Prevalence and determinants of physician bedside rationing: data from Europe

Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles.

RESULTS

Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

Time Spent on Medical Round Activities, Distance Walked, and Time-Motion in the General Medicine Department at Hamad General Hospital in Qatar

Background The daily morning round is a routine activity performed by medical teams. During the morning round, updates on the patient's clinical condition, new laboratory results, and other test results are reviewed and discussed between team members, the patient, and at times the family. Completing these tasks takes time. The design of the patient location differs between hospitals, and significant distance between patients can considerably affect round times. This study assesses physicians' time spent on clinical activities, the distance traveled, and the time they spend walking between patients during daily morning rounds to identify better reorganization methods to reduce wasted time. Methodology The survey was self-administered and had no intervention needing ethical approval. The research team's leader engaged two observers (a general practitioner from another department and a general internal medicine department case manager) to collect the data. The general practitioner was a medical graduate doctor, while the bed manager was not a medical college graduate. They observed 10 rounds over 10 non-consecutive days from July 1 to July 30, 2022. They recorded daily activities during the daily morning round, including time spent with patients, family conversations, bedside education, medication, social issues, and the time and distance required to move from patient to patient and from one location to location. The informal conversations about age, work history, and other small talk were recorded and converted into quantitative data. In each round, records were given to a statistician for rechecking. Subsequently, the records were imported into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for further statistical analysis. For continuous variables, the data were summarized as mean, median, and standard deviation. For categorical variables, the data were summarized as counts or proportions. Results On average, the duration of the daily morning round was 161.7 ± 17.3 minutes. The average number of patients seen by the general internal medicine round team was 14. The median patient encounter time per patient was 14 minutes (11-19 minutes), with an average of 12 minutes. An average of 8.6 employees participated in the 10-day rounds. The physician spent 41.2% of the time in direct contact with the patient during the morning round, 11.4% in maintaining electronic medical records, and 18.20% in bedside teaching. Additionally, 7.1% of the round time was spent because of interruptions by clinical and non-clinical staff other than team members or family members who were not in the room. Furthermore, a team member walked an average of 763 ± 54.5 m (667-872 m) per round, costing 35.7 minutes (22.1%) of the total round time. Conclusions The daily morning round time was significantly longer compared with the reported round times. Relocating patient beds to a common location reduced the rounding time by 22.30%. Disruption, teaching, and medical instruction must also be considered and shortened to reduce the morning round time.

Clinical Priority Setting and Decision-Making in Sweden: A Cross-sectional Survey Among Physicians

BACKGROUND

Priority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians' views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW).

METHODS

An online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology.

RESULTS

Overall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than 'at least once per month,' whilst 60% felt less than 'well-prepared' to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform 'well' and 'very well' and 64% NBHW's national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHW's national guidelines.

CONCLUSION

There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHW's national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform.

Cost-consciousness among Chinese medical staff: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Rapidly increasing health care costs are a widespread problem in the world. The cost-consciousness among Chinese medical staff is an important topic that needs further investigation. Our study aimed to focus on the cost-consciousness of Chinese medical staff and explore the factors related to their cost-consciousness. Differences regarding cost-consciousness between doctors and nurses were also reported.

METHODS

Eight hospitals in Liaoning Province, China, were surveyed using a self-reporting questionnaire. A total of 1043 respondents, including 635 doctors and 408 nurses, participated in the study. A revised Chinese Cost-consciousness Scale was used to estimate cost-consciousness.

RESULTS

The mean score of the Cost-consciousness Scale was 27.60 and 28.18 among doctors and nurses, respectively, and there were no significant differences in any personal characteristics. Most Chinese medical staff were aware of the treatment costs and considered cost control as their responsibility. Chinese doctors disliked adhering to guidelines more and preferred to remain independent in making or denying a treatment decision; thus, they like autonomously balancing the treatment and cost. Chinese nurses have similar attitudes, but nurses tended to deny costly services and interventions and were more sensitive to the health care costs by rationing decisions and uncertainty in their medical practice.

CONCLUSION

We reveal the attitudes regarding cost-consciousness among Chinese medical staff. Chinese medical staff was aware of their responsibility in health cost control. Chinese doctors and nurses had different tendencies with regard to health care cost containment. Our study highlights the importance of education and professional training on cost-consciousness.

Attitudes towards priority setting in the norwegian health care system: a general population survey

BACKGROUND

In an ideal world, everyone would receive medical resources in accordance with their needs. In reality, resources are often scarce and have an alternative use. Thus, we are forced to prioritize. Although Norway is one of the leading countries in normative priority setting work, few descriptive studies have been conducted in the country. To increase legitimacy in priority setting, knowledge about laypeople's attitudes is central. The aim of the study is therefore to assess the general population's attitudes towards a broad spectrum of issues pertinent to priority setting in the Norwegian publicly financed health care system.

METHODS

We developed an electronic questionnaire that was distributed to a representative sample of 2 540 Norwegians regarding their attitudes towards priority setting in Norway. A total of 1 035 responded (response rate 40.7%). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

A majority (73.0%) of respondents preferred increased funding of publicly financed health services at the expense of other sectors in society. Moreover, a larger share of the respondents suggested either increased taxes (37.0%) or drawing from the Government Pension Fund Global (31.0%) as sources of funding. However, the respondents were divided on whether it was acceptable to say "no" to new cancer drugs when the effect is low and the price is high: 38.6% somewhat or fully disagreed that this was acceptable, while 46.5% somewhat or fully agreed. Lastly, 84.0% of the respondents did not find it acceptable that the Norwegian municipalities have different standards for providing care services.

CONCLUSION

Although the survey suggests support for priority setting among Norwegian laypeople, it has also revealed that a significant minority are reluctant to accept it.

The Ethical Duty to Reduce the Ecological Footprint of Industrialized Healthcare Services and Facilities

According to the widely accepted principles of beneficence and distributive justice, I argue that healthcare providers and facilities have an ethical duty to reduce the ecological footprint of the services they provide. I also address the question of whether the reductions in footprint need or should be patient-facing. I review Andrew Jameton and Jessica Pierce's claim that achieving ecological sustainability in the healthcare sector requires rationing the treatment options offered to patients. I present a number of reasons to think that we should not ration health care to achieve sufficient reductions in a society's overall consumption of ecological goods. Moreover, given the complexities of ecological rationing, I argue that there are good reasons to think that the ethical duty to reduce the ecological footprint of health care should focus on only nonpatient-facing changes. I review a number of case studies of hospitals who have successfully retrofitted facilities to make them more efficient and reduced their resource and waste streams.

How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources? Controversial preferences of healthcare professionals with different personal characteristics

The scarcity of medical resources is widely recognized, and therefore priority setting is inevitable. This study examines whether Portuguese healthcare professionals (physicians vs nurses): (i) share the moral guidance proposed by ethicists and (ii) attitudes toward prioritization criteria vary among individual and professional characteristics. A sample of 254 healthcare professionals were confronted with hypothetical prioritization scenarios involving two patients distinguished by personal or health characteristics. Descriptive statistics and parametric analyses were performed to evaluate and compare the adherence of both groups of healthcare professionals regarding 10 rationing criteria: waiting time, treatment prognosis measured in life expectancy and quality of life, severity of health conditions measured in pain and immediate risk of dying, age discrimination measured in favoring the young over older and favoring the youngest over the young, merit evaluated positively or negatively, and parenthood. The findings show a slight adherence to the criteria. Waiting time and patient pain were the conditions considered fairer by respondents in contrast with the ethicists normative. Preferences for distributive justice vary by professional group and among participants with different political orientations, rationing experience, years of experience, and level of satisfaction with the NHS. Decision-makers should consider the opinion of ethicists, but also those of healthcare professionals to legitimize explicit guidelines.

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06229-2.

Balancing Patient and Societal Interests in Decisions About Potentially Life-Sustaining Treatment : An Australian Policy Analysis

BACKGROUND

This paper investigates the content of Australian policies that address withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment to analyse the guidance they provide to doctors about the allocation of resources.

METHODS

All publicly available non-institutional policies on withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment were identified, including codes of conduct and government and professional organization guidelines. The policies that referred to resource allocation were isolated and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. Eight Australian policies addressed both withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and resource allocation.

RESULTS

Four resource-related themes were identified: (1) doctors' ethical duties to consider resource allocation; (2) balancing ethical obligations to patient and society; (3) fair process and transparent resource allocation; and (4) legal guidance on distributive justice as a rationale to limit life-sustaining treatment.

CONCLUSION

Of the policies that addressed resource allocation, this review found broad agreement about the existence of doctors' duties to consider the stewardship of scarce resources in decision-making. However, there was disparity in the guidance about how to reconcile competing duties to patient and society. There is a need to better address the difficult and confronting issue of the role of scarce resources in decisions about life-sustaining treatment.

Relationship Between Burnout, Professional Behaviors, and Cost-Conscious Attitudes Among US Physicians

BACKGROUND

Despite the importance of professionalism, little is known about how burnout relates to professionalism among practicing physicians.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between burnout and professional behaviors and cost-conscious attitudes.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study in a national sample of physicians of whom a fourth received a sub-survey with items exploring professional behaviors and cost-conscious attitudes. Responders who were not in practice or in select specialties were excluded.

MEASURES

Maslach Burnout Inventory and items on professional behaviors and cost-conscious attitudes.

KEY RESULTS

Among those who received the sub-survey 1008/1224 (82.3%) responded, and 801 were eligible for inclusion. Up to one third of participants reported engaging in unprofessional behaviors related to administrative aspects of patient care in the last year, such as documenting something they did not do to close an encounter in the medical record (243/759, 32.0%). Fewer physicians reported other dishonest behavior (e.g., claiming unearned continuing medical education credit; 40/815, 4.9%). Most physicians endorsed cost-conscious attitudes with over 75% (618/821) agreeing physicians have a responsibility to try to control health-care costs and 62.9% (512/814) agreeing that cost to society is important in their care decisions regarding use of an intervention. On multivariable analysis adjusting for personal and professional characteristics, burnout was independently associated with reporting 1 or more unprofessional behaviors (OR 2.01, 95%CI 1.47-2.73, p < 0.0001) and having less favorable cost-conscious attitudes (difference on 6-24 scale - 0.90, 95%CI - 1.44 to - 0.35, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Professional burnout is associated with self-reported unprofessional behaviors and less favorable cost-conscious attitudes among physicians.

A new instrument to measure high value, cost-conscious care attitudes among healthcare stakeholders: development of the MHAQ

BACKGROUND

Residents have to learn to provide high value, cost-conscious care (HVCCC) to counter the trend of excessive healthcare costs. Their learning is impacted by individuals from different stakeholder groups within the workplace environment. These individuals' attitudes toward HVCCC may influence how and what residents learn. This study was carried out to develop an instrument to reliably measure HVCCC attitudes among residents, staff physicians, administrators, and patients. The instrument can be used to assess the residency-training environment.

METHOD

The Maastricht HVCCC Attitude Questionnaire (MHAQ) was developed in four phases. First, we conducted exploratory factor analyses using original data from a previously published survey. Next, we added nine items to strengthen subscales and tested the new questionnaire among the four stakeholder groups. We used exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alphas to define subscales, after which the final version of the MHAQ was constructed. Finally, we used generalizability theory to determine the number of respondents (residents or staff physicians) needed to reliably measure a specialty attitude score.

RESULTS

Initial factor analysis identified three subscales. Thereafter, 301 residents, 297 staff physicians, 53 administrators and 792 patients completed the new questionnaire between June 2017 and July 2018. The best fitting subscale composition was a three-factor model. Subscales were defined as high-value care, cost incorporation, and perceived drawbacks. Cronbach's alphas were between 0.61 and 0.82 for all stakeholders on all subscales. Sufficient reliability for assessing national specialty attitude (G-coefficient > 0.6) could be achieved from 14 respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

The MHAQ reliably measures individual attitudes toward HVCCC in different stakeholders in health care contexts. It addresses key dimensions of HVCCC, providing content validity evidence. The MHAQ can be used to identify frontrunners of HVCCC, pinpoint aspects of residency training that need improvement, and benchmark and compare across specialties, hospitals and regions.

Doctors' perceptions of how resource limitations relate to futility in end-of-life decision making: a qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To increase knowledge of how doctors perceive futile treatments and scarcity of resources at the end of life. In particular, their perceptions about whether and how resource limitations influence end-of-life decision making. This study builds on previous work that found some doctors include resource limitations in their understanding of the concept of futility.

SETTING

Three tertiary hospitals in metropolitan Brisbane, Australia.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using in-depth, semistructured, face-to-face interviews. Ninety-six doctors were interviewed in 11 medical specialties. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Doctors' perceptions of whether resource limitations were relevant to their practice varied, and doctors were more comfortable with explicit rather than implicit rationing. Several doctors incorporated resource limitations into their definition of futility. For some, availability of resources was one factor of many in assessing futility, secondary to patient considerations, but a few doctors indicated that the concept of futility concealed rationing. Doctors experienced moral distress due to the resource implications of providing futile treatment and the lack of administrative supports for bedside rationing.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors' ability to distinguish between futility and rationing would be enhanced through regulatory support for explicit rationing and strategies to support doctors' role in rationing at the bedside. Medical policies should address the distinction between resource limitations and futility to promote legitimacy in end-of-life decision making.

Bedside Rationing Under Resource Constraints-A National Survey of Ethiopian Physicians' Use of Criteria for Priority Setting

In low-income settings resource constraints force clinicians to make harsh choices. We examine the criteria Ethiopian physicians use in their bedside rationing decisions through a national survey at 49 public hospitals in Ethiopia. Substantial variation in weight given to different criteria were reported by the 587 participating physicians (response rate 91.7%). Young age, primary prevention, or the patient being the family's economic provider increased likelihood of offering treatment to a patient, while small expected benefit or low chance of success diminished likelihood. More than 50% of responding physicians were indifferent to patient's position in society, unhealthy behavior, and residence, while they varied widely in weight they gave to patient's poverty, ability to work, and old age. While the majority of Ethiopian physicians reported allocation of resources that was compatible with national priorities, more contested criteria were also frequently reported. This might affect distributional justice and equity in health care access.

Attitudes toward cost-conscious care among U.S. physicians and medical students: analysis of national cross-sectional survey data by age and stage of training

BACKGROUND

The success of initiatives intended to increase the value of health care depends, in part, on the degree to which cost-conscious care is endorsed by current and future physicians. This study aimed to first analyze attitudes of U.S. physicians by age and then compare the attitudes of physicians and medical students.

METHODS

A paper survey was mailed in mid-2012 to 3897 practicing physicians randomly selected from the American Medical Association Masterfile. An electronic survey was sent in early 2015 to all 5,992 students at 10 U.S. medical schools. Survey items measured attitudes toward cost-conscious care and perceived responsibility for reducing healthcare costs. Physician responses were first compared across age groups (30-40 years, 41-50 years, 51-60 years, and > 60 years) and then compared to student responses using Chi square tests and logistic regression analyses (controlling for sex).

RESULTS

A total of 2,556 physicians (65%) and 3395 students (57%) responded. Physician attitudes generally did not differ by age, but differed significantly from those of students. Specifically, students were more likely than physicians to agree that cost to society should be important in treatment decisions (p < 0.001) and that physicians should sometimes deny beneficial but costly services (p < 0.001). Students were less likely to agree that it is unfair to ask physicians to be cost-conscious while prioritizing patient welfare (p < 0.001). Compared to physicians, students assigned more responsibility for reducing healthcare costs to hospitals and health systems (p < 0.001) and less responsibility to lawyers (p < 0.001) and patients (p < 0.001). Nearly all significant differences persisted after controlling for sex and when only the youngest physicians were compared to students.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician attitudes toward cost-conscious care are similar across age groups. However, physician attitudes differ significantly from medical students, even among the youngest physicians most proximate to students in age. Medical student responses suggest they are more accepting of cost-conscious care than physicians and attribute more responsibility for reducing costs to organizations and systems rather than individuals. This may be due to the combined effects of generational differences, new medical school curricula, students' relative inexperience providing cost-conscious care within complex healthcare systems, and the rapidly evolving U.S. healthcare system.

Attitudes of health professionals concerning bedside rationing criteria: a survey from Portugal

This paper tests the factorial structure of a questionnaire comprising seven health care rationing criteria (waiting time, ‘rule of rescue’, parenthood of minors, health maximization, youngest first, positive and negative version of social merit) and explores the adherence to them of 254 Portuguese health care professionals, when considered individually and when confronted with two-in-two combinations. Data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire where respondents faced hypothetical rationing dilemmas comprising one rationing criterion and dichotomous options pairs with two rationing criteria. Confirmatory factor analysis and multinomial logistic regressions were used to validate the structure of the questionnaire and the data. The findings suggest that: (i) the hepta-factorial structure of the questionnaire presented a good fit of the data; and (ii) support for rationing criterion depends on whether they are individually considered or confronted in dichotomous options pairs. When only one criterion distinguishes the patients, healthcare professionals support six criteria (by descending order): waiting time, rule of rescue, health maximization, penalization of patients’ risky behaviors, youngest first and being parent of a young child. When two criteria were confronted, immediate threat of life/health and large expected benefits were the most preferred. Conversely, the positive version of social merit was an unappreciated rationing criterion.

Evaluation as institution: a contractarian argument for needs-based economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

There is a gap between health economic evaluation methods and the value judgments of coverage decision makers, at least in Germany. Measuring preference satisfaction has been claimed to be inappropriate for allocating health care resources, e.g. because it disregards medical need. The existing methods oriented at medical need have been claimed to disregard non-consequentialist fairness concerns. The aim of this article is to propose a new, contractarian argument for justifying needs-based economic evaluation. It is based on consent rather than maximization of some impersonal unit of value to accommodate the fairness concerns.

MAIN TEXT

This conceptual paper draws upon contractarian ethics and constitution economics to show how economic evaluation can be viewed as an institution to overcome societal conflicts in the allocation of scarce health care resources. For this, the problem of allocating scarce health care resources in a society is reconstructed as a social dilemma. Both disadvantaged patients and affluent healthy individuals can be argued to share interests in a societal contract to provide technologies which ameliorate medical need, based on progressive funding. The use of needs-based economic evaluation methods for coverage determination can be interpreted as institutions for conflict resolution as far as they use consented criteria to ensure the social contract's sustainability and avoid implicit rationing or unaffordable contribution rates. This justifies the use of needs-based evaluation methods by Pareto-superiority and consent (rather than by some needs-based value function per se).

CONCLUSION

The view of economic evaluation presented here may help account for fairness concerns in the further development of evaluation methods. This is because it directs the attention away from determining some unit of value to be maximized towards determining those persons who are most likely not to consent and meeting their concerns. Following this direction in methods development is likely to increase the acceptability of health economic evaluation by decision makers.

Role Modeling and Regional Health Care Intensity: U.S. Medical Student Attitudes Toward and Experiences With Cost-Conscious Care

PURPOSE

To examine medical student attitudes toward cost-conscious care and whether regional health care intensity is associated with reported exposure to physician role-modeling behaviors related to cost-conscious care.

METHOD

Students at 10 U.S. medical schools were surveyed in 2015. Thirty-five items assessed attitudes toward, perceived barriers to and consequences of, and observed physician role-modeling behaviors related to cost-conscious care (using scales for cost-conscious and potentially wasteful behaviors; Cronbach alphas of 0.82 and 0.81, respectively). Regional health care intensity was measured using Dartmouth Atlas End-of-Life Chronic Illness Care data: ratio of physician visits per decedent compared with the U.S. average, ratio of specialty to primary care physician visits per decedent, and hospital care intensity index.

RESULTS

Of 5,992 students invited, 3,395 (57%) responded. Ninety percent (2,640/2,932) agreed physicians have a responsibility to contain costs. However, 48% (1,1416/2,960) thought ordering a test is easier than explaining why it is unnecessary, and 58% (1,685/2,928) agreed ordering fewer tests will increase the risk of malpractice litigation. In adjusted linear regression analyses, students in higher-health-care-intensity regions reported observing significantly fewer cost-conscious role-modeling behaviors: For each one-unit increase in the three health care intensity measures, scores on the 21-point cost-conscious role-modeling scale decreased by 4.4 (SE 0.7), 3.2 (0.6), and 3.9 (0.6) points, respectively (all P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical students endorse barriers to cost-conscious care and encounter conflicting role-modeling behaviors, which are related to regional health care intensity. Enhancing role modeling in the learning environment may help prepare future physicians to address health care costs.

Self-Reported Rationing Behavior Among US Physicians: A National Survey

BACKGROUND

Rationing is a controversial topic among US physicians. Understanding their attitudes and behaviors around rationing may be essential to a more open and sensible professional discourse on this important but controversial topic.

OBJECTIVE

To describe rationing behavior and associated factors among US physicians.

DESIGN

Survey mailed to US physicians in 2012 to evaluate self-reported rationing behavior and variables related to this behavior.

SETTING

US physicians across a full spectrum of practice settings.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2541 respondents, representing 65.6 % of the original mailing list of 3872 US addresses.

INTERVENTIONS

The study was a cross-sectional analysis of physician attitudes and self-reported behaviors, with neutral language representations of the behaviors as well as an embedded experiment to test the influence of the word "ration" on perceived responsibility.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall percentage of respondents reporting rationing behavior in various contexts and assessment of attitudes toward rationing.

KEY RESULTS

In total, 1348 respondents (53.1 %) reported having personally refrained within the past 6 months from using specific clinical services that would have provided the best patient care, because of health system cost. Prescription drugs (n = 1073 [48.3 %]) and magnetic resonance imaging (n = 922 [44.5 %]) were most frequently rationed. Surgical and procedural specialists were less likely to report rationing behavior (adjusted odds ratio [OR] [95 % CI], 0.8 [0.9-0.9] and 0.5 [0.4-0.6], respectively) compared to primary care. Compared with small or solo practices, those in medical school settings reported less rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.4 [0.2-0.7]). Physicians who self-identified as very or somewhat liberal were significantly less likely to report rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.7 [0.6-0.9]) than those self-reporting being very or somewhat conservative. A more positive opinion about rationing tended to align with greater odds of rationing.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-half of respondents engaged in behavior consistent with rationing. Practicing physicians in specific subgroups were more likely to report rationing behavior.

Critérios sociais e éticos de priorização de pacientes: uma pesquisa a estudantes e profissionais de saúde em Portugal

Resumo O estudo quali-quantitativo explora o dilema ético da microalocação dos recursos da saúde. Objetiva identificar e comparar a opinião de dois grupos da sociedade portuguesa - estudantes e profissionais de saúde sobre a importância das características pessoais dos pacientes no momento de os priorizar e se as escolhas se explicam por referenciais bioéticos de caráter utilitaristas ou deontológicos. Os dados foram recolhidos através de um questionário aplicado a uma amostra de 180 estudantes universitários e 60 profissionais de saúde. Os respondentes perante hipotéticos cenários de emergência clínica tiveram de escolher de entre dois pacientes (distinguidos por idade, sexo, responsabilidade social, situação económica e laboral, comportamentos lesivos da saúde e registo criminal) quem tratar e justificar a escolha. Foram usados testes estatísticos de associação para comparar as respostas dos dois grupos e análise de conteúdo para categorizar as justificações. Os resultados sugerem a existência de diferenças nas escolhas dos dois grupos, com os profissionais de saúde a revelarem aceitar menos a utilização de critérios sociais em contexto de escassez e coexistência de critérios utilitaristas e deontológicos, com predomínio da eficiência por parte dos profissionais de saúde e da equidade por parte dos estudantes.

The influence of patients' immigration background and residence permit status on treatment decisions in health care. Results of a factorial survey among general practitioners in Switzerland

This study examines the influence of patients' immigration background and residence permit status on physicians' willingness to treat patients in due time. A factorial survey was conducted among 352 general practitioners with a background in internal medicine in a German-speaking region in Switzerland. Participants expressed their self-rating (SR) as well as the expected colleague-rating (CR) to provide immediate treatment to 12 fictive vignette patients. The effects of the vignette variables were analysed using random-effects models. The results show that SR as well as CR was not only influenced by the medical condition or the physicians' time pressure, but also by social factors such as the ethnicity and migration history, the residence permit status, and the economic condition of the patients. Our findings can be useful for the development of adequate, practically relevant teaching and training materials with the ultimate aim to reduce unjustified discrimination or social rationing in health care.

A survey of Ethiopian physicians' experiences of bedside rationing: extensive resource scarcity, tough decisions and adverse consequences

Background

Resource scarcity in health care is a universal challenge. In high-income settings, bedside rationing is commonly discussed and debated as a means to addressing scarcity. However, little is known about physicians’ experiences in resource-limited contexts in low- income countries. Here we describe physicians’ experiences regarding scarcity of resources, bedside rationing, use of various strategies to save resources, and perceptions of the consequences of rationing in Ethiopia.

Methods

A national survey was conducted amongst physicians from 49 public hospitals using stratified, multi-stage sampling in six regions. All physicians in the selected hospitals were invited to respond to a self-administered questionnaire. Data were weighted and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

In total, 587 physicians responded (91 % response rate). The majority had experienced system-wide shortages of various types of medical services. The services most frequently reported to be in short supply, either daily or weekly, were access to surgery, specialist and intensive care units, drug prescriptions and admission to hospital (52, 49, 46, 47 and 46 % respectively). The most common rationing strategies used daily or weekly were limiting laboratory tests, hospital drugs, radiological investigations and providing second best treatment (47, 47, 47 and 39 % respectively). Availability of institutional or national guidelines for whom to see and treat first was lacking. Almost all respondents had witnessed different adverse consequences of resource scarcity; 54 % reported seeing patients who, in their estimation, had died due to resource scarcity. Almost 9 out of 10 physicians were so troubled by limited resources that they often regretted their choice of profession.

Conclusion

This study provides the first glimpses of the untold story of resource shortage and bedside rationing in Ethiopia. Physicians encounter numerous dilemmas due to resource scarcity, and they report they lack adequate guidance for how to handle them. The consequences for patients and the professionals are substantial.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1131-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Readiness of hospital-based internists to embrace and discuss high-value care with patients and family members: a single-centre cross-sectional survey study

BACKGROUND

Choosing Wisely Canada is a campaign that fosters conversations between physicians and patients about high-value health care. However, little is known about physicians' readiness to have these conversations. Our objective was to determine how ready practising internists were to embrace and openly address high-value care during conversations with patients or their families.

METHODS

Practising internists in hospitals affiliated with McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, were invited to complete an electronic survey with 3 clinical scenarios: each had 3 low-value interventions that had been requested by the patient or family member. For each request, participants chose 1 of 3 statements reflecting how they would respond: a low-value statement agreeing to provide the intervention, an implicit high-value statement declining to provide the intervention without mentioning value or an explicit high-value statement declining to provide the intervention with mention of value.

RESULTS

Forty-four of 62 eligible physicians (71.0% response rate) participated in the survey. High-value statements were selected in 91% of cases. The implicit high-value statement was chosen more often than the explicit high-value statement (65.7% v. 25.5% of all responses, respectively; χ2 range 4.46-56.23, p < 0.05).

INTERPRETATION

Physicians favoured high-value care but frequently chose not to explicitly address value in their statements. Physicians seemed ready to embrace high-value health care practice, although they were not ready to openly discuss it with patients and their families.

Health care expenditures and longevity: is there a Eubie Blake effect?

It is still an open question whether increasing life expectancy as such causes higher health care expenditures (HCE) in a population. According to the "red herring" hypothesis, the positive correlation between age and HCE is exclusively due to the fact that mortality rises with age and a large share of HCE is caused by proximity to death. As a consequence, rising longevity-through falling mortality rates-may even reduce HCE. However, a weakness of many previous empirical studies is that they use cross-sectional evidence to make inferences on a development over time. In this paper, we analyse the impact of rising longevity on the trend of HCE over time by using data from a pseudo-panel of German sickness fund members over the period 1997-2009. Using (dynamic) panel data models, we find that age, mortality and 5-year survival rates each have a positive impact on per-capita HCE. Our explanation for the last finding is that physicians treat patients more aggressively if the results of these treatments pay off over a longer time span, which we call "Eubie Blake effect". A simulation on the basis of an official population forecast for Germany is used to isolate the effect of demographic ageing on real per-capita HCE over the coming decades. We find that, while falling mortality rates as such lower HCE, this effect is more than compensated by an increase in remaining life expectancy so that the net effect of ageing on HCE over time is clearly positive.

How can bedside rationing be justified despite coexisting inefficiency? The need for 'benchmarks of efficiency'

Imperfect efficiency in healthcare delivery is sometimes given as a justification for refusing to ration or even discuss how to pursue fair rationing. This paper aims to clarify the relationship between inefficiency and rationing, and the conditions under which bedside rationing can be justified despite coexisting inefficiency. This paper first clarifies several assumptions that underlie the classification of a clinical practice as being inefficient. We then suggest that rationing is difficult to justify in circumstances where the rationing agent is or should be aware of and contributes to clinical inefficiency. We further explain the different ethical implications of this suggestion for rationing decisions made by clinicians. We argue that rationing is more legitimate when sufficient efforts are undertaken to decrease inefficiency in parallel with efforts to pursue unavoidable but fair rationing. While the qualifier 'sufficient' is crucial here, we explain why 'sufficient efforts' should be translated into 'benchmarks of efficiency' that address specific healthcare activities where clinical inefficiency can be decreased. Referring to recent consensus papers, we consider some examples of specific clinical situations where improving clinical inefficiency has been recommended and consider how benchmarks for efficiency might apply. These benchmarks should state explicitly how much inefficiency shall be reduced in a reasonable time range and why these efforts are 'sufficient'. Possible strategies for adherence to benchmarks are offered to address the possibility of non-compliance.

Shared decision-making as a cost-containment strategy: US physician reactions from a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess US physicians' attitudes towards using shared decision-making (SDM) to achieve cost containment.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional mailed survey.

SETTING

US medical practice.

PARTICIPANTS

3897 physicians were randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile. Of these, 2556 completed the survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Level of enthusiasm for "Promoting better conversations with patients as a means of lowering healthcare costs"; degree of agreement with "Decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in my practice" and agreement with "should promoting SDM be legislated to control overall healthcare costs".

RESULTS

Of 2556 respondents (response rate (RR) 65%), two-thirds (67%) were 'very enthusiastic' about promoting SDM as a means of reducing healthcare costs. Most (70%) agreed decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in their practice, but only 24% agreed with legislating SDM to control costs. Compared with physicians with billing-only compensation, respondents with salary compensation were more likely to strongly agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7). Primary care physicians (vs surgeons, OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) expressed more enthusiasm for SDM being legislated as a means to address healthcare costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most US physicians express enthusiasm about using SDM to help contain costs. They believe decision support tools that show costs would be useful. Few agree that SDM should be legislated as a means to control healthcare costs.

Focus groups highlight that many patients object to clinicians' focusing on costs

Having patients weigh costs when making medical decisions has been proposed as a way to rein in health care spending. We convened twenty-two focus groups of people with insurance to examine their willingness to discuss health care costs with clinicians and consider costs when deciding among nearly comparable clinical options. We identified the following four barriers to patients' taking cost into account: a preference for what they perceive as the best care, regardless of expense; inexperience with making trade-offs between health and money; a lack of interest in costs borne by insurers and society as a whole; and noncooperative behavior characteristic of a "commons dilemma," in which people act in their own self-interest although they recognize that by doing so, they are depleting limited resources. Surmounting these barriers will require new research in patient education, comprehensive efforts to shift public attitudes about health care costs, and training to prepare clinicians to discuss costs with their patients.

Triage of intensive care patients: identifying agreement and controversy

RATIONALE

Intensive care unit (ICU) resources are limited in many hospitals. Patients with little likelihood of surviving are often admitted to ICUs. Others who might benefit from ICU are not admitted.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an updated consensus statement on the principles and recommendations for the triage of patients for ICU beds.

DESIGN

The previous Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) consensus statement was used to develop drafts of general and specific principles and recommendations. Investigators and consultants were sent the statements and responded with their agreement or disagreement.

SETTING

The Eldicus project (triage decision making for the elderly in European intensive care units).

PARTICIPANTS

Eldicus investigators, consultants, and experts consisting of intensivists, users of ICU services, ethicists, administrators, and public policy officials.

INTERVENTIONS

Consensus development was used to grade the statements and recommendations.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Consensus was defined as 80% agreement or more. Consensus was obtained for 54 (87%) of 62 statements including all (19) general principles, 31 (86%) of the specific principles, and 10 (71%) of the recommendations. Inconsistencies in responses were noted for ICU admission and discharge. Despite agreement for guidelines applying to individual patients and an objective triage score, there was no agreement for a survival cutoff for triage, not even for a chance of survival of 0.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus was reached for most general and specific ICU triage principles and recommendations. Further debate and discussion should help resolve the remaining discrepancies.

Views of US physicians about controlling health care costs

IMPORTANCE

Physicians' views about health care costs are germane to pending policy reforms.

OBJECTIVE

To assess physicians' attitudes toward and perceived role in addressing health care costs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional survey mailed in 2012 to 3897 US physicians randomly selected from the AMA Masterfile.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Enthusiasm for 17 cost-containment strategies and agreement with an 11-measure cost-consciousness scale.

RESULTS

A total of 2556 physicians responded (response rate = 65%). Most believed that trial lawyers (60%), health insurance companies (59%), hospitals and health systems (56%), pharmaceutical and device manufacturers (56%), and patients (52%) have a "major responsibility" for reducing health care costs, whereas only 36% reported that practicing physicians have "major responsibility." Most were "very enthusiastic" for "promoting continuity of care" (75%), "expanding access to quality and safety data" (51%), and "limiting access to expensive treatments with little net benefit" (51%) as a means of reducing health care costs. Few expressed enthusiasm for "eliminating fee-for-service payment models" (7%). Most physicians reported being "aware of the costs of the tests/treatments [they] recommend" (76%), agreed they should adhere to clinical guidelines that discourage the use of marginally beneficial care (79%), and agreed that they "should be solely devoted to individual patients' best interests, even if that is expensive" (78%) and that "doctors need to take a more prominent role in limiting use of unnecessary tests" (89%). Most (85%) disagreed that they "should sometimes deny beneficial but costly services to certain patients because resources should go to other patients that need them more." In multivariable logistic regression models testing associations with enthusiasm for key cost-containment strategies, having a salary plus bonus or salary-only compensation type was independently associated with enthusiasm for "eliminating fee for service" (salary plus bonus: odds ratio [OR], 3.3, 99% CI, 1.8-6.1; salary only: OR, 4.3, 99% CI, 2.2-8.5). In multivariable linear regression models, group or government practice setting (β = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.45, P = .004; and β = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.79, P = .01, respectively) and having a salary plus bonus compensation type (β = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.33; P = .002) were positively associated with cost-consciousness. Finding the "uncertainty involved in patient care disconcerting" was negatively associated with cost-consciousness (β = -1.95; 95% CI, -2.71 to -1.18; P < .001).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In this survey about health care cost containment, US physicians reported having some responsibility to address health care costs in their practice and expressed general agreement about several quality initiatives to reduce cost but reported less enthusiasm for cost containment involving changes in payment models.

Evaluating a patient's request for life-prolonging treatment: an ethical framework

Contrary to the widespread concern about over-treatment at the end of life, today, patient preferences for palliative care at the end of life are frequently respected. However, ethically challenging situations in the current healthcare climate are, instead, situations in which a competent patient requests active treatment with the goal of life-prolongation while the physician suggests best supportive care only. The argument of futility has often been used to justify unilateral decisions made by physicians to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. However, we argue that neither the concept of futility nor that of patient autonomy alone is apt for resolving situations in which physicians are confronted with patients' requests for active treatment. Instead, we integrate the relevant arguments that have been put forward in the academic discussion about 'futile' treatment into an ethical algorithm with five guiding questions: (1) Is there a chance that medical intervention will be effective in achieving the patient's treatment goal? (2) How does the physician evaluate the expected benefit and the potential harm of the treatment? (3) Does the patient understand his or her medical situation? (4) Does the patient prefer receiving treatment after evaluating the benefit-harm ratio and the costs? (5) Does the treatment require many resources? This algorithm shall facilitate approaching patients' requests for treatments deemed futile by the physician in a systematic way, and responding to these requests in an ethically appropriate manner. It thereby adds substantive considerations to the current procedural approaches of conflict resolution in order to improve decision making among physicians, patients and families.

[Rationing health care by thresholds for clinical benefit and its acceptance by the German population]

Fair rationing in publicly accessible health care has become a subject of current international debate. One suggestion is to cut reimbursement for any medical intervention below some threshold of small clinical benefit. One can further differentiate between thresholds of small expectable clinical benefit as such and thresholds of low chances for clinical success. Public acceptance of both types of thresholds has been tested in a population survey. Results are presented and discussed in this paper. (As supplied by publisher).

Barriers and opportunities of empowerment as applied in diabetes settings: a focus on health care professionals' experiences

This exploratory study examines the opportunities and barriers health care professionals (HCPs) working with diabetes patients face when they try to implement the rhetoric of patient empowerment in practice. A small sample of diabetes HCPs (N=13), from National Health Service (NHS) hospital, walk-in and general practitioner (GP) clinics in South-East England, was interviewed through in-depth semi-structured interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. The analysis showed that empowerment was seen as beneficial for patients and HCPs. Time and resources could be moved from successfully empowered patients and focussed on more complex patients, this was termed 'selective empowerment'. The main barriers to empowerment were identified as a lack of resources, time and HCPs trained in empowerment techniques. Empowerment is a popular concept in theory, and presents HCPs with several opportunities but also important barriers in its practical, clinical implementation day-to-day.

[Age rationing : means of resource allocation in healthcare systems]

The necessity of limiting resource in healthcare systems is becoming increasingly more evident. The population has requirements especially in the field of healthcare which are principally unlimited. However, there are only limited financial resources which can be used to satisfy the wishes of the population. For this reason rationing models are being discussed increasingly more often. One example of these models is called age rationing which means that defined services are only offered to patients up to a particular age. The aim of this article is to discuss the model of age rationing in the context of an optimized use of resources in the healthcare system.

Experiences of non-UK-qualified doctors working within the UK regulatory framework: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experience of non-UK-qualified doctors in working within the regulatory framework of the General Medical Council (GMC) document Good Medical Practice.

DESIGN

Individual interviews and focus groups.

SETTING

United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

Non-UK-qualified doctors who had registered with the GMC between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2008, doctors attending training/induction programmes for non-UK-qualified doctors, and key informants involved in training and support for non-UK-qualified doctors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Themes identified from analysis of interview and focus group transcripts.

RESULTS

Information and support for non-UK qualified doctors who apply to register to work in the UK has little reference to the ethical and professional standards required of doctors working in the UK. Recognition of the ethical, legal and cultural context of UK healthcare occurs once doctors are working in practice. Non-UK qualified doctors reported clear differences in the ethical and legal framework for practising medicine between the UK and their country of qualification, particularly in the model of the doctor-patient relationship. The degree of support for non-UK-qualified doctors in dealing with ethical concerns is related to the type of post they work in. European doctors describe similar difficulties with working in an unfamiliar regulatory framework to their non-European colleagues.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-UK-qualified doctors experience a number of difficulties related to practising within a different ethical and professional regulatory framework. Provision of information and educational resources before registration, together with in-practice support would help to develop a more effective understanding of GMP and its implications for practice in the UK.

Health care for irregular migrants: pragmatism across Europe: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Health services in Europe face the challenge of delivering care to a heterogeneous group of irregular migrants (IM). There is little empirical evidence on how health professionals cope with this challenge. This study explores the experiences of health professionals providing care to IM in three types of health care service across 16 European countries.

RESULTS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health professionals in 144 primary care services, 48 mental health services, and 48 Accident & Emergency departments (total n = 240). Although legal health care entitlement for IM varies across countries, health professionals reported facing similar issues when caring for IM. These issues include access problems, limited communication, and associated legal complications. Differences in the experiences with IM across the three types of services were also explored. Respondents from Accident & Emergency departments reported less of a difference between the care for IM patients and patients in a regular situation than did respondents from primary care and mental health services. Primary care services and mental health services were more concerned with language barriers than Accident & Emergency departments. Notifying the authorities was an uncommon practice, even in countries where health professionals are required to do this.

CONCLUSIONS

The needs of IM patients and the values of the staff appear to be as important as the national legal framework, with staff in different European countries adopting a similar pragmatic approach to delivering health care to IM. While legislation might help to improve health care for IM, more appropriate organisation and local flexibility are equally important, especially for improving access and care pathways.

The ethics and reality of rationing in medicine

Rationing is the allocation of scarce resources, which in health care necessarily entails withholding potentially beneficial treatments from some individuals. Rationing is unavoidable because need is limitless and resources are not. How rationing occurs is important because it not only affects individual lives but also expresses society's most important values. This article discusses the following topics: (1) the inevitability of rationing of social goods, including medical care; (2) types of rationing; (3) ethical principles and procedures for fair allocation; and (4) whether rationing ICU care to those near the end of life would result in substantial cost savings.

Rule of rescue or the good of the many? An analysis of physicians' and nurses' preferences for allocating ICU beds

PURPOSE

To examine intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians' willingness to trade off societal benefits in favor of a small chance of rescuing an identifiable critically ill patient.

METHODS

We sent mixed-methods questionnaires to national samples of US ICU clinicians, soliciting their preferences for allocating their last bed to a gravely ill patient with little chance to survive, versus a deceased or dying patient for whom aggressive management could help others through organ donation.

RESULTS

Complete responses were obtained from 684 of 2,206 physicians (31.0%) and 438 of 988 nurses (44.3%); there was no evidence of non-response bias. Physicians were more likely than nurses to adhere to the "rule of rescue" by allocating the last bed to the gravely ill patient (45.9 vs. 32.6%, difference = 13.2%; 95% CI 9.1-17.3%). The magnitude of the social benefit to be obtained through organ donor management (5 or 30 life-years added for transplant recipients) had small and inconsistent effects on clinicians' willingness to prioritize the donor. In qualitative analyses, the most common reason for allocating the last bed to an identifiable patient (identified by 65% of physicians and 75% of nurses) was that clinicians perceived strong obligations to identifiable living patients.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-third of ICU clinicians forewent substantial social benefits so as to devote resources to an individual patient unlikely to benefit from them. Such allegiance to the rule of rescue suggests challenges for efforts to reform ICU triage practices.

Health systems and sustainability: doctors and consumers differ on threats and solutions

BACKGROUND

Healthcare systems face the problem of insufficient resources to meet the needs of ageing populations and increasing demands for access to new treatments. It is unclear whether doctors and consumers agree on the main challenges to health system sustainability.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a mail survey of Australian doctors (specialists and general practitioners) and a computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) of consumers to determine their views on contributors to increasing health care costs, rationing of services and involvement in health resource allocation decisions. Differences in responses are reported as odds ratios (OR) and 99% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Of 2948 doctors, 1139 (38.6%) responded; 533 of 826 consumers responded (64.5% response). Doctors were more concerned than consumers with the effects of an ageing population (OR 3.0; 99% CI 1.7, 5.4), and costs of new drugs and technologies (OR 5.1; CI 3.3, 8.0), but less likely to consider pharmaceutical promotional activities as a cost driver (OR 0.29, CI 0.22, 0.39). Doctors were more likely than consumers to view 'community demand' for new technologies as a major cost driver, (OR 1.6; 1.2, 2.2), but less likely to attribute increased costs to patients failing to take responsibility for their own health (OR 0.35; 0.24, 0.49). Like doctors, the majority of consumers saw a need for public consultation in decisions about funding for new treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian doctors and consumers hold different views on the sustainability of the healthcare system, and a number of key issues relating to costs, cost drivers, roles and responsibilities. Doctors recognise their dual responsibility to patients and society, see an important role for physicians in influencing resource allocation, and acknowledge their lack of skills in assessing treatments of marginal value. Consumers recognise cost pressures on the health system, but express willingness to be involved in health care decision making.

The role of ethics committees and ethics consultation in allocation decisions: a 4-stage process

BACKGROUND

Decisions about the allocation and rationing of medical interventions likely occur in all health care systems worldwide. So far very little attention has been given to the question of what role ethics consultation and ethics committees could or should play in questions of allocation at the hospital level.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

This article argues for the need for ethics consultation in rationing decisions using empirical data about the status quo and the inherent nature of bedside rationing. Subsequently, it introduces a 4-stage process for establishing and conducting ethics consultation in rationing questions with systematic reference to core elements of procedural justice.

RESULTS

Qualitative and quantitative findings show a significant demand for ethics consultation expressed directly by doctors, as well as additional indirect evidence of such a need as indicated by ethically challenging circumstances of inconsistent and structurally disadvantaging rationing decisions. To address this need, we suggest 4 stages for establishing and conducting ethics consultation in rationing questions we recommend: (1) training, (2) identifying actual scarcity-related problems at clinics, (3) supporting decision-making, and (4) evaluation.

CONCLUSION

This process of ethics consultation regarding rationing decisions would facilitate the achievement of several practical goals: (i) encouragement of an awareness and understanding of ethical problems in bedside rationing, (ii) encouragement of achieving efficiency along with rationing, (iii) reinforcement of consistency in inter- and intraindividual decision-making, (iv) encouragement of explicit reflection and justification of the prioritization criteria taken into consideration, (v) improvement in internal (in-house) and external transparency, and (vi) prevention of the misuse of the corresponding consulting structures.

Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice

Research in genetics and genomics has led to an expanding list of molecular genetic tests, which are increasingly entering health care systems. However, the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of these tests is frequently weak. Here we present the main challenges to the successful translation of new research findings about genotype-phenotype associations into clinical practice. We discuss the means to achieve an accelerated translation research agenda that is conducted in a reasonable, fair and efficient manner.

Administrative gatekeeping - a third way between unrestricted patient advocacy and bedside rationing

The inevitable need for rationing of healthcare has apparently presented the medical profession with the dilemma of choosing the lesser of two evils. Physicians appear to be obliged to adopt either an implausible version of traditional professional ethics or an equally problematic ethics of bedside rationing. The former requires unrestricted advocacy of patients but prompts distrust, moral hazard and unfairness. The latter commits physicians to rationing at the bedside; but it is bound to introduce unfair inequalities among patients and lack of political accountability towards citizens. In this paper I shall argue that this dilemma is false, since a third intermediate alternative exists. This alternative, which I term 'administrative gatekeeping', makes it possible for physicians to be involved in rationing while at the same time being genuine advocates of their patients. According to this ideal, physicians are required to follow fair rules of rationing adopted at higher organizational levels within healthcare systems. At the same time, however, they are prohibited from including considerations of cost in their clinical decisions.

Age rationing and prudential lifespan account in Norman Daniels' Just health

Could age be a valid criterion for rationing? In Just health, Norman Daniels argues that under certain circumstances age rationing is prudent, and therefore a morally permissible strategy to tackle the problem of resource scarcity. Crucial to his argument is the distinction between two problem-settings of intergenerational equity: equity among age groups and equity among birth cohorts. While fairness between age groups can involve unequal benefit treatment in different life stages, fairness between birth cohorts implies enjoying approximate equality in benefit ratios. Although both questions of fairness are distinct, the resolution of the one depends on resolution of the other. In this paper, I investigate whether Daniels' account of age rationing could be defended as a fair way of setting limits to healthcare entitlements. I will focus on two main points. First, I will consider whether the age group problem could be resolved without appealing to a conception of the good. Second, I will demonstrate that the connection between the age group problem and the birth cohort problem runs deeper than Daniels initially thought-and that it ultimately suggests a method for prioritisation in problem solving strategies.

Are physicians willing to ration health care? Conflicting findings in a systematic review of survey research

BACKGROUND

Several quantitative surveys have been conducted internationally to gather empirical information about physicians' general attitudes towards health care rationing. Are physicians ready to accept and implement rationing, or are they rather reluctant? Do they prefer implicit bedside rationing that allows the physician-patient relationship broad leeway in individual decisions? Or do physicians prefer strategies that apply explicit criteria and rules?

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the range of survey findings on rationing. To discuss differences in response patterns. To provide recommendations for the enhancement of transparency and systematic conduct in reviewing survey literature.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed for all English and non-English language references using CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Three blinded experts independently evaluated title and abstract of each reference. Survey items were extracted that match with: (i) willingness to ration health care or (ii) preferences for different rationing strategies.

RESULTS

16 studies were eventually included in the systematic review. Percentages of respondents willing to accept rationing ranged from 94% to 9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The conflicting findings among studies illustrate important ambivalence in physicians that has several implications for health policy. Moreover, this review highlights the importance to interpret survey findings in context of the results of all previous relevant studies.