Disparities in access to effective treatment for infertility in the United States: an Ethics Committee opinion.

In the United States, economic, racial, ethnic, geographic, and other disparities prevent access to fertility treatment and affect treatment outcomes. This opinion examines the factors that contribute to these disparities, proposes actions to address them, and replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2015.

Navigating Ethical Practices in the Era of High Cost Hematology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review article, we will highlight ethical issues faced by hematologists due to a growing constellation of expensive diagnostics and therapeutics in hematology. We outline the important issues surrounding this topic including stakeholders, cost considerations, and various ethical challenges surrounding access to care, communication about costs, and individual vs. societal responsibilities. We review available tools to navigate these ethical themes and offer potential solutions. RECENT FINDINGS: We identified several gaps in the literature on the topic of ethical issues in hematology treatment and supplement by non-hematological cancer and general medical literature. We propose proactive solutions to address these problems to include cost transparency, utilization of evidence-based decision making tools, application of the four quadrant approach to ethical care, and advanced systems-based practice curriculum for physician trainees.

Talking About the Cost of Care: A Critical Component of Shared Decision Making: Patient and Provider Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Transparency about the costs that patients incur is an increasingly important factor in making decisions throughout the course of diagnosis and treatment. Both patients and providers regard honest, informed discussions about these costs as critical to providing person-centered care, but often encounter a range of barriers to initiating and maintaining these conversations. METHODS: The Patient Advocate Foundation/National Patient Advocate Foundation with partial funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has conducted both quantitative and qualitative research with patients and providers designed to identify key issues related to cost of care discussions. RESULTS: Key issues identified include components of financial toxicity for patients, both related to direct costs and to quality of life, as well as questions as to who should initiate these conversations, when they should take place, and what kind of information and training are needed to make these conversations meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: This article reports the results of this work with recommendations for providers about how to incorporate cost of care discussions into the normal clinical work flow and patient life flow.

What Should Health Care Organizations Do to Reduce Billing Fraud and Abuse?

Whether physicians are being trained or encouraged to commit fraud within corporatized organizational cultures through contractual incentives (or mandates) to optimize billing and process more patients is unknown. What is known is that upcoding and misrepresentation of clinical information (fraud) costs more than $100 billion annually and can result in unnecessary procedures and prescriptions. This article proposes fraud mitigation strategies that combine organizational cultural enhancements and deployment of transparent compliance and risk management systems that rely on front-end data analytics.

The cost trajectory of the diagnostic care pathway for children with suspected genetic disorders.

PURPOSE: This study describes the cost trajectory of the standard diagnostic care pathway for children with suspected genetic disorders in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Average annual per-patient costs were estimated using medical records review and a caregiver survey for a cohort of 498 children referred to BC Children's and Women's Hospitals (C&W) with unexplained intellectual disability (the TIDE-BC study) and families enrolled in the CAUSES study, which offered diagnostic genome-wide sequencing (GWS; exome and genome sequencing) to 500 families of children with suspected genetic disorders. RESULTS: Direct costs peaked in the first year of patients' diagnostic odyssey, with an average of C$2257 per patient (95% confidence interval [CI] C$2074, C$2441) for diagnostic testing and C$631 (95% CI C$543, C$727) for specialist consultations at C&W. In subsequent years, direct costs accrued at a constant rate, with an estimated annual per-patient cost of C$511 (95% CI C$473, C$551) for diagnostic testing and C$334 (95% CI C$295, C$369) for consultations at C&W. Travel costs and caregiver productivity loss associated with attending diagnosis-related physician appointments averaged C$1907/family/year. CONCLUSIONS: The continuing long-term accrual of costs by undiagnosed patients suggests that economic evaluations of diagnostic GWS services should use longer time horizons than have typically been used.

Subsidizing PGD: The Moral Case for Funding Genetic Selection.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the detection of genetic abnormalities in embryos produced through in vitro fertilization (IVF). Current funding models in Australia provide governmental subsidies for couples undergoing IVF, but do not extend to PGD. There are strong reasons for publicly funding PGD that follow from the moral principles of autonomy, beneficence and justice for both parents and children. We examine the objections to our proposal, specifically concerns regarding designer babies and the harm of disabled individuals, and show why these are substantially outweighed by arguments for subsidizing PGD. We argue that an acceptance of PGD is aligned with present attitudes towards procreative decision making and IVF use, and that it should therefore receive government funding.

The efficiency-equity trade-off, self-interest, and moral principles in health and safety valuation.

Policy makers try to take account of public preferences when making trade-offs between policy options. Yet most estimates of the value of health and safety reflect only individuals' self-interested preferences, neglecting their preferences over the distribution of public resources. We conduct an experiment in which participants choose between policy options that differ in their efficiency (expected number of fatalities or cases of ill health they would prevent) and their equity (defined in terms of the balance of risk reductions for different sections of the population). The policy options were framed as interventions to improve a hypothetical city's water supply that would reduce the risk of death or ill health for people in different areas of the city to varying degrees. In order to examine whether self-interest would affect the trade-offs, we asked half of the sample about scenarios where they would personally benefit from some options. Our results suggest that efficiency is the most important single factor determining preferences between policy options, but decisions were influenced almost as much by equity as by efficiency. The effect of self-interest was smaller than that of the general concern for efficiency. We also elicited participants' stated moral principles regarding trade-offs between equity, efficiency and self-interest, and found that their expressed principles were well-aligned with their choices. Our findings contribute to the growing evidence that distributional concerns matter when evaluating health interventions.

Medical crowdfunding in China: empirics and ethics.

Medical crowdfunding has become a popular choice worldwide for people with unaffordable health needs. In low-income and middle-income countries with limited social welfare arrangements and a high incidence of catastrophic health spending, the market for medical crowdfunding is booming. However, relevant research was conducted exclusively in North America and Europe; little is known about medical crowdfunding activities inother contexts. As a first step towards filling this knowledge gap, this study depicts the realities of medical crowdfunding in a middle-income country China through empirical investigation and ethical analysis. We examine 100 randomly selected medical campaigns from a major Chinese crowdfunding platform and analyse the relevance of the previously identified ethical concerns to the Chinese context. The empirical findings show that Chinese campaigns have low and uneven success rates, require legally the participation of charitable organisations and focus on financial distress and family values in appealing for donations. In addition, the ethical analysis suggests that medical crowdfunding in China shares several ethical concerns raised in developed countries such as the veracity of claims and privacy violation. More importantly, our research reveals the inadequacy of current evidence and the lack of indicators to evaluate ethical issues in practice. Additional research is needed to better understand this fundraising practice across different social and cultural contexts.

SCAI/ACVP expert consensus statement on cardiovascular catheterization laboratory economics: If the cath lab is your home you should understand its finances: This statement was endorsed by the Alliance of Cardiovascular Professionals (ACVP) in April 2019.

This article is intended for any physician, administrator, or cardiovascular catheterization laboratory (CCL) staff member who desires a fundamental understanding of finances and economics of CCLs in the United States. The authors' goal is to illuminate general economic principles of CCL operations and provide details that can be used immediately by CCL leaders. Any article on economics in medicine should start by acknowledging the primacy of the principles of medical ethics. While physicians have been trained to act in the best interests of their patients and avoid actions that would harm patients it is vitally important that all professionals in the CCL focus on patients' needs. Caregivers both at the bedside and in the office must consider how their actions will affect not only the patient they are treating at the time, but others as well. If the best interests of a patient were to conflict with any recommendation in this article, the former should prevail. KEY POINTS: To be successful and financially viable under current payment systems, CCL physicians, and managers must optimize the outcomes and efficiency of care by aligning CCL leadership, strategy, organization, processes, personnel, and culture. Optimizing a CCL's operating margin (profitability) requires maximizing revenues and minimizing expenses. CCL managers often focus on expense reduction; they should also pay attention to revenue generation. Expense reduction depends on efficiency (on-time starts, short turn-over time, smooth day-to-day schedules), identifying cost-effective materials, and negotiating their price downward. Revenue optimization requires accurate documentation and coding of procedures, comorbidities, and complications. In fee-for-service and bundled payment reimbursement systems, higher volumes of procedures yield higher revenues. New procedures that improve patient care but are expensive can usually be justified by negotiating with vendors for lower prices and including the "halo effect" of collateral services that accompany the new procedure. Fiscal considerations should never eclipse quality concerns. High quality CCL care that prevents complications, increases efficiency, reduces waste, and eliminates unnecessary procedures represents a win for patients, physicians, and CCL administrators.

The Role of Physicians in the Allocation of Health Care: Is Some Justice Better than None?

Physicians' advocacy obligations are best understood as going beyond advocacy on behalf of individual patients, which I call the "individualistic view," to include advocacy for intelligent research-based allocation schemes that promote good outcomes and cost-effective care for all patients, which I call the "systemic view." This systemic view includes moving beyond self-interest to promote less-wasteful and more cost-conscious allocation decisions and the setting of priorities at all levels to expand health care access. It includes physician involvement in discussions with patients in the context of clinical care, involvement in the formulation and administration of benefit structures and other allocation policies, and, finally, involvement in promoting public dialogue about health care priorities. This involvement is based on a concept of a deliberative process that can result in "just enough" decisions within systems for the preservation and promotion of health care and other societal goods.

Malleable Transplant Criteria: At What Cost?

An 18-year-old male who had been diagnosed at age 7 with a rare, progressive liver disease was referred to the transplant center and received a transplant, even though he did not meet the center's criteria for a patient with hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS). Complications required relisting the patient urgently, but he eventually fully recovered; total hospital charges for his treatment exceeded $5 million. Reflection upon the case resulted in analysis of two ethical questions: primarily, clinician obligation to balance the provision of actuarially fair health care to society against the healing of a single patient; secondarily, the effects of malleable transplant criteria on trust in the patient selection process. We affirmed that physicians should not be principally responsible for justifying financial investment to society or for upholding beneficence beyond the individual physician and patient relationship in order to contain costs. We concluded, however, that such instances, when combined with manipulation of transplant center criteria, pose a potential threat to public trust. We therefore suggested that transplant centers maintain independent ethics committees to review such cases.

Future unrelated medical costs need to be considered in cost effectiveness analysis.

New medical technologies that prolong life result in additional health care use in life years gained. Some of these costs in life years gained are considered to be related to the intervention while other costs are considered unrelated. Here, we argue that ignoring these so-called future medical costs in cost effectiveness analysis is contrary to common sense, results in lost health and fails to inform decision makers for whom cost effectiveness is supposed to serve.

Should Foreigners Get Costly Lifesaving Treatments in the United States?

Many foreign parents bring their children to the United States for medical treatments that are unavailable in their own country. Often, however, parents cannot afford expensive treatments. Doctors and hospitals then face a dilemma. Is it ethically permissible to consider the patient's citizenship and ability to pay? In this Ethics Rounds, we present a case in which a child from another country needs an expensive treatment. His parents cannot afford the treatment. He has come to a public hospital in the United States. We present responses from experts in pediatrics, bioethics, and health policy.

Kaleidoscope.

This image seeks to iteratively represent themes related to the availability of life-saving and life-threatening medications. The photograph also suggests the importance of several ethical questions.

Taking societal cost into clinical consideration: U.S. physicians' views.

BACKGROUND: Recent campaigns (e.g., the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely) reflect the increasing role that physicians are expected to have in stewarding health care resources. We examine whether physicians believe they should pay attention to societal costs or refuse requests for costly interventions with little chance of patient benefit. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a 2010 national survey of 2016 U.S. physicians sampled from the AMA Physician Masterfile. Criterion measures were agreement or disagreement with two survey items related to costs of care. We also examined whether physicians' practice and religious characteristics were associated with their responses. RESULTS: The adjusted response rate was 62% (1156/1878). Forty-seven percent of physicians agreed that physicians "should not consider the societal cost of medical care when caring for individual patients," whereas 69% agreed that physicians "should refuse requests from patients or their families for costly interventions that have little chance of benefitting the patient." Physicians in specialties that care for patients at the end of life were more supportive of refusing such costly interventions. We did not find consistent associations between physicians' religiosity and their responses to these items, though those least supportive of taking into account societal cost were disproportionately from Christian affiliations. CONCLUSION: Physicians were nearly evenly divided regarding whether they should help control societal costs when caring for individual patients, but a strong majority agreed that physicians should refuse costly interventions that have little chance of benefit.

Julio Aristegui Villamil: el médico de los pobres / Julio Aristegui Villamil: the Physician of the Poor

Julio Miguel Aristegui Villamil se gradúa de Doctor en Medicina en la Universidad de La Habana en 1929 y regresa a Cárdenas, su ciudad natal, a ejercer su profesión. Sus ideas progresistas lo afilian a la Izquierda Médica, dentro de la Federación Médica de Cuba. Por el ejercicio desinteresado de su profesión la población le llega a nombrar "el médico de los pobres" (AU).

Julio Miguel Aristegui Villamil graduated as doctor in Medicine in the University of Havana in 1929 and came back to Cardenas, his home city, to practice his profession. His progressive ideas led him to enroll in the Izquierdad Médica (Medical Left translated in English), a group inside the Medical Federation of Cuba. Because of the selfless practice of his profession, the people began to call him "the doctor of the poors" (AU).