The 2018 IISS Shangri-La Dialogue was held in Singapore, June 1-3. Shorenstein APARC's Donald Emmerson was in attendance; some of his observations from the the 17th Asia Security Summit are provided below.

NOTE: This post is forthcoming from YaleGlobal.

Donald K. Emmerson heads the Southeast Asia Program at Stanford University where he is also affiliated with the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

The following article first appeared on The Diplomat.

With the historic U.S.-North Korea summit on the immediate horizon, we must recognize that denuclearization will not and cannot be permanent or irreversible as long as there is a desire to reverse it. U.S. President Donald Trump may strike a “grand deal” with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to denuclearize North Korea, but Kim can — and most likely will — reverse course at his convenience to construct new nuclear weapons. By focusing solely on denuclearization, we risk losing sight of the bigger, more important picture — that is, transforming North Korea into a normal state that no longer sees the need to pursue nuclearization for deterrence, survival, or any other reason.

Much of debate has centered on why Kim suddenly emerged from long-held silence to take the world’s center stage through a series of summits. Was he pressured by toughened sanctions, as Trump credits himself for? Or was it an expression of Kim’s confidence as a leader of a now de facto nuclear power, with more leverage for negotiation? Or has he simply been trying to buy time to avoid war — to get through the unpredictable and ruthless Trump’s tenure as U.S. president? Yet, what really matters now is not so much the question of why Kim came to the table, but rather how we can make the latest détente sustainable without repeating the failures of the past. Will it be different this time?

With the Trump-Kim summit now back on the track after a 24-hour drama of cancellation then resumption, each side seems to have softened its stance by lowering the bar. Next week in Singapore, both leaders will be sorely tempted by clear political and economic interests to paint the meeting as a success. Real challenges, however, will arise as the logistical details of North Korea’s denuclearization are discussed following the summit. The Trump team is unlikely to abandon its goal of the CVID (complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization) of North Korea, while Kim and his men will stand firmly against this all-out approach so as not to follow the footsteps of Libya, Iraq, or Ukraine. North Korea has reportedly demanded a CVIG (complete, verifiable, and irreversible guarantee) of the security of the current regime, but there is a great danger that these deals, if made, will be nothing more than another sheet of paper full of empty words. The deep mistrust between the two countries cannot be overcome overnight, especially considering that both leaders have pretty bad track records of reneging on previous commitments. Neither CVID nor CVIG has much chance of being realized in the current context, from either a technical or a practical perspective.

With all this skepticism, why should we still bother playing this game with North Korea again? It is because we see a window of opportunity to guide North Korea into the international community through processes of diplomatic communication, exchange, and engagement. North Korea’s summit diplomacy has revealed its desire to appear a normal state. Kim vigorously showcased four summit meetings  — twice each with China’s Xi Jinping and South Korea’s Moon Jae-in — and numerous high-level meetings, within two months, all within the parameters of conventional “state-to-state” relationships, departing from past practices. Standing side-by-side with the South Korean president to read out a joint declaration, immediately releasing news of Kim’s summit meetings through its media, presenting Kim’s wife, Ri Sol-ju, as the state’s first lady — all of this would have been unthinkable in his father or grandfather’s generation.

North Korea’s latest efforts at international recognition as a normal state may be insincere and ill-intentioned, but even so, we should continue to allow North Korea and Kim to experience firsthand what it feels like and means to be treated as a normal state and a normal leader according to the ordinary conventions of international diplomacy. Although the goal seems so far away and unreachable, we should strive to normalize North Korea in all respects — its economy, its domestic and international politics, its integration into international institutions, and its adherence to international laws, norms, rights, duties, orders, etc.

CVID can still serve as a short- to mid-term goal, but not as a definitive solution to the long-standing North Korean threat. Whatever is decided at the upcoming summit, a more comprehensive roadmap should be set for enacting desirable transformations in security and economic relations with North Korea, putting the country on a path to become a stable and normal state increasingly integrated into the international community, where it would feel secure without a need for nuclear armament. As Trump says, he is starting a “process” of dealing with North Korea; the upcoming summit should be the beginning of an opportunity to advance this goal. After all, a normal North Korea can achieve CVID, but CVID cannot achieve a normal state.

Gi-Wook Shin is director of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University, and Joyce Lee is a research professional in the Korea Program at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University.

The health insurance marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could unravel because its enrollees strategically drop in and out of coverage, Stanford scholars write in a new working paper released June 4 by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The end result could be a complete unraveling of the market, said Petra Persson, an assistant professor of economics in the Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences.

“If you have too many people who drop out after a few months of coverage, you might end up in a situation where insurers don’t want to offer any insurance at all in the market,” said Persson, who co-authored the paper with Stanford Graduate School of Business assistant professors Rebecca Diamond and Timothy McQuade and NYU Stern’s Michael J. Dickstein. Persson and Diamond are also fellows at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

The ACA, also known as Obamacare, passed in March 2010 with the goal of making health insurance more accessible. It established a competitive marketplace where individuals could shop for federal and state-level health care plans. Over 2014 and 2015 – the first two years of the program – the share of Americans covered by individually purchased health insurance rose by 50 and 75 percent, respectively.

Health care consumption surged, especially in low-income households and families with young children. But, as the researchers discovered, so did attrition: Dropout was sharpest after just one month of coverage. And only half of all new enrollees committed a full year to an insurance program.

Health care consumption and attrition

To analyze enrollment and attrition, the researchers studied 104,233 households that purchased health insurance in California either before or after the ACA came into effect.

The researchers examined spending habits and income sources for possible explanations of why people might have discontinued health care coverage. For example, did they drop out because they could no longer afford it, because of a job loss or other large expense?

The researchers found that this was the case before the ACA came into effect. Pre-ACA, people often dropped out early because they experienced a loss of income, like unemployment. But post-ACA, the loss of income was much less important in explaining early dropout.

“These findings indicate that the ACA limited the risk of being forced to drop insurance coverage due to unexpected liquidity shocks,” said Persson.

If income shocks can’t account for dropout, then what can?

The researchers found that some people strategically drop coverage after they have used the health care services they need.

“Our analysis shows that many consumers are strategically signing up for insurance to help defray the costs of non-chronic, potentially discretionary, health care needs and then dropping coverage once they have satisfied these needs,” said Diamond.

“The regulatory structure of the ACA law potentially incentivizes exactly this behavior,” the researchers wrote, noting that because the ACA prevents insurers from discriminating against applicants, they cannot legally reject applicants who strategically dropped coverage the previous year.

The fallout of dropouts

This behavior makes it difficult for insurers to set prices, said Persson.

When people consume a year’s worth of health care in only a three-month period – and only pay a portion of the annual premium – it can be incredibly expensive for insurers. They can only guess what fraction of policyholders will end up dropping out mid-year.

The researchers discovered a counterintuitive response from insurers: Health care plans that experienced more dropouts reduced their premium prices the following year.

“Insurers are trying to increase the demand from the pool of consumers who don’t drop out,” said Diamond, observing that these are the people who are more price sensitive to the cost of an annual plan. “People who drop out are going to be less sensitive to the price set by the plan. They are always going to be willing to pay a higher monthly premium because they know they are not going to pay the full annual amount.”

While lowered annual premiums may seem like a beneficial result for committed health care consumers, the presence of dropouts undermines the stability of the market, the researchers said. As a result, insurers may be unwilling to offer plans in the individual market, they said.

Next steps

The ACA has been especially effective in providing lower-income households with health care coverage through a market that previously had largely served more affluent households, said Persson.

But for ACA to continue being effective, enrollees must stay enrolled, Persson added.

While the ACA originally came with penalties for ceasing coverage early, the researchers said it was not enough. It was still cheaper for new enrollees to pay the fine for dropping out mid-year than paying a full year of annual premiums, the researchers found in their cost analysis.

The recent removal of the individual mandate will likely increase the midyear dropout rate, said Diamond. “More dropout will raise financial pressure on insurers, increasing the possibility that the market unravels completely.”

Most participants in clinical trials believe the benefits of broadly sharing person-level data outweigh the risks, according to new research by Stanford Medicine's Michelle Mello and Steven N. Goodman. 

And despite low levels of trust in pharmaceutical companies, most of those who take part in clinical trials are willing to share their data with the drug firms.

The Stanford researchers surveyed 771 current and recent participants from a diverse sample of clinical trials at three academic medical centers in the United States. They asked about the practice of making personal data collected in medical research studies widely available, after information that could identify individual participants is removed. Nearly 80 percent of those surveyed responded to the questions — and fewer than 8 percent of the respondents felt that the potential negative consequences of data sharing outweighed the benefits.

Some 93 percent of those surveyed said they were very or somewhat likely to allow their data be shared with university scientists, and 82 percent were either very or somewhat likely to share with scientists in for-profit companies. They found that the willingness to share was high regardless of the purpose for which their data would be used, with the exception of litigation.

Although some researchers and trial funders have worried that participants might object to data sharing as an invasion of privacy, the respondents’ greatest concern was that “data sharing might make others less likely to enroll in clinical trials,” Stanford Health Policy's Michelle Mello and her co-authors write in The New England Journal of Medicine. “Less concern was expressed about discrimination (22 percent) and exploitation of data for profit (20 percent.)”

Mello is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and a professor of health research and policy at Stanford Medicine. Her co-authors are Van Lieou and Steven N. Goodman, a professor of medicine and of health research and policy at Stanford Medicine.

The authors acknowledge there is no turning back from clinical data sharing.

“We are rapidly moving toward a world in which broad sharing of participant-level clinical trial data is the norm,” they wrote.

The European Medicines Agency has implemented a policy to expand public access to data concerning products it approves, and the Food and Drug Administration is considering expanding access to data pooled within a product class. Major research sponsors and journal editors have begun promoting data sharing, and the National Institutes of Health now requires all of its grantees to share data.

Pharmaceutical industry associations have committed to making data more accessible, and several data platforms are now available, such as the Yale Open Data Access Project.

Mello said she was somewhat surprised by the survey results, “given the amount of consternation one hears at conferences about data sharing. Interestingly, nearly half our sample had experienced a breach of their personal data privacy in another context, yet they were still willing to share their clinical trial data.”

Then again, she said, people who take part in clinical trials may be special.

“I suspect that clinical trial participants may be different from the public at large. They are already incurring risks to benefit science by dint of their trial participation.”

Most of those participants, along with clinical researchers, believe the benefits of sharing data include accelerating scientific discovery and improving accurate reporting of trial results.

Yet some investigators and industry sponsors of clinical trials are leery of the swift move toward broad data sharing, the authors note, because of “potential harm to research participants,” the authors wrote. “Investigators express worries that participants’ privacy cannot be adequately protected, particularly in light of the fact that experts have demonstrated that it is possible to reidentify participant-level data.”

Furthermore, they said, some pharmaceutical companies have warned that data sharing could chill willingness to participate in trials, thereby delaying the availability of new therapies. In fact, 31 percent of those surveyed were somewhat or very concerned about having their personal information stolen.  Nevertheless, most felt the benefits of data sharing were more important. 

“Reaching a world in which the sharing of clinical trial data is routine requires surmounting several challenges — financial, technical, and operational,” the authors concluded. “But in this survey, participants’ objections to data sharing did not appear to be a sizeable barrier.” 

"Take note, Elon Musk: Even if autonomous cars are safer overall, the public will accept the new technology only when it fails in predictable and reasonable ways," writes Jerry Kaplan in The Wall Street Journal. Read the full article here.

In a world complicated by terrorism, cyber threats and political instability, the private sector has to prepare for the unexpected. Amy Zegart, CISAC co-director, the Hoover Institution’s Davies Family Senior Fellow, and co-author (along with Condoleezza Rice) of Political Risk: How Businesses And Organizations Can Anticipate Global Insecurity, explains lessons learned in keeping cargo planes moving, hotel guests protected – and possibly coffee customers better served.  

Immediate denuclearization of North Korea is dangerous to both North Korean and American interests, say Stanford scholars in a new research report. Instead, they advocate for phased denuclearization to take place over 10 years or more, allowing the United States to reduce the greatest risks first and address the manageable risks over time.