Search

In the United States, economic, racial, ethnic, geographic, and other disparities prevent access to fertility treatment and affect treatment outcomes. This opinion examines the factors that contribute to these disparities, proposes actions to address them, and replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2015., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: In this review article, we will highlight ethical issues faced by hematologists due to a growing constellation of expensive diagnostics and therapeutics in hematology. We outline the important issues surrounding this topic including stakeholders, cost considerations, and various ethical challenges surrounding access to care, communication about costs, and individual vs. societal responsibilities. We review available tools to navigate these ethical themes and offer potential solutions., Recent Findings: We identified several gaps in the literature on the topic of ethical issues in hematology treatment and supplement by non-hematological cancer and general medical literature. We propose proactive solutions to address these problems to include cost transparency, utilization of evidence-based decision making tools, application of the four quadrant approach to ethical care, and advanced systems-based practice curriculum for physician trainees.

Introduction: Transparency about the costs that patients incur is an increasingly important factor in making decisions throughout the course of diagnosis and treatment. Both patients and providers regard honest, informed discussions about these costs as critical to providing person-centered care, but often encounter a range of barriers to initiating and maintaining these conversations., Methods: The Patient Advocate Foundation/National Patient Advocate Foundation with partial funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has conducted both quantitative and qualitative research with patients and providers designed to identify key issues related to cost of care discussions., Results: Key issues identified include components of financial toxicity for patients, both related to direct costs and to quality of life, as well as questions as to who should initiate these conversations, when they should take place, and what kind of information and training are needed to make these conversations meaningful., Conclusions: This article reports the results of this work with recommendations for providers about how to incorporate cost of care discussions into the normal clinical work flow and patient life flow., (Copyright © 2020 National Medical Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Whether physicians are being trained or encouraged to commit fraud within corporatized organizational cultures through contractual incentives (or mandates) to optimize billing and process more patients is unknown. What is known is that upcoding and misrepresentation of clinical information (fraud) costs more than $100 billion annually and can result in unnecessary procedures and prescriptions. This article proposes fraud mitigation strategies that combine organizational cultural enhancements and deployment of transparent compliance and risk management systems that rely on front-end data analytics., (© 2020 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Purpose: This study describes the cost trajectory of the standard diagnostic care pathway for children with suspected genetic disorders in British Columbia, Canada., Methods: Average annual per-patient costs were estimated using medical records review and a caregiver survey for a cohort of 498 children referred to BC Children's and Women's Hospitals (C&W) with unexplained intellectual disability (the TIDE-BC study) and families enrolled in the CAUSES study, which offered diagnostic genome-wide sequencing (GWS; exome and genome sequencing) to 500 families of children with suspected genetic disorders., Results: Direct costs peaked in the first year of patients' diagnostic odyssey, with an average of C$2257 per patient (95% confidence interval [CI] C$2074, C$2441) for diagnostic testing and C$631 (95% CI C$543, C$727) for specialist consultations at C&W. In subsequent years, direct costs accrued at a constant rate, with an estimated annual per-patient cost of C$511 (95% CI C$473, C$551) for diagnostic testing and C$334 (95% CI C$295, C$369) for consultations at C&W. Travel costs and caregiver productivity loss associated with attending diagnosis-related physician appointments averaged C$1907/family/year., Conclusions: The continuing long-term accrual of costs by undiagnosed patients suggests that economic evaluations of diagnostic GWS services should use longer time horizons than have typically been used.

Policy makers try to take account of public preferences when making trade-offs between policy options. Yet most estimates of the value of health and safety reflect only individuals' self-interested preferences, neglecting their preferences over the distribution of public resources. We conduct an experiment in which participants choose between policy options that differ in their efficiency (expected number of fatalities or cases of ill health they would prevent) and their equity (defined in terms of the balance of risk reductions for different sections of the population). The policy options were framed as interventions to improve a hypothetical city's water supply that would reduce the risk of death or ill health for people in different areas of the city to varying degrees. In order to examine whether self-interest would affect the trade-offs, we asked half of the sample about scenarios where they would personally benefit from some options. Our results suggest that efficiency is the most important single factor determining preferences between policy options, but decisions were influenced almost as much by equity as by efficiency. The effect of self-interest was smaller than that of the general concern for efficiency. We also elicited participants' stated moral principles regarding trade-offs between equity, efficiency and self-interest, and found that their expressed principles were well-aligned with their choices. Our findings contribute to the growing evidence that distributional concerns matter when evaluating health interventions., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the detection of genetic abnormalities in embryos produced through in vitro fertilization (IVF). Current funding models in Australia provide governmental subsidies for couples undergoing IVF, but do not extend to PGD. There are strong reasons for publicly funding PGD that follow from the moral principles of autonomy, beneficence and justice for both parents and children. We examine the objections to our proposal, specifically concerns regarding designer babies and the harm of disabled individuals, and show why these are substantially outweighed by arguments for subsidizing PGD. We argue that an acceptance of PGD is aligned with present attitudes towards procreative decision making and IVF use, and that it should therefore receive government funding.

Medical crowdfunding has become a popular choice worldwide for people with unaffordable health needs. In low-income and middle-income countries with limited social welfare arrangements and a high incidence of catastrophic health spending, the market for medical crowdfunding is booming. However, relevant research was conducted exclusively in North America and Europe; little is known about medical crowdfunding activities inother contexts. As a first step towards filling this knowledge gap, this study depicts the realities of medical crowdfunding in a middle-income country China through empirical investigation and ethical analysis. We examine 100 randomly selected medical campaigns from a major Chinese crowdfunding platform and analyse the relevance of the previously identified ethical concerns to the Chinese context. The empirical findings show that Chinese campaigns have low and uneven success rates, require legally the participation of charitable organisations and focus on financial distress and family values in appealing for donations. In addition, the ethical analysis suggests that medical crowdfunding in China shares several ethical concerns raised in developed countries such as the veracity of claims and privacy violation. More importantly, our research reveals the inadequacy of current evidence and the lack of indicators to evaluate ethical issues in practice. Additional research is needed to better understand this fundraising practice across different social and cultural contexts., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This article is intended for any physician, administrator, or cardiovascular catheterization laboratory (CCL) staff member who desires a fundamental understanding of finances and economics of CCLs in the United States. The authors' goal is to illuminate general economic principles of CCL operations and provide details that can be used immediately by CCL leaders. Any article on economics in medicine should start by acknowledging the primacy of the principles of medical ethics. While physicians have been trained to act in the best interests of their patients and avoid actions that would harm patients it is vitally important that all professionals in the CCL focus on patients' needs. Caregivers both at the bedside and in the office must consider how their actions will affect not only the patient they are treating at the time, but others as well. If the best interests of a patient were to conflict with any recommendation in this article, the former should prevail. KEY POINTS: To be successful and financially viable under current payment systems, CCL physicians, and managers must optimize the outcomes and efficiency of care by aligning CCL leadership, strategy, organization, processes, personnel, and culture. Optimizing a CCL's operating margin (profitability) requires maximizing revenues and minimizing expenses. CCL managers often focus on expense reduction; they should also pay attention to revenue generation. Expense reduction depends on efficiency (on-time starts, short turn-over time, smooth day-to-day schedules), identifying cost-effective materials, and negotiating their price downward. Revenue optimization requires accurate documentation and coding of procedures, comorbidities, and complications. In fee-for-service and bundled payment reimbursement systems, higher volumes of procedures yield higher revenues. New procedures that improve patient care but are expensive can usually be justified by negotiating with vendors for lower prices and including the "halo effect" of collateral services that accompany the new procedure. Fiscal considerations should never eclipse quality concerns. High quality CCL care that prevents complications, increases efficiency, reduces waste, and eliminates unnecessary procedures represents a win for patients, physicians, and CCL administrators., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

An 18-year-old male who had been diagnosed at age 7 with a rare, progressive liver disease was referred to the transplant center and received a transplant, even though he did not meet the center's criteria for a patient with hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS). Complications required relisting the patient urgently, but he eventually fully recovered; total hospital charges for his treatment exceeded $5 million. Reflection upon the case resulted in analysis of two ethical questions: primarily, clinician obligation to balance the provision of actuarially fair health care to society against the healing of a single patient; secondarily, the effects of malleable transplant criteria on trust in the patient selection process. We affirmed that physicians should not be principally responsible for justifying financial investment to society or for upholding beneficence beyond the individual physician and patient relationship in order to contain costs. We concluded, however, that such instances, when combined with manipulation of transplant center criteria, pose a potential threat to public trust. We therefore suggested that transplant centers maintain independent ethics committees to review such cases.

Physicians' advocacy obligations are best understood as going beyond advocacy on behalf of individual patients, which I call the "individualistic view," to include advocacy for intelligent research-based allocation schemes that promote good outcomes and cost-effective care for all patients, which I call the "systemic view." This systemic view includes moving beyond self-interest to promote less-wasteful and more cost-conscious allocation decisions and the setting of priorities at all levels to expand health care access. It includes physician involvement in discussions with patients in the context of clinical care, involvement in the formulation and administration of benefit structures and other allocation policies, and, finally, involvement in promoting public dialogue about health care priorities. This involvement is based on a concept of a deliberative process that can result in "just enough" decisions within systems for the preservation and promotion of health care and other societal goods.

Many foreign parents bring their children to the United States for medical treatments that are unavailable in their own country. Often, however, parents cannot afford expensive treatments. Doctors and hospitals then face a dilemma. Is it ethically permissible to consider the patient's citizenship and ability to pay? In this Ethics Rounds, we present a case in which a child from another country needs an expensive treatment. His parents cannot afford the treatment. He has come to a public hospital in the United States. We present responses from experts in pediatrics, bioethics, and health policy., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

This image seeks to iteratively represent themes related to the availability of life-saving and life-threatening medications. The photograph also suggests the importance of several ethical questions., (© 2018 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Introduction: High healthcare costs make illness precarious for both patients and their families' economic situation. Despite the recent focus on the interconnection between health and financial risk at the systemic level, the ethical conflict between concerns for potential health benefits and financial risk protection at the household level in a low-income setting is less understood., Methods: Using a seven-step ethical analysis, we examine a real-life dilemma faced by families and health workers at the micro level in Ethiopia and analyse the acceptability of limiting treatment for an ill newborn to protect against financial risk. We assess available evidence and ethical issues at stake and discuss the dilemma with respect to three priority setting criteria: health maximisation, priority to the worse-off and financial risk protection., Results: Giving priority to health maximisation and extra priority to the worse-off suggests, in this particular case, that limiting treatment is not acceptable even if the total well-being gain from reduced financial risk is taken into account. Our conclusion depends on the facts of the case and the relative weight assigned to these criteria. However, there are problematic aspects with the premise of this dilemma. The most affected parties-the newborn, family members and health worker-cannot make free choices about whether to limit treatment or not, and we thereby accept deprivations of people's substantive freedoms., Conclusion: In settings where healthcare is financed largely out-of-pocket, families and health workers face tragic trade-offs. As countries move towards universal health coverage, financial risk protection for high-priority services is necessary to promote fairness, improve health and reduce poverty., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Recent campaigns (e.g., the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely) reflect the increasing role that physicians are expected to have in stewarding health care resources. We examine whether physicians believe they should pay attention to societal costs or refuse requests for costly interventions with little chance of patient benefit., Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a 2010 national survey of 2016 U.S. physicians sampled from the AMA Physician Masterfile. Criterion measures were agreement or disagreement with two survey items related to costs of care. We also examined whether physicians' practice and religious characteristics were associated with their responses., Results: The adjusted response rate was 62% (1156/1878). Forty-seven percent of physicians agreed that physicians "should not consider the societal cost of medical care when caring for individual patients," whereas 69% agreed that physicians "should refuse requests from patients or their families for costly interventions that have little chance of benefitting the patient." Physicians in specialties that care for patients at the end of life were more supportive of refusing such costly interventions. We did not find consistent associations between physicians' religiosity and their responses to these items, though those least supportive of taking into account societal cost were disproportionately from Christian affiliations., Conclusion: Physicians were nearly evenly divided regarding whether they should help control societal costs when caring for individual patients, but a strong majority agreed that physicians should refuse costly interventions that have little chance of benefit.

Meeting healthcare needs is a matter of social justice. Healthcare needs are virtually limitless; however, resources, such as money, for meeting those needs, are limited. How then should we (just and caring citizens and policymakers in such a society) decide which needs must be met as a matter of justice with those limited resources? One reasonable response would be that we should use cost effectiveness as our primary criterion for making those choices. This article argues instead that cost-effectiveness considerations must be constrained by considerations of healthcare justice. The goal of this article will be to provide a preliminary account of how we might distinguish just from unjust or insufficiently just applications of cost-effectiveness analysis to some healthcare rationing problems; specifically, problems related to extraordinarily expensive targeted cancer therapies. Unconstrained compassionate appeals for resources for the medically least well-off cancer patients will be neither just nor cost effective.

Those in hospitals and health care systems, when designing clinical programs for children with medical complexity, often talk about needing to develop and implement a system of risk stratification. In this article, we use the framework of an ethical evaluation of a health care program to examine what this task of risk stratification might entail by identifying specific and detailed issues that require particular attention and making a series of recommendations to help ensure that programs for children with medical complexity avoid potentially ethically problematic situations and practices., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

In an essay, Karine Dubé and coauthors discuss the ethics of preclinical and clinical studies relevant to achieving an HIV cure.

Medical crowdfunding is growing in terms of the number of active campaigns, amount of funding raised and public visibility. Little is known about how campaigners appeal to potential donors outside of anecdotal evidence collected in news reports on specific medical crowdfunding campaigns. This paper offers a first step towards addressing this knowledge gap by examining medical crowdfunding campaigns for Canadian recipients. Using 80 medical crowdfunding campaigns for Canadian recipients, we analyse how Canadians justify to others that they ought to contribute to funding their health needs. We find the justifications campaigners tend to fall into three themes: personal connections, depth of need and giving back. We further discuss how these appeals can understood in terms of ethical justifications for giving and how these justifications should be assessed in light of the academic literature on ethical concerns raised by medical crowdfunding., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Financial "risk-sharing" fee structures in assisted reproduction programs charge patients a higher initial fee but provide reduced fees for subsequent cycles and often a partial or complete refund if treatment fails. This opinion of the ASRM Ethics Committee analyzes the ethical issues raised by these fee structures, including patient selection criteria, conflicts of interest, success rate transparency, and patient informed consent. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2013 (Fertil Steril 2013;100:334-6)., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Power of Attorney as a form of surrogate decision making was introduced within the Adults with Incapacity, Scotland Act (2000) to help individuals who lack mental capacity due to illnesses like dementia. Even after a decade, little was known if it has been useful. We sought to find out how useful the power of attorney document has been so far in supporting people when they lose their capacity and identify any barriers., Methods and Results: We did a survey and approached a random sample of 5000 attorneys in Scotland. A total of 1226 attorneys responded; 59% of the respondents had never used their powers but still considered it useful for 'peace of mind'. For the majority, the costs of arranging a power of attorney ranged in between £150 and £300., Conclusions: The study confirms that power of attorney is useful to safeguard interests of people when they lose capacity. Costs remain a big barrier. Further studies are required to understand the long-term impact of providing financial support to arrange a power of attorney at an early stage on reducing delayed discharges in hospitals., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

There are various grounds on which one may wish to distinguish a right to health care from a right to health. In this article, I review some old grounds before introducing some new grounds. But my central task is to argue that separating a right to health care from a right to health has objectionable consequences. I offer two main objections. The domestic objection is that separating the two rights prevents the state from fulfilling its duty to maximise the health it provides each citizen from its fixed health budget. The international objection is that separating a human right to health care fails the moral requirement that, for any given moral human right, the substance to which any two right-holders are entitled be of an equal standard.

The United States health-care expenditure is rising precipitously. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in 2025, at our current rate of increased spending, 25% of the gross domestic product will be allocated to health care. Our per-capita spending on health care also far exceeds that of any other industrialized country. Health-care costs must be addressed if our country is to remain competitive in the global marketplace and to maintain its financial solvency. If unchecked, the uncontrolled rise in health-care expenditures will not only affect our capacity to provide our patients with high-quality care but also threaten the ability of our nation to compete economically on the global stage. This is not hyperbole but fiscal reality.As physicians, we are becoming increasingly familiar with the economics impacting health-care policy. Thus, we are in a unique position to control the cost of health care. This includes an increased reliance on creating and adhering to evidence-based guidelines. We can do this and still continue to respect the primacy of patient welfare and the right of patients to act in their own self-interest. However, as evidenced by the use of high-volume centers of excellence, each strategy adapted to control costs must be vetted and must be monitored for its unintended ethical consequences.The solution to this complex problem must involve the input of all of the health-care stakeholders, including the patients, payers, and providers. Physicians ought to play a role in designing and executing a remedy. After all, we are the ones who best understand medicine and whose moral obligation is to the welfare of our patients., (Copyright © 2016 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are common across health settings. These are defined as "physical symptoms that prompt sufferer to seek healthcare but remain unexplained after an appropriate medical evaluation". Expectedly, MUS are often associated with significant health-seeking behaviours that add to the burden on health resources.

The treatment of rare and expensive medical conditions is one of the defining qualities of paediatric cardiology and congenital heart surgery. Increasing concerns over healthcare resource allocation are challenging the merits of treating more expensive forms of congenital heart disease, and this trend will almost certainly continue. In this manuscript, the problems of resource allocation for rare and expensive medical conditions are described from philosophical and economic perspectives. The argument is made that current economic models are limited in the ability to assess the value of treating expensive and rare forms of congenital heart disease. Further, multi-disciplinary approaches are necessary to best determine the merits of treating a patient population such as those with significant congenital heart disease that sometimes requires enormous healthcare resources.

The development of the economic evaluation of health care interventions has become a support tool in making decisions on pricing and reimbursement of new health interventions. The increasingly extensive application of these techniques has led to the identification of particular situations in which, for various reasons, it may be reasonable to take into account special considerations when applying the general principles of economic evaluation. In this article, which closes a series of three, we will discuss, using the Metaplan technique, about the economic evaluation of health interventions in special situations such as rare diseases and end of life treatments, as well as consideration of externalities in assessments, finally pointing out some research areas to solve the main problems identified in these fields.

One of the major ethical concerns regarding cost-effectiveness analysis in health care has been the inclusion of life-extension costs ("it is cheaper to let people die"). For this reason, many analysts have opted to rule out life-extension costs from the analysis. However, surprisingly little has been written in the health economics literature regarding this ethical concern and the resulting practice. The purpose of this work was to present a framework and potential solution for ethical objections against life-extension costs. This work found three levels of ethical concern: (i) with respect to all life-extension costs (disease-related and -unrelated); (ii) with respect to disease-unrelated costs only; and (iii) regarding disease-unrelated costs plus disease-related costs not influenced by the intervention. Excluding all life-extension costs for ethical reasons would require-for reasons of consistency-a simultaneous exclusion of savings from reducing morbidity. At the other extreme, excluding only disease-unrelated life-extension costs for ethical reasons would require-again for reasons of consistency-the exclusion of health gains due to treatment of unrelated diseases. Therefore, addressing ethical concerns regarding the inclusion of life-extension costs necessitates fundamental changes in the calculation of cost effectiveness.

Aim: The misuse and abuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs) by attorneys, particularly in relation to financial decision-making, is a growing concern. This paper explores the opportunities to enhance accountability of attorneys at the time of the execution of the document in Queensland., Method: A four-stage multi-method design comprised a critical reference group; semi-structured interviews with 32 principals or potential principals, attorneys and witnesses; two focus groups with service providers and a state-wide survey of 76 principals, attorneys and witnesses., Results: Across all methods and user groups, understanding the role and obligations of the attorney in an EPA was consistently identified as problematic., Conclusions: Promoting accountability and understanding can be addressed by greater attention to the role of the attorney in the forms/ guidelines and in the structure and witnessing of the forms, increased direction about record keeping and access to appropriate advice and support., (© 2013 ACOTA.)

There is a wide gap between organ supply and demand, which results in a very long waiting time for kidney transplantation and an increasing number of deaths of the patients while on the waiting list. These events have raised many ethical, moral and societal issues regarding organ donation, allocation and use of living donors through exploitation of the poor for the benefit of the wealthy. Success in the implementation of kidney transplantation programs in a country depends on various factors including the economic situation, religious approval, public views, medical expertise and existing legislation. The public attitude toward donation is pivotal in all transplantation programs; increasing the awareness of the leaders of religion is vital in this regard.

The Declaration of Istanbul defines organ transplant commercialism as '…a policy or practice in which an organ is treated as a commodity, including by being bought or sold or used for material gain.' It is this treatment of the organ that inevitably leads to its financial value being placed before the welfare of either its donor or its recipient or others in need of organ transplantation. International experience over the past two decades has proven this point and outcomes of commercial donation for both organ donors and their recipients have been poor. Commercial organ donation also comes at the expense of, not in addition to, unpaid, 'altruistic' donation. Other consequences of commercial donation are discussed in addition to a review of measures taken by the international community to put an end to the exploitation of vulnerable organ donors and the provision of ethically acceptable options for those in need of organ transplantation.

Personalized medicine has been touted as a revolutionary form of cancer care. It has been portrayed as precision medicine, targeting with deadly accuracy cancer cells and sparing patients the debilitating broad-spectrum side effects of more traditional forms of cancer therapy. But personalized medicine still has its costs to patients and society, both moral and economic costs. How to recognize and address those issues will be the focus of this essay. We start with these questions: Does everyone faced with cancer have a moral right to the most effective cancer care available, no matter what the cost, no matter whether a particular individual has the personal ability to pay for that care or not? Or are there limits to the cancer care that anyone has a right to at social expense? If so, what are those limits and how are those limits to be determined? Are those limits a matter of both morality and economics? I will answer this last question in the affirmative. This is what I refer to as the "Just Caring" problem in health care., (© 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The concept of quality-adjusted life expectancy ("quality-adjusted life years", QALY) is a type of cost-benefit analysis for health economic evaluation of treatment options. The two parameters quality of life and life expectancy are thereby combined into a single value - the QALY - which can shed light on the cost of therapy per additional quality-adjusted year of life. The concept is, however, widely used in ethical discussions of the adequacy of the generalizations on which this approach is based. Using the simulation of an American research team on treatment forms for prostate cancer, the QALY concept is explained, followed by the presentation of ethical criticisms.

Advances in research and better understanding of the pathophysiology of diseases have resulted in an increase in the number of available health interventions that compete for finite public resources. Explicit choices must therefore be made about funding.