Rationing decisions and individual responsibility for illness: are all lives equal?

Distributive justice criteria and social categorization processes predict healthcare allocation bias

OBJECTIVES

Drawing on theories of distributive justice and intergroup discrimination, we examined how much distributive justice criterion and racial group membership contribute to bias in healthcare allocation decisions, by testing a theoretical model that specifies perceived stereotypicality and individual responsibility as a serial mediation process in the relationship between disease's contraction controllability (controllable vs. non-controllable) and bias in medical decision-making.

METHOD

White Portuguese medical students (N = 213) participated in an online experimental study conducted in two phases. In phase 1, we manipulated the cause of disease contagion and the salience of patient's racial categorization, and measured the stereotypicality of behaviour. In phase 2, we assessed perceived responsibility and likelihood of recommending medical treatment.

RESULTS

Controllable (vs. non-controllable) contraction behaviours in phase 1 were perceived as more stereotypic. As a spillover effect, more stereotypical behaviours in phase 1 predicted more patient's responsibility for their disease in phase 2. Importantly, controllable behaviours of disease contraction in phase 1 negatively affected recommendations for medical treatment in phase 2; and this negative effect was serially mediated by the stereotypicality of behaviour and patient responsibility. Furthermore, patients' skin colour moderated this process, meaning that perceptions of controllable behaviour as more stereotypic were stronger for Black than for White patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This research shows how stereotyping and social categorization bias allocation decisions through the patient's level of responsibility in decision-making processes. The findings are discussed in light of principles of distributive justice and the literature on intergroup relations with respect to racial disparities in health care.

Health in the United States: Are Appeals to Choice and Personal Responsibility Making Americans Sick?

The United States suffers high rates of preventable lifestyle disease despite widespread calls for people to take responsibility for their health. The United States also stands out in its rejection of government action to guide industry practices and consumer choices. Why? We examine how deeply rooted cultural narratives about “free choice” and “personal responsibility” infuse policymaking, advertising, media, social norms, and individual attitudes about health in the United States. We argue that these narratives contribute to ill health in the United States: They encourage stress and worry over health, blame and stigmatization of the unhealthy, widened health disparities, and the failure to adopt policies that could save lives. Psychologists can play a major role in expanding narratives about health so that they include the role of personal choice and responsibility but also reflect current science about the physical, social, and cultural drivers of health. These broader narratives can be used to promote a more comprehensive understanding of health and to better inform the design, communication, and implementation of effective health-supportive policies.

Being Healthy, Being Sick, Being Responsible: Attitudes towards Responsibility for Health in a Public Healthcare System

Lifestyle-induced diseases are becoming a burden on healthcare, actualizing the discussion on health responsibilities. Using data from the National Association for Heart and Lung Diseases (LHL)’s 2015 Health Survey (N = 2689), this study examined the public’s attitudes towards personal and social health responsibility in a Norwegian population. The questionnaires covered self-reported health and lifestyle, attitudes towards personal responsibility and the authorities’ responsibility for promoting health, resource-prioritisation and socio-demographic characteristics. Block-wise multiple linear regression assessed the association between attitudes towards health responsibilities and individual lifestyle, political orientation and health condition. We found a moderate support for social responsibility across political views. Respondents reporting unhealthier eating habits, smokers and physically inactive were less supportive of health promotion policies (including information, health incentives, prevention and regulations). The idea that individuals are responsible for taking care of their health was widely accepted as an abstract ideal. Yet, only a third of the respondents agreed with introducing higher co-payments for treatment of ‘self-inflicted’ conditions and levels of support were patterned by health-related behaviour and left-right political orientation. Our study suggests that a significant support for social responsibility does not exclude a strong support for personal health responsibility. However, conditional access to healthcare based on personal lifestyle is still controversial.

Contemporary Policies Regarding Alcohol and Marijuana Use Among Liver Transplant Programs in the United States

BACKGROUND

Alcoholic liver disease is a common indication for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Although OLT has been shown to confer survival benefit to patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis (AAH), historically most programs require a 6-month abstinence period before OLT which excludes patients with AAH. Marijuana has become legal in more than half the states in the United States. This survey of liver transplant programs was conducted to evaluate current policies regarding alcohol, marijuana and methadone use.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to 100 United Network for Organ Sharing-approved liver transplant programs in North America that have performed at least 30 liver transplants/year in the last 5 years.

RESULTS

Forty-nine programs responded. Only 43% of the programs required a specific period of abstinence before transplant for alcoholic liver disease and only 26% enforced 6-month abstinence policy. For patients with AAH, 71% programs waived the 6-month abstinence requirement and considered psychosocial factors, such as family support, patient's motivation, or commitment to rehabilitate. Few programs used validated instruments to assess risk of relapse in AAH patients. Fourteen percent of programs transplant patients actively using marijuana and an additional 28% of programs listed patients using marijuana provided they discontinue by the time of OLT. Active methadone users were accepted in 45% of the programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Policies regarding alcohol use have become more flexible particularly toward patients with AAH. Marijuana use is also more accepted. Although policies regarding alcohol and marijuana have changed significantly in the last decade, they remain highly variable among programs.

An Approach to Reconciling Competing Ethical Principles in Aggregating Heterogeneous Health Preferences

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores are used extensively to quantify the effectiveness of medical interventions. Societal preference-based HRQL scores aim to produce societal valuations of health by aggregating valuations from individuals in the general population, where each aggregation procedure embodies different ethical principles, as explained in social choice theory.

METHODS

Using the Health Utilities Index as an exemplar, we evaluate societal preference-based HRQL measures in the social choice theory framework.

RESULTS

We find that current preference aggregation procedures are typically justified in terms of social choice theory. However, by convention, they use only one of many possible aggregation procedures (the mean). Central to the choice of aggregation procedure is how to treat preference heterogeneity, which can affect analyses that rely on HRQL scores, such as cost-effectiveness analyses. We propose an analytical-deliberative framework for choosing one (or a set of) aggregation procedure(s) in a socially credible way, which we believe to be analytically sound and empirically tractable, but leave open the institutional mechanism needed to implement it.

CONCLUSIONS

Socially acceptable decisions about aggregating heterogeneous preferences require eliciting stakeholders' preferences among the set of analytically sound procedures, representing different ethical principles. We describe a framework for eliciting such preferences for the creation of HRQL scores, informed by social choice theory and behavioral decision research.

Alcoholic Liver Disease and Liver Transplantation

Excessive alcohol use is a common health care problem worldwide and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Alcoholic liver disease represents the second most frequent indication for liver transplantation in North America and Europe. The pretransplant evaluation of patients with alcoholic liver disease should aim at identifying those at high risk for posttransplant relapse of alcohol use disorder, as return to excessive drinking can be deleterious to graft and patient survival. Carefully selected patients with alcoholic liver disease, including those with severe alcoholic hepatitis, will have similar short-term and long-term outcomes when compared with other indications for liver transplantation.

Subjective parameters markedly limit the referral of transplantation candidates to liver transplant centres

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Equality of access to organ transplantation is a mandatory public health requirement. Referral from a local to a university hospital and then registration on the national waiting list are the two key steps enabling access to liver transplantation (LT). Although the latter procedure is well defined using the Model for End-stage Liver Disease score that improves equality of access, the former is mostly reliant on the practices of referring physicians. The aim of this study was to clarify the factors determining this initial step.

METHODS

This observational study included consecutive inpatients with cirrhosis of whatever origin in a cohort constituted between 2003 and 2008, using medical records and structured questionnaires concerning patient characteristics and the opinions of hospital clinicians. Candidates for LT were defined in line with these opinions.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty-three patients, mostly affected by alcoholic cirrhosis, were included, 21.0% of whom were considered to be candidates for LT. Factors independently associated with their candidature were: physician empathy [odds ratio (OR) = 10.8; 95% CI: 4.0-29.5], adherence to treatment (OR = 16.6; 95% CI: 3.7-75.2), geographical area (OR = 6.8; 95% CI: 2.2-21.3) and the patient's physiological age (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-4.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Several subjective markers restrict the referral of patients from local hospitals to liver transplant centres. Their advancement to this second step is thus markedly weakened by initial subjectivity. The development of objective guidelines for local hospital physicians to assist them with their initial decision-making on LT is now necessary.

Early liver transplantation for patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis: public views and the effects on organ donation

Patients with severe acute alcoholic hepatitis may not survive to fulfill the standard 6 months of abstinence and counseling prior to transplantation. A prospective study demonstrated that early liver transplantation in such patients improved 2 year survival from 23% to 71% and only 3 of 26 patients returned to drinking after 1140 days; graft function was unaffected. Nonetheless, this treatment protocol may raise public concerns and affect organ donation rates. A total of 503 participants took a survey made available at an online crowdsourcing marketplace. The survey measured attitudes on liver transplantation generally and early transplantation for this patient population, in addition to measuring responses to nine vignettes describing fictional candidates. The majority of respondents (81.5%, n = 410) was at least neutral toward early transplantation for these patients; only a minority (26.3%) indicated that transplantation in any vignette would make them hesitant to donate their organs. Middle-aged patients with good social support and financial stability were viewed most favorably (p < 0.001). Age was considered the most important selection factor and financial stability the least important factor (each p < 0.001). Results indicate early transplantation for carefully selected patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis may not be as controversial to the public as previously thought.

Understanding public preferences for prioritizing health care interventions in England: does the type of health gain matter?

OBJECTIVES

Health care budgets are finite and decisions must be made about which interventions to provide and, by implication, which will not be provided. The aim of this study was to investigate what features of health care interventions, including the type of health gain, are important to members of the public in England in making priority-setting decisions and to understand why.

METHODS

Q methodology was used with 52 members of the public in north east England. Respondents rank ordered 36 health care interventions from those they would give highest priority to through to those they would give lowest priority to. A form of factor analysis was used to reveal a small number of shared viewpoints.

RESULTS

Five factors emerged: 'life saving to maximize the size of the health gain', 'everyone deserves a chance at life', '(potential for) own benefit', 'maximum benefit for (perceived) lowest cost' and 'quality of life and social responsibility'. There were different views about which interventions should be given priority. Respondents considered not only the type of health gain received from an intervention as important, but also the size of the health gain, who received the health gain and an individual's personal responsibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspects other than health gain need to be considered when soliciting the public's views of priorities for health care interventions.

Is an Ounce of Prevention Worth a Pound of Cure? Comparing Demand for Public Prevention and Treatment Policies

Background. Public policy can affect the allocation of resources between programs designed to prevent illnesses or injuries and programs designed to treat those who are already sick or injured. Information about preferences for treatment and prevention policies can help policy makers more effectively allocate public health resources among alternative uses. Our objective is to assess preferences for publicly funded health policies designed to prevent or treat major health threats. We use national surveys that employ discrete choice experiment formats. The surveys allow respondents to make trade-offs between policies designed to prevent or treat most major health threats. The surveys were administered to a nationally representative sample of over 3000 respondents. Methods. We estimate a random utility model of preferences for treatment and prevention policies and explore sources of systematic heterogeneity in preferences. Results. We estimate marginal utility associated with avoided deaths to be about twice as high for prevention policies as for treatment policies and find statistically significant heterogeneity with respect to disease type, the group targeted by the policy, and respondent characteristics. Conclusions. Preferences for public health policies vary markedly with policy attributes and with individual characteristics. Benefits measurements for welfare assessments of public health policies should be tailored to the type of health threat and the characteristics of the affected population.

Might physicians be restricting access to liver transplantation for patients with alcoholic liver disease?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In France, the most common cause of cirrhosis is excessive alcohol consumption. Post-transplant survival rates in patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) are at least as good as those seen with other indications. However, fewer of these patients are found on the waiting list. To understand the reasons for this discrepancy, it was decided to examine physicians' attitudes concerning the allocation of deceased donor liver allografts.

METHODS

Using a standardized postal questionnaire, 1739 physicians were asked to allocate 100 liver transplants to two competing groups of patients who were equivalent except for the cause of their cirrhosis (i.e. alcohol-related or primary biliary cirrhosis). A composite score was then used to assess their attitude regarding the behavior of alcoholics and their responsibility for their illness.

RESULTS

Among the 475 respondents (response rate: 27.3%), 55.2% allocated fewer than 50 transplants to ALD patients. This lower rate was independently associated with factors such as being a general practitioner (odds ratio [OR]=3.2, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]=1.8-5.9), a misinterpretation of ALD patients being equivalent to others (OR=1.8, 95%CI=1.1-3.0) or unfavorable attitudes regarding alcoholics (OR=4.0, 95%CI=1.7-9.5, to OR=126.8, 95%CI=34.0-472.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater information and education of physicians may improve access to liver transplantation for ALD patients.

Citizen's preferences regarding principles to guide health-care allocation decisions in Thailand

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to investigate the extent to which five principles of rationing (lottery, rule of rescue, health maximization, fair innings, and choicism) were preferred by a sample of Thai citizens for selecting patients to receive high-cost therapies.

METHODS

A self-administered survey was used for collecting data from a sample of 1000 individuals living in Thailand. Descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and multinomial logistic regression analysis were used for describing and validating the data. Out of the 1000 sample members, 780 (78%) provided usable responses.

RESULTS

The results showed that within specific situations under budget constraints, Thai people used each of the criteria we studied to ration health care including: 1) lottery principle; 2) rule of rescue; 3) health maximization; 4) fair innings; and 5) choicism.

CONCLUSIONS

The extent to which the criteria were applied depended on the specific situation placed before the decision-maker. "Choicism" (equalizing opportunity for health) was the most preferred method for rationing when compared to each of the other four principles.