The debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of ‘countervailing powers’

UK national newspapers' representation of cancer patients and their care during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic: Invoking and undermining solidarity?

During the COVID-19 pandemic media narratives of solidarity often cast nations like the UK as if at war, while acclaiming health-care workers as heroic and beloved. However, this solidarity was often fragile and fleeting, as concerns and criticism about workers, citizens and services also circulated. In this article we explore these dynamics of solidarity in more depth, analysing framings of cancer patient suffering, private and public provision of health care in news media during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic. We explore how cancer patients were positioned as victims of failure and abandonment by the state and its health-care providers, and how the private health-care system was presented in a saviour role. We conclude by reflecting on the implications of new media's alignment of appeals to solidarity with highly individualised forms of care and the consequences for state-based services founded on principles of solidarity.

Citizens' opinions and experiences related to costs and reimbursements for medications in times of retrenchment: cross-sectional population surveys in 2015 and 2017

Background

Finland has universal coverage for prescription medications under the National Health Insurance. Eligibility schemes target higher reimbursements to individuals with chronic illness. Nevertheless, co-payments always apply, and austerity reforms implemented in 2016 and 2017 led to further increases in co-payments. We examined the extent to which people with chronic illness experienced financial difficulties in purchasing medications, how perceptions of fairness regarding the national reimbursements differs by exposure to policies and medicine use, and in what way do these experiences and opinions vary between surveys collected before and after the reforms.

Methods

We used two waves of Medicines Barometer (2015 and 2017, pooled n = 10,801), a national, biennial, cross-sectional population survey. Logistic regression analyses were performed with experiences of financial difficulties and perceptions of fairness as dependent variables. We compared people with and without prescription medication use, eligibilities, and/or diabetes (exposure groups), controlling for age, gender, survey type and geographic area (NUTS2). To examine the modifying effect of study year, we fitted models with an interaction term between group and year.

Results

Respondents with diabetes or eligibility based on chronic illness had a notably higher risk than other respondents with at least some prescription medication use to have experienced financial difficulties in affording medications. The share of respondents experiencing difficulties increased the most among people with diabetes. Three-quarters of respondents were either critical or unsure of whether the reimbursements for medications were fair and just. People with recent prescription medication use tended to be more sceptical than people without. Overall, scepticism tended to be more prevalent in 2017 than in 2015.

Conclusions

Despite the protective policies in place, individuals with chronic illness were disproportionately burdened by costs of medications already before the reforms. Among individuals with diabetes, financial difficulties were even more prevalent in 2017 than in 2015, which is likely attributed to the particularly high co-payment increases targeted to type 2 diabetes medicines. Perceived fairness of the processes and outcomes of policies and regulations is a key dimension of trust in public policy. Thus, increasing scepticism implies that retrenchment may also have implications in terms of public legitimacy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-022-01631-6.

Running out of time: The case of patient advocacy for ovarian cancer patients' access to PARP inhibitors

This article analyses patient advocacy for ovarian cancer patients' access to a group of new targeted cancer treatments, so-called poly (adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Ovarian cancer is often detected in its advanced stages and has relatively poor survival rates. Based on ethnographic fieldwork with the Gynae Cancer Group, a Swedish patients' group, this article examines ovarian cancer patient advocates' engagement with biomedicine as a rarely considered topic in the social sciences. Adopting a modified version of the science and technology studies perspective on evidence-based activism, I analyse how ovarian cancer patient advocates engage in the 'epistemic activities' of framing, producing and mobilising 'credentialed' and 'experiential' knowledge. I show how patient advocates, alone and together with professionals and the media, engage in epistemic activities to 'act upon' ovarian cancer patients' anticipated limited time and poor prognosis: patient advocates mobilise around PARP inhibitors as offering hope, access to these drugs as an urgent matter and ovarian cancer care as unequal. The article contributes to the sociological literature on novel cancer treatments and patient advocacy through its ethnographic tracing of cancer advocacy tropes and knowledge practices, centred on the temporal figure of 'the patient running out of time'.

Accessing targeted therapies for cancer: self and collective advocacy alongside and beyond mainstream cancer charities

As precision oncology has evolved, patients and their families have become more involved in efforts to access these treatments via fundraising and campaigning that take place outside of the larger cancer charities. In this paper, we explore the solidarities, networks, and emotional work of the UK-based access advocates, drawing on the stories of nine advocates, which included interviews and content analyses of their social media posts and coverage of their case in news, commentary, and fundraising websites. We consider the emotional and knowledge work of building networks that spanned consumerist and activist agendas, forged individual and collective goals, and orientations toward the public, private, and third sectors as part of securing support and access. Through these various practices, the actors we have studied cultivated personal advantage and solidarities with other patients and advocates, and in so doing engaged in self and collective advocacy alongside and beyond mainstream cancer charities.

Revisiting the pharmaceuticalisation of pandemic influenza using Lukes' framework of power

The power of social actors to drive or block pharmaceutical uptake has been a concern in sociological debates on pharmaceuticalisation, including in the case of pandemic vaccination. We build on Steven Lukes' three-dimensional view of power to explore the 2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccination in Sweden and Denmark - two similar countries that arrived at conflicting vaccination strategies. Drawing on interviews with members of each country's pandemic steering group and on document analysis, we explore three consecutive stages of pandemic vaccination response: planning, vaccine procurement and the vaccination campaign. The paper makes two contributions to studies of pharmaceuticalisation and pandemics. Conceptually, we advocate the suitability of Lukes' framework over the 'countervailing powers' framework repeatedly used to model power in the pharmaceutical field. Empirically, our study confirms that government-appointed experts steered pandemic planning in both countries, but we show that the state, industry and the WHO also exerted power by enabling and constraining experts' decision-making, including by keeping some information secret. Furthermore, we argue that mass vaccination in Sweden was a pervasive expression of state power, in Lukes' sense, since it rested on keeping latent the tension between many individuals' health interests and the state's interests in protecting social and economic functioning.

The sociology of cancer: a decade of research

Biomedicine is often presented as the driving force behind improvements in cancer care, with genomics the latest innovation poised to change the meaning, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and lived experience of cancer. Reviewing sociological analyses of a diversity of patient and practitioner experiences and accounts of cancer during the last decade (2007-17), we explore the experiences of, approaches to and understandings of cancer in this period. We identify three key areas of focus: (i) cancer patient experiences and identities; (ii) cancer risk and responsibilities and (iii) bioclinical collectives. We explore these sociological studies of societal and biomedical developments and how sociologists have sought to influence developments in cancer identities, care and research. We end by suggesting that we extend our understanding of innovations in the fields of cancer research to take better account of these wider social and cultural innovations, together with patients, activists' and sociologists' contributions therein.

LEGITIMACY OF MEDICINES FUNDING IN THE ERA OF ACCELERATED ACCESS

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, numerous frameworks have been developed to enhance the legitimacy of health technology assessment processes. Despite efforts to implement these "legitimacy frameworks," medicines funding decisions can still be perceived as lacking in legitimacy. We, therefore, sought to examine stakeholder views on factors that they think should be considered when making decisions about the funding of high-cost breast cancer therapies, focusing on those that are not included in current frameworks and processes.

METHODS

We analyzed published discourse on the funding of high-cost breast-cancer therapies. Relevant materials were identified by searching the databases Google, Google Scholar, and Factiva in August 2014 and July 2016 and these were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We analyzed fifty published materials and found that stakeholders, for the most part, want to be able to access medicines more quickly and at the same time as other patients and for decision makers to be more flexible with regards to evidence requirements and to use a wider range of criteria when evaluating therapies. Many also advocated for existing process to be accelerated or bypassed to improve access to therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results illustrate that a stakeholder-derived conceptualization of legitimacy emphasizes principles of accelerated access and is not fully accounted for by existing frameworks and processes aimed at promoting legitimacy. However, further research examining the ethical, political, and clinical implications of the stakeholder claims raised here is needed before firm policy recommendations can be made.

Stratified, precision or personalised medicine? Cancer services in the 'real world' of a London hospital

We conducted ethnographic research in collaboration with a large, research-intensive London breast cancer service in 2013-2014 so as to understand the practices and potential effects of stratified medicine. Stratified medicine is often seen as a synonym for both personalised and precision medicine but these three terms, we found, also related to distinct facets of treatment and care. Personalised medicine is the term adopted for the developing 2016 NHS England Strategy, in which breast cancer care is considered a prime example of improved biological precision and better patient outcomes. We asked how this biologically stratified medicine affected wider relations of care and treatment. We interviewed formally 33 patients and 23 of their carers, including healthcare workers; attended meetings associated with service improvements, medical decision-making, public engagement, and scientific developments as well as following patients through waiting rooms, clinical consultations and other settings. We found that the translation of new protocols based on biological research introduced further complications into an already-complex patient pathway. Combinations of new and historic forms of stratification had an impact on almost all patients, carers and staff, resulting in care that often felt less rather than more personal.

Adoption of trastuzumab for breast cancer in four emerging countries in the use of health technology assessment: a case study

AIM

To describe processes for the adoption of trastuzumab in four countries in the use of health technology assessment (HTA): Poland, Albania, Brazil and Colombia.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Mixed methods were used for collection and triangulation of data. Data were examined following a conceptual framework connecting HTA process steps and key principles.

RESULTS

Trastuzumab was generally assessed following well-structured HTA processes. Nonetheless, areas of improvement were detected in terms of transparency and inclusiveness, as well as in methods used. The extent to which different criteria influenced decisions was unclear.

CONCLUSION

This study covers an area in which information may not always be available, and sets the example for emerging countries interested in HTA. Further studies to gain a better understanding on decision-making across settings are warranted.

Improving the Legitimacy of Medicines Funding Decisions: A Critical Literature Review

Many health care systems globally provide publicly subsidized access to prescribed medicines. Decisions about which medicines to fund affect a range of stakeholders, and it is not reasonable to expect that medicines funding decisions are supported by all stakeholder groups all the time. A more realistic aim may be for decisions to be understood and accepted as legitimate by stakeholders; however, several shortcomings of existing processes make it difficult to achieve this aim. To date, the main strategy to address these shortcomings has been to increase stakeholder involvement in decision making, either by eliciting stakeholder values or increasing stakeholder participation in decision making. Despite these efforts, there is growing evidence that decision makers are falling short when it comes to the perceived legitimacy of their resource allocation processes and decisions. As such, there is a pressing need for decision makers to think seriously and creatively about ways to increase the legitimacy of their processes and to make them more acceptable to a wider range of stakeholders. In this article we summarize and critique existing literature on the legitimacy of public resource allocation processes, and we make some practical suggestions for those who are concerned about this issue.

Drugs, cancer and end-of-life care: a case study of pharmaceuticalization?

There is evidence from some countries of a trend towards increasingly aggressive pharmacological treatment of patients with advanced, incurable cancer. To what extent should this be understood as a progressive development in which technological innovations address previously unmet needs, or is a significant amount of this expansion explained by futile or even harmful treatment? In this article it is argued that while some of this growth may be consistent with a progressive account of medicines consumption, part of the expansion is constituted by the inappropriate and overly aggressive use of drugs. Such use is often explained in terms of individual patient consumerism and/or factors to do with physician behaviour. Whilst acknowledging the role of physicians and patients' expectations, this paper, drawing on empirical research conducted in the US, the EU and the UK, examines the extent to which upstream factors shape expectations and drive pharmaceuticalisation, and explores the value of this concept as an analytical tool.

A qualitative exploration of key informant perspectives regarding the nature and impact of contemporary legislation on professional development: a grounded theory study of chiropractic in Denmark

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to construct a substantive framework of the manner in which the Danish government interacts with the Danish chiropractic profession and influences professional practice.

METHODS

An exploratory, qualitative study was performed using a substantive grounded theory (GT) approach. Unstructured, face-to-face, individual interviews were conducted during the years 2012 and 2013 and thematically analyzed. Six people were interviewed for this study including a gatekeeper and witness to legislative history, a previous chiropractic political representative and witness to legislative history, a previous Department of Health negotiator and previous administrator of chiropractic affairs and witness to legislative history, a current administrator of chiropractic affairs, an active chiropractic political representative and witness to legislative history, and a chief negotiator for Danish Regional Health Care Services.

RESULTS

Open and axial coding yielded 2 themes centering on licensing chiropractors in Denmark and the resultant developmental issues encountered. Through further selective coding, the GT core construct, "chiropractic practice in the Danish heath care system" emerged. The GT highlights the tension between the strategic political importance of legislation and the restrictive nature of the overly specific act currently regulating chiropractic practice. Moreover, the GT also revealed the perceived negative effect that the National Board of Health may exert on clinical practice due to its conservative interpretation of the act.

CONCLUSIONS

The Danish government is perceived to act as a countervailing power related to chiropractic practice. The derived substantive GT suggests that the Danish government's dualistic action relative to the Danish chiropractic community may inhibit the spontaneous evolution of contemporary Danish chiropractic practice. Although historically narrow legislation may limit chiropractic practice, conservative interpretations by the Danish National Board of Health may also play an important role.

The shaping of pharmaceutical governance: the Israeli case

This article focuses on governance of the pharmaceutical sector in Israel. It traces the relationships between the state, industry, and sick funds from before the establishment of National Health Insurance (NHI) in 1995 to the beginning of this decade, in particular as they have grappled with the challenge of making national formulary decisions in a rational manner. Subsequent to the introduction of NHI there have been shifts in the modes and mix of governance. This research shows empirically that a relatively complex mix of hierarchical and network modes of governance can be successfully established over an extended period of time when flexibility is maintained through the implementation process. The system for defining and updating a standard basket of health services has coped well with the challenge of managing a range of difficult and potentially volatile stakeholder relationships in the pharmaceutical sector and of distancing ministers from controversies of funding and listing decisions. Government has succeeded in containing drug costs whilst still maintaining a basket of reimbursable drugs that, from an international perspective, is comprehensive and technologically advanced. On the other hand, network arrangements appear to have delayed the introduction of suitable accountability relationships and hindered their development. The state has traditionally played an intermediary role between unavoidable corporate interests of industry and sick funds, with little transparency and to the detriment of more pluralistic access to decision making. Governance arrangements in Israel appear to limit the potential and incentive of the state and the sick funds to realize their potential countervailing powers in subsidy and pricing decisions.