Dataset Information

Criteria for fairly allocating scarce health-care resources to genetic tests: which matter most?

ABSTRACT: The use of genetic tests is expanding rapidly. Given limited health-care budgets throughout Europe and few national coverage decisions specifically for genetic tests, decisions about allocating scarce resources to genetic tests are frequently ad hoc and left to lower-level decision makers. This study assesses substantive ethical and economic criteria to prioritize genetic services in a reasonable and fair manner. Principles for allocating health-care resources can be classified into four categories: need-based allocation; maximizing total benefits; treating people equally; and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. In the face of scarcity, the degree of an individual's need for medical intervention is an important criterion. Also, different economic concepts of efficiency are of relevance in the theory and practice of prioritizing genetic tests. Equity concerns are most likely to be relevant in terms of avoiding undesirable inequities, which may also set boundaries to the use of efficiency as a prioritization criterion. The aim of promoting and rewarding social usefulness is unlikely to be relevant to the question of what priority a genetic test should have in clinical practice. Further work is needed to select an appropriate set of criteria; operationalize them; and assign weights before some kind of standardized priority information can be added to information sources for genetic services. Besides the substantive criteria, formal considerations like those pointed out in the framework of accountability for reasonableness need to be considered in decision making.

SUBMITTER: Rogowski WH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3865392 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Criteria for fairly allocating scarce health-care resources to genetic tests: which matter most?

Rogowski Wolf H WH Grosse Scott D SD Schmidtke Jörg J Marckmann Georg G

European journal of human genetics : EJHG 20130807 1

The use of genetic tests is expanding rapidly. Given limited health-care budgets throughout Europe and few national coverage decisions specifically for genetic tests, decisions about allocating scarce resources to genetic tests are frequently ad hoc and left to lower-level decision makers. This study assesses substantive ethical and economic criteria to prioritize genetic services in a reasonable and fair manner. Principles for allocating health-care resources can be classified into four categor ...[more]

PMID: 23921536

Similar Datasets

Project description:Societies are facing medical resource scarcities, inter alia due to increased life expectancy and limited health budgets and also due to temporal or continuous physical shortages of resources like donor organs. This makes it challenging to meet the medical needs of all. Ethicists provide normative guidance for how to fairly allocate scarce medical resources, but legitimate decisions require additionally information regarding what the general public considers to be fair. The purpose of this study was to explore how lay people, general practitioners, medical students and other health professionals evaluate the fairness of ten allocation principles for scarce medical resources: 'sickest first', 'waiting list', 'prognosis', 'behaviour' (i.e., those who engage in risky behaviour should not be prioritized), 'instrumental value' (e.g., health care workers should be favoured during epidemics), 'combination of criteria' (i.e., a sequence of the 'youngest first', 'prognosis', and 'lottery' principles), 'reciprocity' (i.e., those who provided services to the society in the past should be rewarded), 'youngest first', 'lottery', and 'monetary contribution'.1,267 respondents to an online questionnaire were confronted with hypothetical situations of scarcity regarding (i) donor organs, (ii) hospital beds during an epidemic, and (iii) joint replacements. Nine allocation principles were evaluated in terms of fairness for each type of scarcity along 7-point Likert scales. The relationship between demographic factors (gender, age, religiosity, political orientation, and health status) and fairness evaluations was modelled with logistic regression.Medical background was a major predictor of fairness evaluations. While general practitioners showed different response patterns for all three allocation situations, the responses by lay people were very similar. Lay people rated 'sickest first' and 'waiting list' on top of all allocation principles-e.g., for donor organs 83.8% (95% CI: [81.2%-86.2%]) rated 'sickest first' as fair ('fair' is represented by scale points 5-7), and 69.5% [66.2%-72.4%] rated 'waiting list' as fair. The corresponding results for general practitioners: 'prognosis' 79.7% [74.2%-84.9%], 'combination of criteria' 72.6% [66.4%-78.5%], and 'sickest first' 74.5% [68.6%-80.1%); these were the highest-rated allocation principles for donor organs allocation. Interestingly, only 44.3% [37.7%-50.9%] of the general practitioners rated 'instrumental value' as fair for the allocation of hospital beds during a flu epidemic. The fairness evaluations by general practitioners obtained for joint replacements: 'sickest first' 84.0% [78.8%-88.6%], 'combination of criteria' 65.6% [59.2%-71.8%], and 'prognosis' 63.7% [57.1%-70.0%]. 'Lottery', 'reciprocity', 'instrumental value', and 'monetary contribution' were considered very unfair allocation principles by both groups. Medical students' ratings were similar to those of general practitioners, and the ratings by other health professionals resembled those of lay people.Results are partly at odds with current conclusions proposed by some ethicists. A number of ethicists reject 'sickest first' and 'waiting list' as morally unjustifiable allocation principles, whereas those allocation principles received the highest fairness endorsements by lay people and to some extent also by health professionals. Decision makers are advised to consider whether or not to give ethicists, health professionals, and the general public an equal voice when attempting to arrive at maximally endorsed allocations of scarce medical resources.

Project description:BackgroundThe topic of this paper is related to equity in health within a country. In public health care sectors of many countries decisions on priority setting with respect to treatment of different types of diseases or patient groups are implicitly or explicitly made. Priorities are realized by allocation decisions for medical resources where moral judgments play an important role with respect to goals and measures that should be applied. The aim of this study is to explore the moral intuitions held in the German society related to priorities in medical treatment.MethodsWe use an experimental questionnaire method established in the Empirical Social Choice literature. Participants are asked to make decisions in a sequence of distributive problems where a limited amount of treatment time has to be allocated to hypothetically described patients. The decision problems serve as an intuition pump. Situations are systematically varied with respect to patients' initial health levels, their ability to benefit from treatment time, and the amount of treatment time available. Subjects are also asked to describe their deliberations. We focus on the acceptance of different allocation principles including equity concepts and utilitarian properties. We investigate rule characteristics like order preservation or monotonicity with respect to resources, severity, or effectiveness. We check the consistency of individual choices with stated reasoning.ResultsThe goals and allocation principles revealed show that the moral intuitions held by our experimental subjects are much more complex than the principles commonly applied in health economic theory. Especially, cost-utility principles are rarely applied, whereas the goal of equality of health gain is observed more often. The principle not to leave any patient untreated is very dominant. We also observe the degrees to which extent certain monotonicity principles, known from welfare economics, are followed. Subjects were able to describe their moral judgments in written statements. We also find evidence that they followed their respective intuitions very consistently in their decisions.ConclusionsFindings of the kind presented in this paper may serve as an important input for the public and political discussion when decisions on priorities in the public health care sector are formed.

Project description:COVID-19 is a global pandemic that affected the everyday life activities of billions around the world. It is an unprecedented crisis that the modern world had never experienced before. It mainly affected the economic state and the health care system. The rapid and increasing number of infected patients overwhelmed the healthcare infrastructure, which causes high demand and, thus, shortage in the required staff members and medical resources. This shortage necessitates practical and ethical suggestions to guide clinicians and medical centers when allocating and reallocating scarce resources for and between COVID-19 patients. Many studies proposed a set of ethical principles that should be applied and implemented to address this problem. In this study, five different ethical principles based on the most commonly recommended principles and aligned with WHO guidelines and state-of-the-art practices proposed in the literature were identified, and recommendations for their applications were discussed. Furthermore, a recent study highlighted physicians' propensity to apply a combination of more than one ethical principle while prioritizing the medical resource allocation. Based on that, an ethical framework that is based on Fuzzy inference systems was proposed. The proposed framework's input is the identified ethical principles, and the output is a weighted value (per patient). This value can be used as a rank or a priority factor given to the patients based on their condition and other relevant information, like the severity of their disease status. The main idea of implementing fuzzy logic in the framework is to combine more than one principle when calculating the weighted value, hence mimicking what some physicians apply in practice. Moreover, the framework's rules are aligned with the identified ethical principles. This framework can help clinicians and guide them while making critical decisions to allocate/reallocate the limited medical resources during the current COVID-19 crisis and future similar pandemics.

Dataset Information

Criteria for fairly allocating scarce health-care resources to genetic tests: which matter most?

Publications

Criteria for fairly allocating scarce health-care resources to genetic tests: which matter most?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets