Cost-Related Non-Adherence to Prescribed Medicines: What Are Physicians' Moral Duties?

As the price of pharmaceuticals and biologicals rises so does the number of patients who cannot afford them. In this article, we argue that physicians have a moral duty to help patients access affordable medicines. We offer three grounds to support our argument: (i) the aim of prescribing is to improve health and well-being which can only be realized with secure access to treatment; (ii) there is no morally significant difference between medicines being unavailable and medicines being unaffordable, so the steps physicians are willing to take in the first case should extend to the second; and (iii) as the primary stakeholder with a duty to put the individual patient's interests first, the medical professional has a duty to address cost-barriers to patient care. In articulating this duty, we take account of important epistemic and control conditions that must be met for the attribution of this duty to be justified.

How proven is a 'proven intervention'? Ethics of placebo controls in light of conditional approval programs

This article discusses the difficulties of establishing whether there exists a proven therapeutic intervention when regenerative experimental treatments are made accessible to patients under conditional approval programs (outside clinical trials). Conditional approvals are often made on the basis of less robust efficacy evidence than otherwise required for the registration of new treatments. Lower quality of evidence affects the ethical justification of using a placebo-control design. The absence of a proven intervention is important in evaluating whether it is ethically justifiable to use such a design in a clinical trial and is present in major ethical guidelines. The main argument in this paper is that conditionally approved therapies, if referred to as 'proven interventions', would make placebo-control design ethically unjustifiable. Conducting rigorous clinical trials after conditional approvals is crucial to establish the efficacy of therapeutic approaches under such approvals. Hindrances to running such trials and generating further efficacy evidence are brought to attention.

Perspectives of Academic Oncologists About Offering Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs

IMPORTANCE

The expanded access (EA) pathway permits patients to be treated with investigational medical products outside clinical trials. Because cancer care is a common indication for which EA is sought and these efforts require physician management, understanding oncologists' perspectives can help illuminate factors influencing patient access.

OBJECTIVE

To learn how oncologists practicing at academic medical centers (AMCs) perceive EA and their role in offering it.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study used data from semistructured interviews conducted from February 2020 to September 2021 with a purposive sample of oncologists recruited from large, urban AMCs in the northeast United States. Oncologists who had submitted at least 1 single-patient EA request to the institutional review boards at the University of Pennsylvania, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, NYU Langone Health, and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from January 1, 2014, through January 31, 2020, were eligible to participate. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to March 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Interviews focused on oncologist practice demographics, experience with EA, factors relevant to decisions to pursue EA and comfort with those decisions, perspectives on oncologists' role in EA, perspectives on the FDA's role, and the Right to Try pathway to access investigational drugs.

RESULTS

Eligible oncologists were interviewed until thematic saturation was reached, resulting in 25 interviews; most participants were women (15 participants [60%]), reported primarily treating adult patients (15 participants [60%]), had more than 10 years of clinical experience (16 participants [64%]), and had submitted at least 2 single-patient EA requests to their institutional review boards during the relevant period (14 participants [56%]). Oncologists viewed EA as an important tool for securing what they determined to be the best treatment option for their patients based on their own expert assessment of available data. Interviewees reported that they would rather access interventions as commercially available products or through clinical trials; however, if the preferred option was not available through these means, they viewed pursuit of EA as part of their obligation to patients, while often recognizing the potential for inequities in the broader patient population beyond their institutions. Participating oncologists felt confident pursuing investigational drugs for treatment use, despite the absence of FDA marketing approval, and did not necessarily view EA as a last resort.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings indicate that oncologists practicing in large academic settings sought to treat patients with the interventions they deemed most likely to be beneficial, regardless of approval status. As such, they viewed EA as an unexceptional means to obtain promising products, although it remains unclear whether their confidence in evaluating investigational treatments was justified. Future research should examine whether oncologists outside large AMCs share this confidence, as differences may influence patient access to the EA treatment pathway.

Consumer perspectives of accelerated access to medicines: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

In this study, the authors aimed to explore consumer perspectives on accelerated access to medicines. The authors were particularly interested in how they balance competing considerations of safety, efficacy, equity and access; whether and how their views change when there are different levels of uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of new medicines; and the procedures that they think should be used to make decisions about accelerated access to new medicines.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

This was an exploratory qualitative study. Thirteen semi-structured interviews with patient advocates and two focus groups with patients were conducted and analysed thematically. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed through inductive thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Participants outlined a range of justifications for accelerated access, including addressing unmet medical needs and encouraging further research and development. However, they were also cognisant of the potential risks and viewed ongoing data collection, disinvestment and market withdrawal as ways to address these. They also emphasised the importance of transparent decisions being made by people with relevant expertise, based on a thorough consideration of scientific evidence and stakeholder perspectives.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This is the first study to comprehensively explore Australian consumers' views of accelerated access to medicines. The results suggest that consumers want timely access to new medicines, but not at the expense of safety, efficacy, equity and sustainability. While accelerated access programs are likely to be welcomed by consumers, they must be fully informed of their conditions and limitations, and robust post-market data surveillance must be implemented and enforced to protect the interests of both individual patients and the broader community.

Formulating an Ethics of Pharmaceutical Disinvestment

There is growing interest among pharmaceutical policymakers in how to "disinvest" from subsidized medicines. This is due to both the rapidly rising costs of healthcare and the increasing use of accelerated and conditional reimbursement pathways which mean that medicines are being subsidized on the basis of less robust evidence of safety and efficacy. It is crucial that disinvestment decisions are morally sound and socially legitimate, but there is currently no framework to facilitate this. We therefore reviewed the bioethics literature in order to identify ethical principles and concepts that might be relevant to pharmaceutical disinvestment decisions. This revealed a number of key ethical considerations-both procedural and substantive-that need to be considered when making pharmaceutical disinvestment decisions. These principles do not, however, provide practical guidance so we present a framework outlining how they might be applied to different types of disinvestment decisions. We also argue that, in this context, even the most rigorous ethical reasoning is likely to be overridden by moral intuitions and psychological biases and that disinvestment decisions will need to strike the right balance between respecting justifiable moral intuitions and overriding unjustifiable psychological impulses.

Physicians' attitudes towards accelerated access to medicines

In recent years, a variety of 'accelerated access' schemes have been introduced by pharmaceutical regulators and funders globally. These schemes aim to overcome perceived regulatory and reimbursement barriers to accessing medicines - particularly for patients with limited time or therapeutic options. However, patient access to approved medicines is mediated by a number of third parties including regulators and payers, and physicians who act both as gatekeepers and guides to prescribed medications. It is therefore essential to know how physicians think about accelerated access as they are responsible for advising patients on and prescribing medicines made available via these pathways. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 Australian physicians focusing on their attitudes towards accelerated access. We identified three 'archetypes' of physicians: 'confident accelerators', 'cautious accelerators', and 'decelerators'. Although all acknowledged the potential risks and benefits of accelerated access, they disagreed on their magnitude and extent and how they should be balanced in both policy formation and clinical practice. Overall, our results illustrate the diversity of clinical opinions in this area and the importance of monitoring both the prescribing and clinical outcomes that result from accelerated access programmes to ensure that these are both clinically and morally acceptable.

Caution needed in introduction of provisional approvals for medicines

The Australian government recently released its response to the Review of Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation, accepting most recommendations. One recommendation involves the introduction of provisional approvals for perceived life-saving and innovative new treatments, allowing these to be approved on the basis of more limited data on the condition that further safety and efficacy data (including real-world evidence) are collected to determine whether full approval should be granted. However, experience with similar schemes overseas raises significant questions about the safety and efficacy of products made available through these pathways. These uncertainties are compounded by the challenges associated with the collection and use of 'real-world' data and the difficulty of withdrawing products from the market once patients and clinicians become familiar with them. Although there may be good reasons to provide patients with earlier access to medicines on the basis of provisional evidence (including providing treatment options and hope to patients with serious illnesses), we must exercise caution in order to protect both current and future patients from potentially harmful and futile treatments and ensure that healthcare systems use their resources wisely.

Access to High Cost Cancer Medicines Through the Lens of an Australian Senate Inquiry-Defining the "Goods" at Stake

Cancer is a major burden on populations and health systems internationally. The development of innovative cancer medicines is seen as a significant part of the solution. These new cancer medicines are, however, expensive, leading to limited or delayed access and disagreements among stakeholders about which medicines to fund. There is no obvious resolution to these disagreements, with stakeholders holding firmly to divergent positions. Access to cancer medicines was recently explored in Australia in a Senate Inquiry into the Availability of New, Innovative, and Specialist Cancer Drugs in Australia. We analysed the resultant Senate Report to identify competing stakeholder values. Our analysis illustrates that there are four main "goods" prioritized by different stakeholders: 1) innovation, 2) compassion, 3) equity, and 4) sustainability. We observe that, with the exception of sustainability, all of these "goods" put pressure on payers to provide access to cancer medicines more quickly and based on less rigorous evaluation processes. We then explore the consequences of giving in to such pressure and suggest that deconstructing the implicit values in calls for "enhanced access" to cancer medicines is necessary so that more nuanced solutions to the challenge of providing access to these high cost medicines can be found.