tricking patients to think they can is unethical.

That’s the catch. Leaving the questions of ethics aside for a moment, building robots is not simply about creating smart machines; it is about making something that is not human still appear, somehow, trustworthy.

A recent Georgia Tech study found that older people were intrigued by the idea of robotic assistants in the home, but a robot’s appearance played a large role in what they will trust the machines to do. Older people want robots that look human for tasks that involve intelligence, like recommending which medicine they need to take. But they want a more sterile-looking machine for manual labor tasks, like cleaning and cooking, so they do not feel guilty bossing it about.

Wendy A. Rogers, a professor at Georgia Tech and director of the university’s Human Factors and Aging Laboratory, said concerns about older people developing relationships with their in-home helper robots were no different than the bond we develop with other inanimate objects.

Dr. Rogers has been experimenting with a large robot called the PR2, made by Willow Garage, a robotics company in Palo Alto, Calif., which can fetch and administer medicine, a seemingly simple act that demands a great deal of trust between man and machine.

“We are social beings, and we do develop social types of relationships with lots of things,” she said. “Think about the GPS in your car, you talk to it and it talks to you.” Dr. Rogers noted that people developed connections with their Roomba, the vacuum robot, by giving the machines names and buying costumes for them. “This isn’t a bad thing, it’s just what we do,” she said.

In fact, Mr. Osborn’s laboratory at Carnegie Mellon has designed a robot to work with therapists and people with autism. The machine can develop a personality and blinks and giggles as people interact with it. “Those we tested it with love it and hugged it,” he said. “You begin to think of it as something that is more than a machine with a computer.”

In the movie “Robot Frank,” technologists have raced ahead of society’s collective conscience with their robot caregivers. But the movie still leaves its audience with a question: Will it one day be morally acceptable to unload your parents’ care to a machine?

As the actor Frank Langella, who plays Frank in the movie, told NPR last year: “Every one of us is going to go through aging and all sorts of processes, many people suffering from dementia,” he said. “And if you put a machine in there to help, the notion of making it about love and buddy-ness and warmth is kind of scary in a way, because that’s what you should be doing with other human beings.”

Article source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/disruptions-helper-robots-are-steered-tentatively-to-elder-care/

Robyn Beck/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Paro, a therapeutic robot.

In the opening scene of the movie “Robot Frank,” which takes place in the near future, Frank, an elderly man who lives alone, is arguing with his son about going to a medical center for Alzheimer’s treatment when the son interrupts him. “I brought you something,” he says to Frank. Then the son pulls a large, white humanoid robot from the trunk of his car.

Frank watches in disbelief. “You have got to be kidding me,” he says as a robot helper, called the VGC-60L, stands in front of him. “I’m not this pathetic!”

But as Frank soon learns, he doesn’t have much of a choice. His new robot helper is there to cook, clean, garden and keep him company. His son, mired in family and work life, is too busy to care for his ailing father.

Just like Frank, as the baby boomer generation grows old and if the number of elderly care workers fails to grow with it, many people might end up being cared for by robots. According to the Health and Human Services Department, there will be 72.1 million Americans over the age of 65 by 2030, which is nearly double the number today. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the country will need 70 percent more home aide jobs by 2020, long before that bubble of retirees. But filling those jobs is proving to be difficult because the salaries are low. In many states, in-home aides make an average of $20,820 annually.

“There are two trends that are going in opposite directions. One is the increasing number of elderly people, and the other is the decline in the number of people to take care of them,” said Jim Osborn, a roboticist and executive director of the Robotics Institute’s Quality of Life Technology Center at Carnegie Mellon University. “Part of the view we’ve already espoused is that robots will start to fill in those gaps.”

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have developed Cody, a robotic nurse the university says is “gentle enough to bathe elderly patients.” There is also HERB, which is short for Home Exploring Robot Butler. Made by researchers at Carnegie Mellon, it is designed to fetch household objects like cups and can even clean a kitchen. Hector, a robot that is being developed by the University of Reading in England, can remind patients to take their medicine, keep track of their eyeglasses and assist in the event of a fall.

The technology is nearly there. But some researchers worry that we are not asking a fundamental question: Should we entrust the care of people in their 70s and older to artificial assistants rather than doing it ourselves?

Sherry Turkle, a professor of science, technology and society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of the book “Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other,” did a series of studies with Paro, a therapeutic robot that looks like a baby harp seal and is meant to have a calming effect on patients with dementia, Alzheimer’s and in health care facilities. The professor said she was troubled when she saw a 76-year-old woman share stories about her life with the robot.

“I felt like this isn’t amazing; this is sad. We have been reduced to spectators of a conversation that has no meaning,” she said. “Giving old people robots to talk to is a dystopian view that is being classified as utopian.” Professor Turkle said robots did not have a capacity to listen or understand something personal, and tricking patients to think they can is unethical.

That’s the catch. Leaving the questions of ethics aside for a moment, building robots is not simply about creating smart machines; it is about making something that is not human still appear, somehow, trustworthy.

A recent Georgia Tech study found that older people were intrigued by the idea of robotic assistants in the home, but a robot’s appearance played a large role in what they will trust the machines to do. Older people want robots that look human for tasks that involve intelligence, like recommending which medicine they need to take. But they want a more sterile-looking machine for manual labor tasks, like cleaning and cooking, so they do not feel guilty bossing it about.

Wendy A. Rogers, a professor at Georgia Tech and director of the university’s Human Factors and Aging Laboratory, said concerns about older people developing relationships with their in-home helper robots were no different than the bond we develop with other inanimate objects.

Dr. Rogers has been experimenting with a large robot called the PR2, made by Willow Garage, a robotics company in Palo Alto, Calif., which can fetch and administer medicine, a seemingly simple act that demands a great deal of trust between man and machine.

“We are social beings, and we do develop social types of relationships with lots of things,” she said. “Think about the GPS in your car, you talk to it and it talks to you.” Dr. Rogers noted that people developed connections with their Roomba, the vacuum robot, by giving the machines names and buying costumes for them. “This isn’t a bad thing, it’s just what we do,” she said.

In fact, Mr. Osborn’s laboratory at Carnegie Mellon has designed a robot to work with therapists and people with autism. The machine can develop a personality and blinks and giggles as people interact with it. “Those we tested it with love it and hugged it,” he said. “You begin to think of it as something that is more than a machine with a computer.”

In the movie “Robot Frank,” technologists have raced ahead of society’s collective conscience with their robot caregivers. But the movie still leaves its audience with a question: Will it one day be morally acceptable to unload your parents’ care to a machine?

As the actor Frank Langella, who plays Frank in the movie, told NPR last year: “Every one of us is going to go through aging and all sorts of processes, many people suffering from dementia,” he said. “And if you put a machine in there to help, the notion of making it about love and buddy-ness and warmth is kind of scary in a way, because that’s what you should be doing with other human beings.”

Article source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/disruptions-helper-robots-are-steered-tentatively-to-elder-care/

Miami-Dade commissioners will vote Tuesday on the reappointment of the seven-member board that runs Jackson Health System: the Financial Recovery Board, charged since 2011 with reversing a financial crisis that threatened to sink the public safety-net hospital system.

The board, which is due to revert to its old name, the Public Health Trust, on June 1, will include six members who formed the financial recovery panel. They have been nominated for reappointment to staggered terms, beginning on June 1. A new member, Irene Lipof, the designated union representative on the panel, is nominated for a one-year term.

The other nominees are: Marcos Lapciuc, the current board chairman, for a one-year term; Miami-Dade Mayor’s designee Mojdeh Khaghan, a Miami attorney, and Rep. Michael Bileca, designated by the Miami-Dade Legislative Delegation chairman for two years each. Stephen Nuell, a Miami attorney, and Darryl Sharpton, an accountant and business consultant were nominated for terms of three years each; and Joe Arriola, a University of Miami trustee and former Miami city manager, is up for a term of four years.

Jackson administrators have begun to reverse a trend of financial losses, declaring the hospital system solvent in May for the first time in five years. In spring 2011, the hospital system was close to financial collapse, having lost $419 million over three years. More than one year later, Jackson eked out an $8.2 million surplus for its fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to an audit released in March.

But many challenges remain, according to administrators, such as increasing patient volume — a goal the hospital system’s board has said it needs to meet in order to ensure long-term sustainability.

There’s also the cloud of an ethics investigation hanging over one member of the board, Nuell, who was accused of abusive behavior toward employees in Jackson’s collections office as he tried to negotiate settlements for unpaid bills owed by his law firm’s clients.

The allegations against the personal injury attorney are detailed in complaints filed with the county’s Commission on Ethics and Public Trust by the director and the associate administrator of Jackson’s business office.

They allege that Nuell repeatedly called the business office between May 2011 — when he was appointed to the board — and October 2012 to resolve matters for private clients despite being told specifically not to do so.

Nuell has declined to comment on the allegations that he exploited his position on the hospital’s board for personal gain.

Copies of the employees’ complaints were made available to the Herald, along with a February 2013 memo from the commission’s deputy general counsel recommending a finding of probable cause that Nuell violated Miami-Dade’s Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics ordinance.

Though much of the investigation appears to be complete, the five-member ethics commission has yet to issue a finding because Nuell has twice requested an extension on the hearing.

The case is now scheduled to be heard during a closed session at the ethics commission’s meeting on Tuesday — the same day Miami-Dade commissioners are scheduled to meet and approve the new board to oversee Jackson.

Ethics commissioners can dismiss the complaint or issue a finding of probable cause, which could lead to fines, a letter of instruction or a reprimand for Nuell.

Article source: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/19/3405580/jackson-health-board-working-to.html

Miami-Dade commissioners will vote Tuesday on the reappointment of the seven-member board that runs Jackson Health System: the Financial Recovery Board, charged since 2011 with reversing a financial crisis that threatened to sink the public safety-net hospital system.

The board, which is due to revert to its old name, the Public Health Trust, on June 1, will include six members who formed the financial recovery panel. They have been nominated for reappointment to staggered terms, beginning on June 1. A new member, Irene Lipof, the designated union representative on the panel, is nominated for a one-year term.

The other nominees are: Marcos Lapciuc, the current board chairman, for a one-year term; Miami-Dade Mayor’s designee Mojdeh Khaghan, a Miami attorney, and Rep. Michael Bileca, designated by the Miami-Dade Legislative Delegation chairman for two years each. Stephen Nuell, a Miami attorney, and Darryl Sharpton, an accountant and business consultant were nominated for terms of three years each; and Joe Arriola, a University of Miami trustee and former Miami city manager, is up for a term of four years.

Jackson administrators have begun to reverse a trend of financial losses, declaring the hospital system solvent in May for the first time in five years. In spring 2011, the hospital system was close to financial collapse, having lost $419 million over three years. More than one year later, Jackson eked out an $8.2 million surplus for its fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to an audit released in March.

But many challenges remain, according to administrators, such as increasing patient volume — a goal the hospital system’s board has said it needs to meet in order to ensure long-term sustainability.

There’s also the cloud of an ethics investigation hanging over one member of the board, Nuell, who was accused of abusive behavior toward employees in Jackson’s collections office as he tried to negotiate settlements for unpaid bills owed by his law firm’s clients.

The allegations against the personal injury attorney are detailed in complaints filed with the county’s Commission on Ethics and Public Trust by the director and the associate administrator of Jackson’s business office.

They allege that Nuell repeatedly called the business office between May 2011 — when he was appointed to the board — and October 2012 to resolve matters for private clients despite being told specifically not to do so.

Nuell has declined to comment on the allegations that he exploited his position on the hospital’s board for personal gain.

Copies of the employees’ complaints were made available to the Herald, along with a February 2013 memo from the commission’s deputy general counsel recommending a finding of probable cause that Nuell violated Miami-Dade’s Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics ordinance.

Though much of the investigation appears to be complete, the five-member ethics commission has yet to issue a finding because Nuell has twice requested an extension on the hearing.

The case is now scheduled to be heard during a closed session at the ethics commission’s meeting on Tuesday — the same day Miami-Dade commissioners are scheduled to meet and approve the new board to oversee Jackson.

Ethics commissioners can dismiss the complaint or issue a finding of probable cause, which could lead to fines, a letter of instruction or a reprimand for Nuell.

Article source: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/19/3405580/jackson-health-board-working-to.html

A day doesn’t go by when I’m asked about digital health.

What surprises me most about the perceptions around digital health are the misperceptions.  From sophisticated marketers to to the average joe on the street, people just don’t get it.  And that’s not really their fault.  The voices of digital health MUST communicated the promise in a way that is relevant and convincing to everyone.

Let’s start with what digital health isn’t

Digital health isn’t the application of a web site to clinical practice.  And it’s not the generic idea of social media applied to a disease category.  I guess the confusion starts with the word digital.  Anything digital can combined with health and healthcare and there you have it–digital health. Even today’s more sophisticated healthcare marketers discuss digital health in the context of web sites and iPads.  Today, pharm, marketers, thinkers and engaged listeners often can’t see the true promise of digital health and are plotting a healthcare future that might just not exist and based upon these misconceptions.

Are you a digital health dummy?

It’s a fatal mistake

Building a road to wellness–as a marketer or patient–must consider the fundamental changes in medicine that are likely to emerge.  Big data, patient and caregiver empowerment, the quantified self and many other aspects of digital health will change the game.  So, plot your new course now.  But be warned, adjustments will be necessary!

A simplistic, yet practical discussion of what digital health is…

Wikipedia provides good start:

Digital health is the convergence of the digital revolution with health, writ large. In addition to healthcare and medicine, digital health encompasses sports, fitness, and wellness solutions that are empowering consumers to better track, diagnose, manage, and improve their own—and their family’s—health, plus intelligently choose and access healthcare services.

The essential elements of the digital revolution vis-à-vis digital health are wireless devices, hardware sensors and software sensing technology, ever smaller and more powerfulmicroprocessors, the Internet, social networking, mobile/cellular networks and body area networks, health information technology and data, plus genomics and genetic information.

Lexicon: Digital Health captures entirely (or the health-related aspects)the following commonly used terms: mHealth (mobile health), Wireless Health, Health 2.0, eHealth, e-Patient(s), Healthcare IT / Health IT (information technology), Big Data, Health Data, Cloud Computing, Quantified Self, Wearable Computing, Gamification, and Telehealth / Telemedicine.

But let’s put this in context…

Digital health is a check engine light for your body!

Here are a few examples that might help you understand how this can directly impact you and also change the face of medical practice–empowering healthcare providers and patients to have a more engaged and proactive role in health and wellness.  Here are a few of the more simple applications to everyday medicine and health. And my apologies go out the thought-leaders and pundits out there that might cringe at my 0ver-simplification. The idea here is to get a general understanding of where things are headed.  The simplification is intended to help a reader new to this area to get a sense of the ‘life-saving magic’ that is just around the corner.  And in some instances, here today!

Taking your own ECG. Today, you can take you own EGC when and where you need too. Smart phone technology can record and send single-lead tracing directly to your physician. So today, symptomatic events can be directly captured and necessary interventions can be implemented in almost real-time.

Blood sugar analysis and trajectory.  Moving beyond simple fasting blood sugar, continuous glucose monitoring will provide “dynamic analysis” to sense real-time changes and predict potential problems with high, low and precipitous movements in serum glucose.

Your own heart attack warning warning system–You’re going to have a heart attack–in two weeks.  While this is a bit of a clinical stretch today, recent discussions have pointed to the potential of markers in the blood that may be early warning signs for a myocardial infarction.  And because time to intervention is essential to effective treatment, this “check engine light for your heart” can be a pre-emptive, live saving tool.

Antibiotic failure and infection detection.  A simple pill or skin patch will track your body temperature to sense and plot small changes.  Prior to a significant temperature ‘spike” that indicates your antibiotic isn’t working, your smart phone will inform you (and your health care provider) that further evaluation and drug change might be necessary.

Algorithmic analysis. Isolated measurements will be an important part of the digital health revolution, but computer analysis will look at multiple aspects of our physiology and provide an ‘interpretative analysis’ that will bring even great power to digital health.  The combination of blood oxygen levels combined with ECG finding might extrapolate these data to drive alerts and indications that can make our ‘check engin light’ much more powerful than a single test. And of course, this is exactly what a physician does!  Your doctor combines data with a your physician exam to diagnose and treat.  And interesting, digital health is moving exactly in that direction.

Maybe I’m the dummy?

My own digital health physical by Scanadu

Article source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnosta/2013/05/19/digital-health-for-dummies/