- (317) 278-4037
Dr. Schwartz is Director of the Indiana University Center for Bioethics and Director of the Bioethics and Subject Advocacy Program of the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CTSI). He is also Associate Professor of Medicine at IU School of Medicine and Associate Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University - Purdue University, Indianapolis. Dr. Schwartz practices adult outpatient medicine in the Eskenazi Health System.
Dr. Schwartz received his B.A. from Harvard College and his M.D. and Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania. He completed his residency in Internal Medicine at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, MA.
Dr. Schwartz has conducted research and written on ethical issues in many areas including informed consent, risk communication, electronic health information, opiates, and ideas of health, disease, and risk. He leads research projects on patient decision-making and risk communication in preventive and precision healthcare, with funding from the American Cancer Society and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He is currently the principal investigator of a project examining the impact of providing personalized risk information to patients due for colorectal cancer screening, and to their providers, funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).
- Philosophy Department, IUPUI: P393/547 - Foundations of Bioethics
- Philosophy Department, IUPUI: P383/696 - Ethics, Autonomy, and Consent
Selected guest lectures:
- “Return Research Findings to Participants,” and “Collaborative Research with Industry” - GRDM-G504 – Introduction to Research Ethics, IUPUI
- “Autonomy and Respect for Persons,” Foundations of Clinical Practice, Year 1, IU School of Medicine
- “Genetic Engineering and Enhancement,” Medical Ethics and Professionalism elective, Year 4, IU School of Medicine
- “Kass on ‘Death with Dignity,” Medical Humanities and Health Studies M301: Perspectives on Health, Disease, and Healing, IUPUI.
Risk Communication and Quantitative Information in Decision Aids
- Schwartz PH. Questioning the quantitative imperative: decision aids, prevention, and the ethics of disclosure. Hastings Center Report 2011; 41(2): 30-39
- Schwartz PH.Discounting a surgical risk: Data, understanding, and gist. [Case Commentary] Virtual Mentor: American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, July 2012; 14(7): 532-538.
- Schwartz PH, Perkins SM, Schmidt KK, Muriello PF, Althouse S, Rawl SM. Providing quantitative information and a nudge to undergo stool testing in a colorectal cancer screening decision aid: a randomized clinical trial. Medical Decision Making 2017; 37(6): 688-702.
- Schwartz PH, Imperiale TF, Perkins SM, Schmidt KK, Althouse S, Rawl SM. Impact of including quantitative information in a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial. Patient Education and Counseling 2019; 102(3): 494-502.
Describing the Comparative Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests: The Impact of Quantitative Information
- Role: Principle Investigator
- Dates: 2015 – June 2019
- Funder: Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)
- Description: To provide clinical evidence and patient input to guide decision aid designers on how to present comparative effectiveness information to patients considering colorectal cancer screening.
- Schwartz PH. Disclosure and rationality: Comparative risk information and decision-making about prevention. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2009; 30(3): 199-213.
- Schwartz PH. The value of information and the ethics of personal-genomic screening. American Journal of Bioethics 2009; 9(4): 26-27.
- Schwartz PH. Comparative risk: Good or bad heuristic?American Journal of Bioethics 2016; 16(5): 20-2.
Measuring the Impact of Providing Personalized Risk Information to Patients and their Providers on Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions and Uptake
- Role: PI
- Dates: 2019 – Feb. 2024
- Funder: Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)
- Description: To test whether providing patients and their providers with personalized messages about the patient’s current chance of having an advanced colorectal neoplasm (ACN) results in higher uptake and decision quality regarding colorectal cancer screening, compared to an approach that does not utilize ACN risk.
- Halverson CME, Pratt, VM, Skaar TC, Schwartz PH, “Ending the pharmacogenomic gag rule: The imperative to report all results,” Under review.
Precision Health Pharmacogenetics Program
- Role: Co-Investigator (PI: Todd Skaar, PhD)
- Dates: 2019 – Dec. 2021
- Funder: IU Precision Health Initiative
- Description: To support the implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in Indiana. The goals are to 1) make clinical pharmacogenetic testing widely available and used in IU Health for patients diagnosed with myocardial infarction, cancer, or organ transplantation; 2) develop and evaluate an IUH branded PGx Card system for returning the pharmacogenetic genotyping results directly to the patients; and 3) establish a mechanism to link pharmacogenetics genotyping data to the electronic medical records.
- Schwartz PH, Autonomy and consent in biobanks. The Physiologist 2010; 53(1): 1-7.
- Kasperbauer TJ,Schwartz PH. Measuring understanding and respecting trust in biobank consent. American Journal of Bioethics 2019; 19(5): 29-31.
- Kasperbauer, T.J., Schmidt, K., Thomas, A., Perkins, S., & Schwartz, PH. Incorporating biobank consent into a healthcare setting: Challenges for patient understanding. AJOB Empirical Bioethics (In press), accepted July 17, 2020.
- Schwartz PH, Caine K, Alpert SA, Meslin EM, Carroll AE, Tierney WM. Patient preferences to control access to their electronic health records in a prospective cohort study in primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015; 30 (Suppl 1): S25-30.
- Meslin EM, Schwartz PH. How bioethics principles can aid design of electronic health records to accommodate patient granular control. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015; 30 (Suppl 1): S3-6. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-014-3062-z.
- Kasperbauer TJ, Schwartz PH. Genetic data aren’t so special: Causes and implications of re-identification. Hastings Center Report (in press). Accepted March 2020.
- Role: Co-Investigator (PI: Tierney)
- Dates: May 2011 – March 2014
- Funder: S. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
- Description: To establish advanced search tools for the electronic health record (EHR) and for patients to determine which providers can view specific parts of their record, and to examine related ethics issues.