Why the fair innings argument is not persuasive

Healthcare resource allocation decisions and non-emergency treatments in the aftermath of Covid-19 pandemic. How should children with chronic illness feature in prioritisation processes?

Background

In the aftermath of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, allocation of non-urgent medical interventions is a persistent ethical challenge as health systems currently face an unprecedented backlog of patients requiring treatment. Difficult decisions must be made that prioritise certain patients over others. Ethical resource allocation requires that the needs of all patients are considered properly, but at present there is no guidance that can help support such decision-making which explicitly considers the needs of children with chronic and complex conditions.

Methods

This paper reviews the NHS guidance for priorities and operational planning and examines how the needs of children with chronic illness are addressed in NHS objectives for restoring services and meeting elective care demands.

Results

The usual criteria for prioritisation featured in the NHS guidance fail to account for the distinct needs of children with chronic illnesses and fail to match more general considerations of what constitutes fair resource allocation decisions. To address this issue, two considerations, namely 'protecting age-related opportunity' and 'recognising complexity of care,' are proposed as additions to the existing approach.

Conclusion

By providing a broader conception of needs, these criteria address inefficiencies of the current guidance and relevant ethical frameworks and help to embed a currently missing children-related ethical approach to healthcare policy making in general.

Covid-19 and age discrimination: benefit maximization, fairness, and justified age-based rationing

Age-based rationing remains highly controversial. This question has been paramount during the Covid-19 pandemic. Analyzing the practices, proposals, and guidelines applied or put forward during the current pandemic, three kinds of age-based rationing are identified: an age-based cut-off, age as a tiebreaker, and indirect age rationing, where age matters to the extent that it affects prognosis. Where age is allowed to play a role in terms of who gets treated, it is justified either because this is believed to maximize benefits from scarce resources or because it is believed to be in accordance with the value of fairness understood as (a) fair innings, where less priority is given to those who have lived a full life or (b) an egalitarian concern for the worse off. By critically assessing prominent frameworks and practices for pandemic rationing, this article considers the balance the three kinds of age-based rationing strike between maximizing benefits and fairness. It evaluates whether elements in the proposals are, in fact, contrary to the justifications of these measures. Such shortcomings are highlighted, and it is proposed to adjust prominent proposals to care for the worse off more appropriately and better consider whether the acquired benefits befalls the young or the old.

Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation: A Western experience

BACKGROUND

Despite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated.

METHOD

We aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant.

RESULTS

A total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intention-to-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.32; P = .30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-4.19; P = .40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant.

CONCLUSION

Patients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.

Waiting Time for Second Kidney Transplantation and Mortality

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The median kidney transplant half-life is 10-15 years. Because of the scarcity of donor organs and immunologic sensitization of candidates for retransplantation, there is a need for quantitative information on if and when a second transplantation is no longer associated with a lower risk of mortality compared with waitlisted patients treated by dialysis. Therefore, we investigated the association of time on waiting list with patient survival in patients who received a second transplantation versus remaining on the waiting list.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

In this retrospective study using target trial emulation, we analyzed data of 2346 patients from the Austrian Dialysis and Transplant Registry and Eurotransplant with a failed first graft, aged over 18 years, and waitlisted for a second kidney transplantation in Austria during the years 1980-2019. The differences in restricted mean survival time and hazard ratios for all-cause mortality comparing the treatment strategies "retransplant" versus "remain waitlisted with maintenance dialysis" are reported for different waiting times after first graft loss.

RESULTS

Second kidney transplantation showed a longer restricted mean survival time at 10 years of follow-up compared with remaining on the waiting list (5.8 life months gained; 95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 11.1). This survival difference was diminished in patients with longer waiting time after loss of the first allograft; restricted mean survival time differences at 10 years were 8.0 (95% confidence interval, 1.9 to 14.0) and 0.1 life months gained (95% confidence interval, -14.3 to 15.2) for patients with waiting time for retransplantation of <1 and 8 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Second kidney transplant is associated with patient survival compared with remaining waitlisted and treatment by dialysis, but the survival difference diminishes with longer waiting time.

QALYs and ambulatory status: societal preferences for healthcare decision making

BACKGROUND

This research aimed to review the theoretical and methodological aspects of the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) which give rise to potential for bias against certain patient populations, including those with problems with walking or an inability to walk (ambulatory disabilities), when health technology assessment decisions rely on QALY gain to show cost-effectiveness. Societal preferences for treating ambulatory versus non-ambulatory patients were also investigated.

METHODS

We reviewed published literature to identify information on theoretical underpinnings of the QALY, measurement of utilities for QALY assessment, and empirical evidence of societal preferences for the treatment of ambulatory and non-ambulatory patients.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Health states which represent mobility impairment and the inability to walk receive low valuation from general public preferences. Non-ambulatory patients, for example those with advanced neuromuscular disease, have lower utilities determined by standardized preference-based measurement (PBM) tools. Any treatment that increases survival but could not restore ambulation would result in lower lifetime QALY gains for non-ambulatory versus ambulatory patients. Treatments could therefore potentially be deemed less cost-effective, or not cost-effective at all for this patient population.Empirical research indicates a societal preference for equal treatment of patients regardless of ambulatory status. The main limitation of our review was the non-systematic approach to evidence search and review, however, given the broad scope of content required to meet the aims of the review, we believe that the targeted approach was appropriate. The evidence presented in this article highlights the need for alternatives to strict QALY-based approaches to prevent avoidable health inequities when determining cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions for non-ambulatory populations against fixed cost-effectiveness thresholds. An alternative metric, the Equal Value of Life Years Gained (evLYG), has been proposed as a supplementary measure for use alongside the QALY for its potential to alleviate bias against disabled patient populations during the assessment of healthcare treatments.

Precision medicine and the principle of equal treatment: a conjoint analysis

BACKGROUND

In precision medicine biomarkers stratify patients into groups that are offered different treatments, but this may conflict with the principle of equal treatment. While some patient characteristics are seen as relevant for unequal treatment and others not, it is known that they all may influence treatment decisions. How biomarkers influence these decisions is not known, nor is their ethical relevance well discussed.

METHODS

We distributed an email survey designed to elicit treatment preferences from Norwegian doctors working with cancer patients. In a forced-choice conjoint analysis pairs of hypothetical patients were presented, and we calculated the average marginal component effect of seven individual patient characteristics, to estimate how each of them influence doctors' priority-setting decisions.

RESULTS

A positive biomarker status increased the probability of being allocated the new drug, while older age, severe comorbidity and reduced physical function reduced the probability. Importantly, sex, education level and smoking status had no significant influence on the decision.

CONCLUSION

Biomarker status is perceived as relevant for priority setting decisions, alongside more well-known patient characteristics like age, physical function and comorbidity. Based on our results, we discuss a framework that can help clarify whether biomarker status should be seen as an ethically acceptable factor for providing unequal treatment to patients with the same disease.

We Need to Talk About Rationing: The Need to Normalize Discussion About Healthcare Rationing in a Post COVID-19 Era

The global COVID-19 pandemic has brought the issue of rationing finite healthcare resources to the fore. There has been much academic debate, media attention, and conversation in the homes of everyday individuals about the allocation of medical resources, diagnostic testing kits, ventilators, and personal protective equipment. Yet decisions to prioritize treatment for some individuals over others occur implicitly and explicitly in everyday practices. The pandemic has propelled the socially taboo and unavoidably prickly issue of healthcare rationing into the public spotlight-and as such, healthcare rationing demands ongoing public attention and transparent discussion. This article concludes that in the aftermath of COVID-19, policymakers should work towards normalizing rationing discussions by engaging in transparent and honest debate in the wider community and public domain. Further, injecting greater openness and objectivity into rationing decisions might go some way towards dismantling the societal taboo surrounding rationing in healthcare.

COVID-19: legal implications for critical care

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented challenge for the provision of critical care. Anticipating an unsustainable burden on the health service, the UK Government introduced numerous legislative measures culminating in the Coronavirus Act, which interfere with existing legislation and rights. However, the existing standards and legal frameworks relevant to critical care clinicians are not extinguished, but anticipated to adapt to a new context. This new context influences the standard of care that can be reasonably provided and yields many human rights considerations, for example, in the use of restraints, or the restrictions placed on patients and visitors under the Infection Prevention and Control guidance. The changing landscape has also highlighted previously unrecognised legal dilemmas. The perceived difficulties in the provision of personal protective equipment for employees pose a legal risk for Trusts and a regulatory risk for clinicians. The spectre of rationing critical care poses a number of legal issues. Notably, the flux between clinical decisions based on best interests towards decisions explicitly based on resource considerations should be underpinned by an authoritative public policy decision to preserve legitimacy and lawfulness. Such a policy should be medically coherent, legally robust and ethically justified. The current crisis poses numerous challenges for clinicians aspiring to remain faithful to medicolegal and human rights principles developed over many decades, especially when such principles could easily be dismissed. However, it is exactly at such times that these principles are needed the most and clinicians play a disproportionate role in safeguarding them for the most vulnerable.

Experience adjusted life years and critical medical allocations within the British context: which patient should live?

Medical resource allocation is a controversial topic, because in the end it prioritises some peoples' medical problems over those of others. This is less controversial when there is a clear clinical reason for such a prioritisation, but when such a reason is not available people might perceive it as deeming certain individuals more important than others. This article looks at the role of social utility in medical resource allocation, in a situation where the clinical outcome would be identical if either person received the treatment. This situation is explored with a focus on the United Kingdom, but its conclusions have wider applications to any system where healthcare is tax-payer funded. The article proposes an experience adjusted life years system, and discusses its strengths and weaknesses.

Clinical decision making in cancer care: a review of current and future roles of patient age

Background

Patient age is among the most controversial patient characteristics in clinical decision making. In personalized cancer medicine it is important to understand how individual characteristics do affect practice and how to appropriately incorporate such factors into decision making. Some argue that using age in decision making is unethical, and how patient age should guide cancer care is unsettled. This article provides an overview of the use of age in clinical decision making and discusses how age can be relevant in the context of personalized medicine.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review, searching Pubmed for English references published between 1985 and May 2017. References concerning cancer, with patients above the age of 18 and that discussed age in relation to diagnostic or treatment decisions were included. References that were non-medical or concerning patients below the age of 18, and references that were case reports, ongoing studies or opinion pieces were excluded. Additional references were collected through snowballing and from selected reports, guidelines and articles.

Results

Three hundred and forty-seven relevant references were identified. Patient age can have many and diverse roles in clinical decision making: Contextual roles linked to access (age influences how fast patients are referred to specialized care) and incidence (association between increasing age and increasing incidence rates for cancer); patient-relevant roles linked to physiology (age-related changes in drug metabolism) and comorbidity (association between increasing age and increasing number of comorbidities); and roles related to interventions, such as treatment (older patients receive substandard care) and outcome (survival varies by age).

Conclusions

Patient age is integrated into cancer care decision making in a range of ways that makes it difficult to claim age-neutrality. Acknowledging this and being more transparent about the use of age in decision making are likely to promote better clinical decisions, irrespective of one’s normative viewpoint. This overview also provides a starting point for future discussions on the appropriate role of age in cancer care decision making, which we see as crucial for harnessing the full potential of personalized medicine.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4456-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluating and Valuing Drugs for Rare Conditions: No Easy Answers

We find ourselves in an era of unprecedented growth in the development and use of so-called "orphan" drugs to treat rare diseases, which are poised to represent more than one-fifth of pharmaceutical expenditures by 2022. This widespread use has been facilitated by legislative and regulatory incentives in both the United States and abroad, yet US payers and health systems have not yet made a concerted effort to understand whether and how rare diseases require special considerations on their part and how to adapt traditional methods of health technology assessment and economic evaluation to accommodate these situations. In this article, we explore the general ethical dilemmas that rare diseases present, steps taken by health technology assessment bodies worldwide to define the level of rarity that would necessitate special measures and the modifications to their assessment and valuation processes needed, and the contextual components for rare-disease evaluation that lie outside of the assessment framework as a guide to US decision makers on constructing a formal and relevant process stateside.

Older People's Reasoning About Age-Related Prioritization in Health Care

The aim of this study was to describe the reasoning of people aged 60 years and over about prioritization in health care with regard to age and willingness to pay. Healthy people (n = 300) and people receiving continuous care and services (n = 146) who were between 60 and 101 years old were interviewed about their views on prioritization in health care. The transcribed interviews were analysed using manifest and latent qualitative content analysis. The participants' reasoning on prioritization embraced eight categories: feeling secure and confident in the health care system; being old means low priority; prioritization causes worries; using underhand means in order to be prioritized; prioritization as a necessity; being averse to anyone having precedence over others; having doubts about the distribution of resources; and buying treatment requires wealth.

Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained? The need for alternative methods to evaluate medical interventions for ultra-rare disorders

Drugs for ultra-rare disorders (URDs) rank prominently among the most expensive medicines on a cost-per-patient basis. Many of them do not meet conventional standards for cost-effectiveness. In light of the high fixed cost of R&D, this challenge is inversely related to the prevalence of URDs. The present paper sets out to explain the rationale underlying a recent expert consensus on these issues, recommending a more rigorous assessment of the clinical effectiveness of URDs, applying established standards of evidence-based medicine. This may include conditional approval and reimbursement policies, which should be combined with a firm expectation of proof of a minimum significant clinical benefit within a reasonable time. In contrast, current health economic evaluation paradigms fail to adequately reflect normative and empirical concerns (i.e., morally defensible 'social preferences') regarding healthcare resource allocation. Hence there is a strong need for alternative economic evaluation models for URDs.

On the spot ethical decision-making in CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear event) response: approaches to on the spot ethical decision-making for first responders to large-scale chemical incidents

First responders to chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) events face decisions having significant human consequences. Some operational decisions are supported by standard operating procedures, yet these may not suffice for ethical decisions. Responders will be forced to weigh their options, factoring-in contextual peculiarities; they will require guidance on how they can approach novel (indeed unique) ethical problems: they need strategies for "on the spot" ethical decision making. The primary aim of this paper is to examine how first responders should approach on the spot ethical decision-making amid the stress and uncertainty of a CBRN event. Drawing on the long-term professional CBRN experience of one of the authors, this paper sets out a series of practical ethical dilemmas potentially arising in the context of a large-scale chemical incident. We propose a broadly consequentialist approach to on the spot ethical decision-making, but one which incorporates ethical values and rights as "side-constraints".

Inquiry into the relationship between equity weights and the value of the QALY

BACKGROUND

A commonly held view of the decision rule in economic evaluations in health care is that the final incremental cost-effectiveness ratio needs to be judged against some threshold, which is equal for all quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains. This reflects the assumption that "a QALY is a QALY" no matter who receives it, or the equity notion that all QALY gains are equally valuable, regardless of the context in which they are realized. If such an assumption does not adequately reflect the distributional concerns in society, however, different thresholds could be used for different QALY gains, whose relative values can be seen as "equity weights."

AIM

Our aim was to explore the relationship between equity or distributional concerns and the social value of QALYs within the health economics literature. In light of the empirical interest in equity-related concerns as well as the nature and height of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold, this study investigates the "common ground" between the two streams of literature and considers how the empirical literature estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold treats existing distributional considerations.

One and done? Equality of opportunity and repeated access to scarce, indivisible medical resources

Background

Existing ethical guidelines recommend that, all else equal, past receipt of a medical resource (e.g. a scarce organ) should not be considered in current allocation decisions (e.g. a repeat transplantation).

Discussion

One stated reason for this ethical consensus is that formal theories of ethics and justice do not persuasively accept or reject repeated access to the same medical resources. Another is that restricting attention to past receipt of a particular medical resource seems arbitrary: why couldn’t one just as well, it is argued, consider receipt of other goods such as income or education? In consequence, simple allocation by lottery or first-come-first-served without consideration of any past receipt is thought to best afford equal opportunity, conditional on equal medical need.

There are three issues with this view that need to be addressed. First, public views and patient preferences are less ambiguous than formal theories of ethics. Empirical work shows strong preferences for fairness in health care that have not been taken into account: repeated access to resources has been perceived as unfair. Second, while difficult to consider receipt of many other prior resources including non-medical resources, this should not be used a motive for ignoring the receipt of any and all goods including the focal resource in question. Third, when all claimants to a scarce resource are equally deserving, then use of random allocation seems warranted. However, the converse is not true: mere use of a randomizer does not by itself make the merits of all claimants equal.

Summary

My conclusion is that not ignoring prior receipt of the same medical resource, and prioritizing those who have not previously had access to the medical resource in question, may be perceived as fairer and more equitable by society.