SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Lewis and Charny have come under siege for suggesting remote questioning to decide appropriate medical care. While the criticisms are theoretically valid, the idea is so important practically that Lewis and Charny should be supported and their approach investigated as a way of making medical treatment at least more open and possibly more fair.
A patient with respiratory failure due to undiagnosed tuberculosis in the presence of HIV infection presents to the ICU in a foreign country. This raises many ethical questions, quite apart from the medical management issues raised by the patient's serious condition. Six of these ethical questions have been presented to leading physicians and an ethicist, from a range of national, cultural and religious backgrounds, for their comment.
Two-tier charging, the practice of offering separate qualities of service at different prices, is a growing practice in public hospitals internationally. This paper models two-tier charging as a Stackelberg game in which the Ministry of Health leads by setting prices and a representative hospital follows by setting quality levels to maximise surplus in response. Whether or not two-tier charging will secure cross-subsidy from superior to basic service users depends on the own and cross-quality effects of the demand functions for the two services. Under a range of assumptions, the policy will evoke cross-subsidy from basic to superior services.
Three studies demonstrated that interactional justice was able to attenuate egocentric bias, i.e., the tendency to regard a larger share for oneself as fair. Study 1, an experimental study of negotiation, showed that fair interpersonal treatment led to a smaller egocentric bias, quicker settlements, and fewer stalemates. Study 2 showed that fair treatment was related to a smaller egocentric bias in a real-life context. University students were more willing to accept a higher tuition fee and less willing to cut the salary of their teachers if the interpersonal treatment received from the teachers was more positive. Study 3 showed experimentally that in support of fairness heuristic theory, when the fair interpersonal treatment received could be attributed externally, its attenuating effect on the egocentric bias disappeared.
The problem of health care distribution in the United States demands immediate action. Many different solutions have been proposed to slow rising health care costs and to improve access to care for the poor and uninsured. Debate among proponents of these various proposals might be advanced if a common language were adopted with regard to certain key terms instead of the various meanings currently assigned to these terms. For this reason, we propose and defend the following three definitions: (1) rationing is the societal toleration of inequitable access to health services acknowledged to be necessary by reference to necessary-care guidelines; (2) health care needs are desires for services that have been reasonably well demonstrated to provide significant net benefit for patients with specified clinical conditions; and (3) basic benefit plans are insurance packages that provide for all and only acknowledged health care needs, again by reference to appropriate clinical guidelines.
The paper analyses the factors involved in a series of decisions by the Newcastle Area Health Authority concerning the future of one of its hospitals, as an illustration of the way in which choices about priorities in the health service are actually made. There is no easy way to resolve the various conflicts of interest, notably in this case the competing demands of acute and chronic medicine. Difficult decisions are made more difficult, however, by the over-rigid division of medicine into compartments, by mistrust between the medical profession and administrators, and by the inordinately long time-scale of the decision-making process. It is suggested that there might be value in acknowledging explicitly that occasional examples of 'heroic medicine' must not be allowed too much influence in shaping public expectations. The paper results from the deliberations of a working group on current medical-ethical problems, set up under the auspices of the Northern Regional Health Authority (I).
Two qualitative case studies focus on the allocation of CDC funds distributed during 2002 for bioterrorism preparedness in two Texas public health regions (each as populous and complex as many states). Lessons learned are presented for public health officials and others who work to build essential public health services and security for our nation. The first lesson is that personal relationships are the cornerstone of preparedness. A major lesson is that a regional strategy to manage funds may be more effective than allocating funds on a per capita basis. One regional director required every local department to complete a strategic plan as a basis for proportional allocation of the funds. Control of communicable diseases was a central component of the planning. Some funds were kept at the regional level to provide epidemiology services, computer software, equipment, and training for the entire region. Confirmation of the value of this regional strategy was expressed by local public health and emergency management officials in a focus group 1 year after the strategy had been implemented. The group members also pointed out the need to streamline the planning process, provide up-to-date computer networks, and receive more than minimal communication. This regional strategy can be viewed from the perspective of adaptive leadership, defined as activities to bring about constructive change, which also can be used to analyze other difficult areas of preparedness.
Even though there is substantial pressure on physicians to significantly reduce the amount of public monies spent on geriatric health care, it is improper for physicians to let financial concerns take precedence over their obligations to care for the patients who seek their services and assistance. The doctor/patient relationship demands that the physician be faithful to the cause of meeting the needs of patients. This faith is kept by taking all necessary steps to respect and promote the autonomy of patients. This is best done by adhering to a commitment of pursuing a process of communication with patients that leads to the attainment of informed consent or refusal from patients. Two consequences likely to follow are protection of many patients from protracted, miserable deaths because of less use of invasive medical procedures, and subsequent financial savings from this lower degree of use.
BACKGROUND: US acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) Drug Assistance programs (ADAPs) provide medications to low-income patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection/AIDS. Nationally, ADAPs are in a fiscal crisis. Many states have instituted waiting lists, often serving clients on a first-come, first-served basis. We hypothesized that CD4 cell count-based ADAP eligibility would improve ADAP outcomes, allowing them to serve more-diverse patient populations and to prioritize persons who are at greatest risk of HIV-related mortality. METHODS: We used Massachusetts ADAP administrative data to create a retrospective cohort of Massachusetts ADAP clients from fiscal year 2003. We then used a model-based analysis to apply potential eligibility criteria for a limited program and to compare characteristics of patients included under CD4 cell count-based and first-come, first-served eligibility criteria. RESULTS: In fiscal year 2003, Massachusetts ADAPs served 3560 clients at a direct cost of 10.3 million dollars. With use of CD4 cell count-based eligibility (with an eligibility criterion of a current or nadir CD4 cell count < or = 350 cells/microL), it would have served 2253 clients (37% fewer than in fiscal year 2003) and appreciated savings of 2.7 million dollars. Given the same budget constraint and using first-come, first-served eligibility, Massachusetts ADAPs would have served 2406 clients (32% fewer than in fiscal year 2003). The first-come, first-served approach would have excluded patients with median CD4 cell count of 257 cells/microL (interquartile range, 124-377 cells/microL) in favor of serving patients with median CD4 cell count of 659 cells/microL (interquartile range, 511-841 cells/microL). In addition, a CD4 cell count-based scheme would have served a greater proportion of nonwhite individuals (65% vs. 55%; P<.0001), non-English speakers (24% vs. 19%; P=.03), and unemployed people (69% vs. 61%; P=.0009), compared with the population that would have been served by a first-come, first-served policy. CONCLUSIONS: With limited resources, ADAPs will serve more-diverse populations and patients with significantly more advanced HIV disease by using CD4 cell count-based enrollment criteria rather than a first-come, first-served approach.
Non-governmental aid programs are an important source of health care for many people in the developing world. Despite the central role non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play in the delivery of these vital services, for the most part they either lack formal systems of accountability to their recipients altogether, or have only very weak requirements in this regard. This is because most NGOs are both self-mandating and self-regulating. What is needed in terms of accountability is some means by which all the relevant stakeholders can have their interests represented and considered. An ideally accountable decision-making process for NGOs should identify acceptable justifications and rule out unacceptable ones. Thus, the point of this paper is to evaluate three prominent types of justification given for decisions taken at the Dutch headquarters of Médecins sans Frontières. They are: population health justifications, mandate-based justifications and advocacy-based justifications. The central question at issue is whether these justifications are sufficiently robust to answer the concerns and objections that various stakeholders may have. I am particularly concerned with the legitimacy these justifications have in the eyes of project beneficiaries. I argue that special responsibilities to certain communities can arise out of long-term engagement with them, but that this type of priority needs to be constrained such that it does not exclude other potential beneficiaries to an undesirable extent. Finally, I suggest several new institutional mechanisms that would enhance the overall equity of decisions and so would ultimately contribute to the legitimacy of the organization as a whole.
The increasing complexity of health care systems in Europe, the financial limits of the public sector one hand, and a political consensus in favour of equal accessibility to services on the other, are at the origin of a widening gap between "individual" ethics (i.e. of health care professionals) and societal ethics. An additional conflict is that between equal accessibility and operational and distributive efficiency.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Debate over the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act (RWCA) raises questions of fairness, equity, and efficiency. Critics charge that the program targets disproportionate resources to historical urban epicenters at the expense of underserved areas of incident HIV infection. We used 1998-2004 data on RWCA allocations to examine these claims. We found that states' concentration of AIDS cases within urban areas remains the dominant predictor of RWCA funding, although the impact of concentration declined after 2000. Other state characteristics, such as poverty rates or racial/ethnic diversity, play a much smaller role.
It is generally assumed that allocation problems in a socialized health care system result from limited resources and too much demand. Attempts at solutions have therefore centered in increasing efficiency, using evidence-based decision-making and on developing ways of balancing competing demands within the existing resource limitation. This article suggests that some of the difficulties in macro-allocation decision-making may result from the use of conflicting ethical perspectives by decision-makers. It presents evidence from a preliminary Canadian study to this effect.
The decision that a particular intervention is not clinically indicated may conceal two quite different ethical assumptions. The first assumption is that the intervention is not of overall benefit to this patient. The second is that limited resources should not be used for this patient. These issues are discussed with reference to cardiac surgery in elderly patients with reference to the main theories of allocation: QALYs, needs theories, the sanctity of life theory, the lottery theory, and market forces.
In a much cited phrase in the famous English 'Child B' case, Mr Justice Laws intimated that in life and death cases of scarce resources it is not sufficient for health care decision-makers to 'toll the bell of tight resources': they must also explain the system of priorities they are using. Although overturned in the Court of Appeal, the important question remains of the extent to which health-care decision-makers have a duty to give reasons for their decisions. In this paper, I examine the philosophical foundations of the legal obligation to give reasons in English law. Why are judges sometimes supportive of the imposition of a duty to give reasons and sometimes not? What is it about the context of life and death health care allocation problems that makes it unsuitable in their view for such a duty; and is this stance justified? What is it to give a reason for a decision? I examine Frederick Schauer's account of reason-giving in terms of generalisation and commitment and I suggest that it provides an overstated account of what giving a reason commits one to. I go on to examine an idea of judicial creation: that where value judgements are "inexpressible" there is a strong reason not to impose a duty to give reasons on to public bodies. The strongest case for a duty to give reasons is in terms of the value of respect for citizens. I argue that there is nothing in the very nature of reason-giving that ought to preclude the imposition of such a duty in this context, but concede that there is a serious danger of legalism that could result in a hamstringing of health care decision-making. It is up to judges and lawyers to seek to avoid this danger.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.