Bystander Ethics and Good Samaritanism: A Paradox for Learning Health Organizations.

In 2012, a U.S. Institute of Medicine report called for a different approach to health care: "Left unchanged, health care will continue to underperform; cause unnecessary harm; and strain national, state, and family budgets." The answer, they suggested, would be a "continuously learning" health system. Ethicists and researchers urged the creation of "learning health organizations" that would integrate knowledge from patient-care data to continuously improve the quality of care. Our experience with an ongoing research study on atrial fibrillation-a trial known as IMPACT-AFib-gave us some insight into one of the challenges that will have to be dealt with in creating these organizations. Although the proposed educational intervention study placed no restrictions on what providers and health plans could do, the oversight team argued that the ethical principle of beneficence did not allow the researchers to be "bystanders" in relation to a control group receiving suboptimal care. In response, the researchers designed a "workaround" that allowed the project to go forward. We believe the experience suggests that what we call "bystander ethics" will create challenges for the kinds of quality improvement research that LHOs are designed to do.

Rationing Care through Collaboration and Shared Values.

Although "rationing" continues to be a dirty word for the public in health policy discourse, Nir Eyal and colleagues handle the concept exactly right in their article in this issue of the Hastings Center Report. They correctly characterize rationing as an ethical requirement, not a moral abomination. They identify the key health policy question as how rationing can best be done, not whether it should be done at all. They make a cogent defense of what they call "rationing through inconvenience" as a justifiable allocational technique. And they wisely call for research on the effectiveness and fairness of this approach and other methods of rationing. I fully agree with their approach to rationing and with their argument that the process they provocatively label "rationing through inconvenience" should not be rejected out of hand. But I believe they have underestimated two ways in which the practical impacts of rationing through inconvenience limit its potential usefulness: the asymmetry of its effect on patients and physicians and the way in which it reduces the capacity of health systems to learn from experience.

Professional Ethics for Digital Age Psychiatry: Boundaries, Privacy, and Communication.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Internet and social media use continue to expand rapidly. Many patients and psychiatrists are bringing digital technologies into the treatment process, but relatively little attention has been paid to the ethical challenges in doing this. This review presents ethical guidelines for psychiatry in the digital age. RECENT FINDINGS: Surveys demonstrate that patients are eager to make digital technologies part of their treatment. Substantial numbers search for professional and personal information about their therapists. Attitudes among psychiatrists about using digital technologies with patients range from dread to enthusiastic adoption. Digital technologies create four major ethical challenges for psychiatry: managing clinical boundaries; maintaining privacy and confidentiality; establishing realistic expectations regarding digital communications; and upholding professional ideals. Traditional ethical expectations are valid for the evolving digital arena, but guidance must be adapted for actual application in practice.

Ethical practice in Telehealth and Telemedicine.

This article summarizes the report of the American Medical Association's (AMA) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) on ethical practice in telehealth and telemedicine. Through its reports and recommendations, CEJA is responsible for maintaining and updating the AMA Code of Medical Ethics (Code). CEJA reports are developed through an iterative process of deliberation with input from multiple stakeholders; report recommendations, once adopted by the AMA House of Delegates, become ethics policy of the AMA and are issued as Opinions in the Code. To provide enduring guidance for the medical profession as a whole, CEJA strives to articulate expectations for conduct that are as independent of specific technologies or models of practice as possible. The present report, developed at the request of the House of Delegates, provides broad guidance for ethical conduct relating to key issues in telehealth/telemedicine. The report and recommendations were debated at meetings of the House in June and November 2015; recommendations were adopted in June 2016 and published as Opinion E-1.2.12, Ethical Practice in Telemedicine, in November 2016. A summary of the key points of the recommendations can be found in Appendix A (online), and the full text of the opinion can be found in Appendix B (online).

Using Moral Distress for Organizational Improvement.

Moral distress is a major problem for nurses, other clinicians, and the health system itself. But if properly understood and responded to, it is also a promising guide for healthcare improvement. When individuals experience moral distress or burnout, their reports must be seen as crucial data requiring careful attention to the individuals and to the organization. Distress and burnout will often point to important opportunities for system improvements, which may in turn reduce the experience of distress. For this potential virtuous cycle to happen, individuals must be able to articulate their concerns without fear of retribution, and organizational leaders must be able to listen in an undefensive, improvement-oriented manner.

Seeking Legitimacy for DSM-5: The Bereavement Exception as an Example of Failed Process.

In 2013 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Even before publication, DSM-5 received a torrent of criticism, most prominently over removal of the "bereavement exclusion" for the diagnosis of major depression. We argue that while the APA can claim legitimate authority for deciding scientific questions, it does not have legitimacy for resolving what is ultimately a question of ethics and public policy. We show how the "accountability for reasonableness" framework for seeking legitimacy in health policy could have been used to achieve a better resolution of the conflict than actually occurred.

\How Can Clinical Ethics Committees Take on Organizational Ethics? Some Practical Suggestions.

Although leaders in the field of ethics have for many years pointed to the crucial role that organizations play in shaping healthcare ethics, organizational ethics remains a relatively undeveloped area of ethics activity. Clinical ethics committees are an important source of potential expertise, but new skills will be required. Clinical ethics committees seeking to extend their purview to organizational issues will have to respond to three challenges-how to gain sanction and support for addressing controversial and sensitive issues, how to develop an acceptable process, and how to make a difference on the ground. The article presents practical suggestions for how clinical ethics committees meet these challenges.

A framework of ethics for telepsychiatry practice.

Psychiatrists who provide telepsychiatric services must uphold the standards of ethics and professionalism expected in in-person interactions. Psychiatrists' fundamental ethical responsibilities do not change when they take up a new form of practice. But as in other areas of medicine, the introduction of a new technology - here, Internet use and videoconferencing - raises new ethical challenges, requiring a fresh look at clinical practice and social issues such as equitable access. This review discusses these new challenges under six headings: providing competent, safe care, ensuring informed consent, promoting privacy and confidentiality, managing boundaries, encouraging continuity of care, and addressing health equity. Ethical guidelines for in-person practice have emerged from decades of clinical discussion and carefully observed treatment in the office and hospital setting. New observations, clinical reports, and shared discussion and learning must do the same for telepsychiatry in the years to come.

No place like the hospital.

The gold standard for end-of-life care is home hospice. A case is presented in which a patient dying of irreversible small bowel obstruction from metastatic cancer insisted on remaining in the acute care hospital for care when alternative sites of care, including a skilled nursing facility and residential hospice, were available to her and covered by her health insurance plan. The ethical issues raised by this case are discussed from the perspective of the patient, the clinical team, the hospital, and the insurance company. Over the past decade, hospital-based palliative care consultation and general inpatient hospice care have sought to improve the quality of dying in the hospital. To the extent that such efforts have been successful, they may result in increasing demand for the hospital as the site for terminal care in the future.

Values conflicts in professional-community collaborations.

GAP/I and INP+ represent markedly divergent cultures and therefore highlight the opportunities and strains associated with professional-community collaborations. I believe, however, that the factors that emerge from studying GAP/I-INP+ are not idiosyncratic and are relevant for other professional-community dyads. Every such partnership is likely to require some form of bridging mechanism to serve the same purposes as Mr Varghese's role did. The task of creating a zone of optimal tension may be less familiar than the need to build bridges but it is no less important. Tension between partners with significantly different cultural backgrounds has tremendous potential for generating misunderstanding and distrust. Avoiding tension-laden issues is likely to entail significant cost, whether in the form of resentment, distrust, withdrawal, or settling for a lesser outcome than could be achieved. Finally, creating and sustaining the potential for constructive tension typically requires the humble virtues associated with servant-leadership: patience, persistence and understanding.

Consumer awareness and strategies among families with high-deductible health plans.

OBJECTIVE: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are a new and controversial approach to increasing the share of health care costs paid by patients. Our study had the following aims: (1) to describe the experiences of families with HDHPs who had incurred high out-of-pocket costs and (2) to identify areas where clinicians could support more effective health care decisions by such families. METHODS: We conducted four focus groups with adults whose families had HDHPs in a New England-based health plan and had experienced high or unexpected out-of-pocket health care costs during the past 12 months. Transcripts of audio recordings were independently coded by three investigators using modified grounded theory techniques. RESULTS: The 21 focus group participants had a good general understanding of how their HDHP worked, but reported confusion about specific processes due to the plans' complexity. They described heightened awareness of health care costs, and identified important barriers to their ability to control costs. These included needing to seek care for urgent problems without having the time to assess potential costs; having mistaken expectations about what services the HDHP covered; and being reluctant to discuss costs with doctors. They attempted to control costs by delaying or avoiding visits to doctors, but felt they had little control over costs once a clinical encounter had begun. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HDHPs reported heightened sensitivity to health care costs, and described important barriers to their ability to make effective choices. Helping such patients make optimal decisions will likely require systems-level changes that involve clinicians and health insurers.

Best practices in policy and access (coding and reimbursement) for weight loss surgery.

To update evidence-based best practice guidelines for coding and reimbursement and establish policy and access standards for weight loss surgery (WLS). Systematic search of English-language literature on WLS and health-care policy, access, insurance reimbursement, coding, private payers, public policy, and mandated benefits published between April 2004 and May 2007 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Use of key words to narrow the search for a selective review of abstracts, retrieval of full articles, and grading of evidence according to systems used in established evidence-based models. We identified 51 publications in our literature search; the 20 most relevant were examined in detail. These included reviews, cost-benefit analyses, and trend and cost studies from administrative databases. Literature on policy issues surrounding WLS are very sparse and largely focused on economic analyses. Reports on policy initiatives in the public and private arenas are primarily limited to narrative reviews of nonsurgical efforts to fight obesity. A substantial body of work shows that WLS improves or reverses most obesity-related comorbidities. Mounting evidence also indicates that WLS confers a significant survival advantage for those who undergo it. WLS is a viable and cost-effective treatment for an increasingly common disease, and policy decisions are more frequently being linked to incentives for national health-care goals. However, access to WLS often varies by payer and region. Currently, there are no uniform criteria for determining patient appropriateness for surgery.

Cluster randomized trials to study the comparative effectiveness of therapeutics: stakeholders' concerns and recommendations.

PURPOSE: To describe the concerns raised by health plan members, providers and purchasers related to studying the comparative effectiveness of therapeutics using cluster randomized trials (CRTs) within health plans. An additional goal was to develop recommendations for increasing acceptability. METHODS: Eighty-four qualitative in-depth telephone interviews were conducted; 50 with health plan members, 21 with providers, and 13 with purchasers. Interviews focused on stakeholders' concerns about and recommendations for conducting CRTs in health plans. RESULTS: Members expressed concerns that CRTs might compromise their healthcare. Providers and purchasers recognized the value of and the need for comparative effectiveness research. Providers expressed concerns that they would not have sufficient time to discuss a CRT with patients, and that participation in such a study could negatively impact their relationships with patients. Purchasers would want assurances that study participation would not result in members receiving lesser care, and that benefits would remain equitable for all members. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into how health plan members, providers and purchasers might react to a CRT being conducted in their health plan. The recommendations reported here provide guidance for researchers and policy makers considering this methodological approach and suggest that with sufficient preparation and planning CRTs can be an acceptable and efficient methodology for studying the comparative effectiveness of therapeutics in real world settings.

Comparing drug effectiveness at health plans: the ethics of cluster randomized trials.

"Cluster randomized trials," in which groups of patients are randomly assigned to different therapeutic interventions, provide a powerful way of evaluating drugs. CRTs have not been widely used, in good part because of concerns about whether patients must give informed consent to participate in them. A better understanding of how CRTs fit into clinical practice resolves the concerns.