Ethical analysis examining the prioritisation of living donor transplantation in times of healthcare rationing

The transplant community has faced unprecedented challenges balancing risks of performing living donor transplants during the COVID-19 pandemic with harms of temporarily suspending these procedures. Decisions regarding postponement of living donation stem from its designation as an elective procedure, this despite that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services categorise transplant procedures as tier 3b (high medical urgency—do not postpone). In times of severe resource constraints, health systems may be operating under crisis or contingency standards of care. In this manuscript, the United Network for Organ Sharing Ethics Workgroup explores prioritisation of living donation where health systems operate under contingency standards of care and provide a framework with recommendations to the transplant community on how to approach living donation in these circumstances.To guide the transplant community in future decisions, this analysis suggests that: (1) living donor transplants represent an important option for individuals with end-stage liver and kidney disease and should not be suspended uniformly under contingency standards, (2) exposure risk to SARS-CoV-2 should be balanced with other risks, such as exposure risks at dialysis centres. Because many of these risks are not quantifiable, donors and recipients should be included in discussions on what constitutes acceptable risk, (3) transplant hospitals should strive to maintain a critical transplant workforce and avoid diverting expertise, which could negatively impact patient preparedness for transplant, (4) transplant hospitals should consider implementing protocols to ensure early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections and discuss these measures with donors and recipients in a process of shared decision-making.

Bedside rationing in cancer care: Patient advocate perspective

Rationing in healthcare remains very much a taboo topic. Before COVID-19, it rarely received public attention, even when it occurred in everyday practices, mainly in the form of implicit rationing, as it continues to do today. There are different definitions, types and levels of healthcare rationing, according to different perspectives. With the aim of contributing to a more coherent debate on such a highly emotional healthcare issue as rationing, here are provided a number of reflections from a patient advocate perspective which are specifically focused on bedside rationing, the most troublesome level, both for patients and clinicians, particularly in regard to cancer care. Oncology, with its numerous expensive therapies and increasing number of patients, is undeniably one of the main areas contributing to the increase in healthcare costs. However, the fixed budgets of today's publicly financed health systems cannot allow unlimited access to the potentially beneficial treatments to all patients. Bedside rationing constitutes the last phase of many decision-making processes occurring at different interrelated levels (macro-levels), both inside and outside healthcare systems, which implicitly and inevitably result in a bottleneck determined by the upstream decisions themselves. Shifting from implicit to explicit bedside rationing essentially means moving from a paternalistic to a citizen-before-patient approach; this implies, first of all, a cultural change. Practical bedside rationing is an ethically complex topic, but one that needs to be urgently addressed in a transparent and open debate. In this scenario, the oncological community – patients, patient advocates and clinicians – can and should play an important role.

The “Ugly Sister of Welfare”: The Idea of Health Care ‘Rationing’ in New Zealand 1968-c.1980

<p>This thesis explores the influence of healthcare ‘rationing’ in New Zealand from 1968 to c.1980. Rationing is a term and concept drawn from health economics and the history of the idea will be traced as well as its influence. The influence of rationing will primarily be explored through case studies: the supply of specialist staff to New Zealand’s public hospitals, the building of hospitals (and specialist units in particular) and the supply of medical technology. This era has been selected for historical examination because of the limited attention paid to it in studies of the health service, and more generally, welfare histories of New Zealand. Often in these studies the 1970s is overshadowed by the period health of reform in the 1980s and 1990s.</p>

The “Ugly Sister of Welfare”: The Idea of Health Care ‘Rationing’ in New Zealand 1968-c.1980

<p>This thesis explores the influence of healthcare ‘rationing’ in New Zealand from 1968 to c.1980. Rationing is a term and concept drawn from health economics and the history of the idea will be traced as well as its influence. The influence of rationing will primarily be explored through case studies: the supply of specialist staff to New Zealand’s public hospitals, the building of hospitals (and specialist units in particular) and the supply of medical technology. This era has been selected for historical examination because of the limited attention paid to it in studies of the health service, and more generally, welfare histories of New Zealand. Often in these studies the 1970s is overshadowed by the period health of reform in the 1980s and 1990s.</p>

Emerging Developments in Management of Melanoma During the COVID-19 Era

In March 2020, the designation of the COVID-19 outbreak as a worldwide pandemic marked the beginning of an unprecedented era in modern medicine. Facing the possibility of resource precincts and healthcare rationing, leading dermatological and cancer societies acted expeditiously to adapt their guidelines to these contingencies. Melanoma is a lethal and aggressive skin cancer necessitating a multidisciplinary approach to management and is associated with significant healthcare and economic cost in later stages of disease. In revisiting how the pandemic transformed guidelines from diagnosis and surveillance to surgical and systemic management of melanoma, we appraise the evidence behind these decisions and their enduring implications.

Measuring Drug Value

As healthcare costs increased around the world in recent decades, countries incorporated health technology assessment (HTA) into their decisions about which new technologies to pay for and how much they should pay. This chapter describes approaches for drug value assessment that are part of the HTA procedures in these countries, highlighting England and Wales’ National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, perhaps the world’s most visible HTA body. We then describe efforts since the 1980s to introduce HTA in the United States, including Oregon’s Medicaid experiment and the federally funded Office of Technology Assessment. The chapter explores the roots of resistance to these efforts, including the notion of American exceptionalism—the belief that personal and economic freedom is paramount and deep resistance to the idea of healthcare rationing. The resistance, explained at least partly by these factors, ultimately led to a scaling back of HTA in the United States.

Self-admission in the treatment of eating disorders: an analysis of healthcare resource reallocation

Background Self-admission to psychiatric inpatient treatment is an innovative approach to healthcare rationing, based on reallocation of existing resources rather than on increased funding. In self-admission, patients with a history of high healthcare utilization are invited to decide for themselves when brief admission is warranted. Previous findings on patients with severe eating disorders indicate that self-admission reduces participants’ need for inpatient treatment, but that it does not alone lead to symptom remission. Methods The aim of this study was to evaluate if, from a service provider perspective, the resource reallocation associated with self-admission is justified. The analysis makes use of data from a cohort study evaluating the one-year outcomes of self-admission at the Stockholm Centre for Eating Disorders. Results Participants in the program reduced their need for regular specialist inpatient treatment by 67%. Thereby, hospital beds were made available for non-participants due to the removal of a yearly average of 13.2 high-utilizers from the regular waiting list. A sensitivity analysis showed that this “win-win situation” occurred within the entire 95% confidence interval of the inpatient treatment utilization reduction. Conclusions For healthcare systems relying on rationing by waiting list, self-admission has the potential to reduce the need for hospitalization for patients with longstanding eating disorders, while also offering benefits in the form of increased available resources for other patients requiring hospitalization. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02937259 (retrospectively registered 10/15/2016).

Psychiatry on a Shoestring: Developing New Standards of Care for a Severe, Prolonged, and Widespread Emergency

Study ObjectiveThe COVID-19 crisis has severely stressed our healthcare system and pushed our economy to the brink. This long emergency will probably cause years of severe suffering in every region. Health expenses greatly increased, supply chains were disrupted, and governments coped with much less revenue. Good clinicians plan for ALL contingencies, and we need to consider that the current disaster may get much worse. How can we adapt psychiatry to a long emergency? This goes far beyond previous work on crisis standards of care because the emergency is severe, prolonged, and widespread. If we had to spend much less on psychotropics, which meds stay on the formulary? If we have to close hospitals, which patients get a bed? What adaptations could be used if demand exceeds the supply of providers? Very little is known about how to make severe, permanent cuts to healthcare. Our previous systematic review found no scholarship addressing the ethics of severe and prolonged healthcare rationing. Global catastrophes need a global health policy, but this one has no experts. The present study starts the project by surveying experts with related experience that could be useful in future plans.MethodWe used purposive sampling to find 18 professionals with experience in healthcare rationing from underserved, indigenous communities, homeless programs, and African nations. We also interviewed ethicists, pharmacists, administrators, NGO clinicians, and military. Interviews were transcribed and coded using basic inductive techniques. Because so little is known about this topic, we used grounded theory, an iterative approach to guide further sampling, refine interviews, and make some preliminary conclusions.ResultsParticipants all agreed this crisis planning is extremely important and complex. They described diverse concerns regarding ethical decision making, with some having confidence with top-down government policy, and others recommending a grassroots approach. Minority participants had less confidence in government. There was no consensus on any best ethical framework. Most had confidence that clinicians will ultimately do the right thing. Native American leaders had confidence in a holistic, preventive approach. All agreed that social justice should be central in measuring economic impact of long emergencies and choosing ethical options. We collected suggestions for innovative approaches to rationing.ConclusionsThis research program illuminates the difficult ethical questions about adapting psychiatry to a prolonged, widespread, and severe emergency. Our interviews identify areas where severe but ethical cuts can be made in medications, hospitals, clinical staff, and administration. Next steps include evidence-based formularies, utilitarian staff cuts, and ethical standards for closing beds or revamping state hospitals. Underserved and diverse communities with rationing experience must have a voice in the discussion.

Hidden bedside rationing in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional survey among physicians in internal medicine

Background Healthcare rationing can be defined as withholding beneficial care for cost reasons. One form in particular, hidden bedside rationing, is problematic because it may result in conflicting loyalties for physicians, unfair inequality among patients and illegitimate distribution of resources. Our aim is to establish whether bedside rationing occurs in the Netherlands, whether it qualifies as hidden and what physician characteristics are associated with its practice. Methods Cross-sectional online questionnaire on knowledge of -, experience with -, and opinion on rationing among physicians in internal medicine within the Dutch healthcare system. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used to explore relations between hidden bedside rationing and physician characteristics. Results The survey was distributed among 1139 physicians across 11 hospitals with a response rate of 18% (n = 203). Most participants (n = 129; 64%) had experience prescribing a cheaper course of treatment while a more effective but more expensive alternative was available, suggesting bedside rationing. Subsequently, 32 (24%) participants never disclosed this decision to their patient, qualifying it as hidden. The majority of participants (n = 153; 75%) rarely discussed treatment cost. Employment at an academic hospital was independently associated with more bedside rationing (OR = 17 95%CI 6.1–48). Furthermore, residents were more likely to disclose rationing to their patients than internists (OR = 3.2, 95%CI 2.1–4.7), while salaried physicians were less likely to do so than physicians in private practice (OR = 0.5, 95%CI 0.4–0.8). Conclusion Hidden bedside rationing occurs in the Netherlands: patient choice is on occasion limited with costs as rationale and this is not always disclosed. To what extent distribution of healthcare should include bedside rationing in the Netherlands, or any other country, remains up for debate.