Care Ethics versus the CARES Act.

One of the biggest policy interventions during the last year of the COVID-19 pandemic was the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act, instituting a novel form of economic relief similar to a universal basic income. The economic impact payments, colloquially known as "stimulus checks," were distributed based on the socioeconomic status of American citizens and legal residents and provided much-needed financial aid. However, the distribution of these payments paid little attention to other important factors that might determine the economic security of said individuals, such as race and gender. This article calls for policy-makers to pay particular attention to how structural inequity and discrimination based on identity could affect the efficacy of proposed policies and demonstrate an ethic of care informed by an understanding of intersectionality.

Empirical Investigation of Ethical Challenges Related to the Use of Biological Therapies.

The aim of this study was to investigate the ethical dilemma of prioritising financial resources to expensive biological therapies. For this purpose, the four principles of biomedical ethics formulated by ethicists Tom Beauchamp and James Childress were used as a theoretical framework. Based on arguments of justice, Beauchamp and Childress advocate for a health care system organised in line with the Danish system. Notably, our study was carried out in a Danish setting.

Measuring and decomposing socioeconomic inequality in catastrophic healthcare expenditures in Iran.

OBJECTIVES: Equity in financial protection against healthcare expenditures is one the primary functions of health systems worldwide. This study aimed to quantify socioeconomic inequality in facing catastrophic healthcare expenditures (CHE) and to identify the main factors contributing to socioeconomic inequality in CHE in Iran. METHODS: A total of 37 860 households were drawn from the Households Income and Expenditure Survey, conducted by the Statistical Center of Iran in 2017. The prevalence of CHE was measured using a cut-off of spending at least 40% of the capacity to pay on healthcare services. The concentration curve and concentration index (C) were used to illustrate and measure the extent of socioeconomic inequality in CHE among Iranian households. The C was decomposed to identify the main factors explaining the observed socioeconomic inequality in CHE in Iran. RESULTS: The prevalence of CHE among Iranian households in 2017 was 5.26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.04 to 5.49). The value of C was -0.17 (95% CI, -0.19 to -0.13), suggesting that CHE was mainly concentrated among socioeconomically disadvantaged households in Iran. The decomposition analysis highlighted the household wealth index as explaining 71.7% of the concentration of CHE among the poor in Iran. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that CHE is disproportionately concentrated among poor households in Iran. Health policies to reduce socioeconomic inequality in facing CHE in Iran should focus on socioeconomically disadvantaged households.

Equity in healthcare financing: a case of Iran.

BACKGROUND: Fair financial contribution in healthcare financing is one of the main goals and challengeable subjects in the evaluation of world health system functions. This study aimed to investigate the equity in healthcare financing in Shiraz, Iran in 2018. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross- sectional survey conducted on the Shiraz, Iran households. A sample of 740 households (2357 persons) was selected from 11 municipal districts using the multi-stage sampling method (stratified sampling method proportional to size, cluster sampling and systematic random sampling methods). The required data were collected using the Persian format of "World Health Survey" questionnaire. The collected data were analyzed using Stata14.0 and Excel 2007. The Gini coefficient and concentration and Kakwani indices were calculated for health insurance premiums (basic and complementary), inpatient and outpatient services costs, out of pocket payments and, totally, health expenses. RESULTS: The Gini coefficient was obtained based on the studied population incomes equal to 0.297. Also, the results revealed that the concentration index and Kakwani index were, respectively, 0.171 and - 0.125 for basic health insurance premiums, 0.259 and - 0.038 for health insurance complementary premiums, 0.198 and - 0.099 for total health insurance premiums, 0.126 and - 0.170 for outpatient services costs, 0.236 and - 0.061 for inpatient services costs, 0.174 and - 0.123 for out of pocket payments (including the sum of costs related to the inpatient and outpatient services) and 0.185 and - 0.112 for the health expenses (including the sum of out of pocket payments and health insurance premiums). CONCLUSION: The results showed that the healthcare financing in Shiraz, Iran was regressive and there was vertical inequity and, accordingly, it is essential to making more efforts in order to implement universal insurance coverage, redistribute incomes in the health sector to support low-income people, strengthening the health insurance schemes, etc.

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.

Whither a Welfare-Funded 'Sex Doula' Programme?

The sexual citizenship of disabled persons is an ethically contentious issue with important and broad-reaching ramifications. Awareness of the issue has risen considerably due to the increasingly public responses from charitable organisations which have recently sought to respond to the needs of disabled persons-yet this important debate still struggles for traction in academia. In response, this paper continues the debate raised in this journal between Appel and Di Nucci, concurring with Appel's proposals that sexual pleasure is a fundamental human right and that access to sexual citizenship for the severely disabled should be publicly funded. To that endeavour, this paper refutes Di Nucci's criticism of Appel's sex rights for the disabled and shows how Di Nucci's alternative solution is iniquitous. To advance the debate, I argue that a welfare-funded 'sex doula' programme would be uniquely positioned to respond to the sexual citizenship issues of disabled persons.

Austerity measures and the transforming role of A&E professionals in a weakening welfare system.

In 2010, the UK embarked on a self-imposed programme of contractionary measures signalling the beginning of a so-called "age of austerity" for the country. It was argued that budgetary cuts were the most appropriate means of eliminating deficits and decreasing national debt as percentage of General Domestic Product (GDP). Although the budget for the National Health Service (NHS) was not reduced, a below-the-average increase in funding, and cuts in other areas of public spending, particularly in social care and welfare spending, impacted significantly on the NHS. One of the areas where the impact of austerity was most dramatically felt was in Accidents and Emergency Departments (A&E). A number of economic and statistical reports and quantitative studies have explored and documented the effects of austerity in healthcare in the UK, but there is a paucity of research looking at the effects of austerity from the standpoint of the healthcare professionals. In this paper, we report findings from a qualitative study with healthcare professionals working in A&E departments in England. The study findings are presented thematically in three sections. The main theme that runs through all three sections is the perceptions of austerity as shaping the functioning of A&E departments, of healthcare professions and of professionals themselves. The first section discusses the rising demand for services and resources, and the changed demographic of A&E patients-altering the meaning of A&E from 'Accidents and Emergencies' to the Department for 'Anything and Everything'. The second section in this study's findings, explores how austerity policies are perceived to affect the character of healthcare in A&E. It discusses how an increased focus on the procedures, time-keeping and the operationalisation of healthcare is considered to detract from values such as empathy in interactions with patients. In the third section, the effects of austerity on the morale and motivations of healthcare professionals themselves are presented. Here, the concepts of moral distress and burnout are used in the analysis of the experiences and feelings of being devalued. From these accounts and insights, we analyse austerity as a catalyst or mechanism for a significant shift in the practice and function of the NHS-in particular, a shift in what is counted, measured and valued at departmental, professional and personal levels in A&E.

Radical actions to address UK organ shortage, enacting Iran's paid donation programme: A discussion paper.

Globally there is a shortage of organs available for transplant resulting in thousands of lives lost as a result. Recently in the United Kingdom 457 people died as a result of organ shortage in just 1 year. 1 NHS Blood and Transplant suggest national debates to test public attitudes to radical actions to increase organ donation should be considered in addressing organ shortage. The selling of organs for transplant in the United Kingdom is prohibited under the Human Tissue Act 2004. This discussion paper considers five ethical objections raised in the United Kingdom to paid donation and discusses how these objections are addressed within the only legal and regulated paid living unrelated renal donation programme in the world in Iran, where its kidney transplant list was eliminated within 2 years of its commencement. This article discusses whether paid living unrelated donation in Iran increases riskier donations and reduced altruistic donation as opponents of paid donation claim. The paper debates whether objections to paid donation based upon commodification arguments only oppose enabling financial ends, even if these ends enable beneficent acts. Discussions in relation to whether valid consent can be given by the donor will take place and will also debate the objection that donors will be coerced and exploited by a paid model. This article suggests that exploitation of the paid donor within the Iranian model exists within the legally permitted framework. However, paid living kidney donation should be discussed further and other models of paid donation considered in the United Kingdom as a radical means of increasing donation.

Medical crowdfunding and the virtuous donor.

Patients and families are increasingly turning to crowdfunding to help them cover the cost of medical care. The ethics of crowdfunding has garnered some attention in the bioethical literature. In this paper I examine an ethical aspect of medical crowdfunding (MCF) that has received limited attention: the role of donors. I defend a virtue ethical approach to analyzing the role of donors in MCF. Vicious donation, where donors do not exercise the relevant virtues, can compound some of the ethical risks associated with MCF, as seen in the several recent, high-profile cases. My primary contention in this paper is that encouraging donors to think about how donating to a particular campaign would measure against the virtues I outline could help to discourage acts of ethically problematic donation to MCF campaigns.

Is infertility a disease and does it matter?

Claims about whether or not infertility is a disease are sometimes invoked to defend or criticize the provision of state-funded treatment for infertility. In this paper, I suggest that this strategy is problematic. By exploring infertility through key approaches to disease in the philosophy of medicine, I show that there are deep theoretical disagreements regarding what subtypes of infertility qualify as diseases. Given that infertility's disease status remains unclear, one cannot uncontroversially justify or undermine its claim to medical treatment by claiming that it is or is not a disease. Instead of focusing on disease status, a preferable strategy to approach the debate about state-funded treatment is to explicitly address the specific ethical considerations raised by infertility. I show how this alternative strategy can be supported by a recent theoretical framework in the philosophy of medicine which avoids the problems associated with the concepts of health and disease.

Ethical implications of medical crowdfunding: the case of Charlie Gard.

Patients are increasingly turning to medical crowdfunding as a way to cover their healthcare costs. In the case of Charlie Gard, an infant born with encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, crowdfunding was used to finance experimental nucleoside therapy. Although this treatment was not provided in the end, we will argue that the success of the Gard family's crowdfunding campaign reveals a number of potential ethical concerns. First, this case shows that crowdfunding can change the way in which communal healthcare resources are allocated. Second, within the UK's National Health Service, healthcare is ostensibly not a market resource; thus, permitting crowdfunding introduces market norms that could commodify healthcare. Third, pressures inherent to receiving funds from external parties may threaten the ability of patients-cum-recipients to voluntarily consent to treatment. We conclude that while crowdfunding itself is not unethical, its use can have unforeseen consequences that may influence conceptions of healthcare and how it is delivered.

Moral Economy and Moral Capital in the Community of Clinical Practice.

This New Zealand study used focused ethnography to explore the activities of communities of clinical practice (CoCP) in a community-based long-term conditions management program within a large primary health care clinic. CoCP are the informal vehicles by which patient care was delivered within the program. Here, we describe the CoCP as a micro-level moral economy within which values such as trust, respect, authenticity, reciprocity, and obligation circulate as a kind of moral capital. As taxpayers, citizens who become patients are credited with moral capital because the public health system is funded by taxes. This moral capital can be paid forward, accrued, banked, redeemed, exchanged, and forfeited by patients and their health care professionals during the course of a patient's journey. The concept of moral capital offers another route into the "black box" of clinical work by providing an alternative theoretic for explaining the relational aspects of patient care.

Crowdfunding our health: Economic risks and benefits.

Crowdfunding is an expanding form of alternative financing that is gaining traction in the health sector. This article presents a typology for crowdfunded health projects and a review of the main economic benefits and risks of crowdfunding in the health market. We use evidence from a literature review, complimented by expert interviews, to extend the fundamental principles and established theories of crowdfunding to a health market context. Crowdfunded health projects can be classified into four types according to the venture's purpose and funding method. These are projects covering health expenses, fundraising health initiatives, supporting health research, or financing commercial health innovation. Crowdfunding could economically benefit the health sector by expanding market participation, drawing money and awareness to neglected health issues, improving access to funding, and fostering project accountability and social engagement. However, the economic risks of health-related crowdfunding include inefficient priority setting, heightened financial risk, inconsistent regulatory policies, intellectual property rights concerns, and fraud. Theorized crowdfunding behaviours such as signalling and herding can be observed in the market for health-related crowdfunding. Broader threats of market failure stemming from adverse selection and moral hazard also apply. Many of the discussed economic benefits and risks of crowdfunding health campaigns are shared more broadly with those of crowdfunding projects in other sectors. Where crowdfunding health care appears to diverge from theory is the negative externality inefficient priority setting may have towards achieving broader public health goals. Therefore, the market for crowdfunding health care must be economically stable, as well as designed to optimally and equitably improve public health.

Assessing income redistributive effect of health financing in Zambia.

Ensuring an equitable health financing system is a major concern particularly in many developing countries. Internationally, there is a strong debate to move away from excessive reliance on direct out-of-pocket (OOP) spending towards a system that incorporates a greater element of risk pooling and thus affords greater protection for the poor. This is a major focus of the move towards universal health coverage (UHC). Currently, Zambia with high levels of poverty and income inequality is implementing health sector reforms for UHC through a social health insurance scheme. However, the way to identify the health financing mechanisms that are best suited to achieving this goal is to conduct empirical analysis and consider international evidence on funding universal health systems. This study assesses, for the first time, the progressivity of health financing and how it impacts on income inequality in Zambia. Three broad health financing mechanisms (general tax, a health levy and OOP spending) were considered. Data come from the 2010 nationally representative Zambian Living Conditions and Monitoring Survey with a sample size of 19,397 households. Applying standard methodologies, the findings show that total health financing in Zambia is progressive. It also leads to a statistically significant reduction in income inequality (i.e. a pro-poor redistributive effect estimated at 0.0110 (p < 0.01)). Similar significant pro-poor redistribution was reported for general taxes (0.0101 (p < 0.01)) and a health levy (0.0002 (p < 0.01)). However, the redistributive effect was not significant for OOP spending (0.0006). These results further imply that health financing redistributes income from the rich to the poor with a greater potential via general taxes. This points to areas where government policy may focus in attempting to reduce the high level of income inequality and to improve equity in health financing towards UHC in Zambia.

Equity in HTA: what doesn't get measured, gets marginalised.

When making recommendations about the public funding of new health technologies, policy makers typically pay close attention to quantitative evidence about the comparative effectiveness, cost effectiveness and budget impact of those technologies - what we might call "efficiency" criteria. Less attention is paid, however, to quantitative evidence about who gains and who loses from these public expenditure decisions, and whether those who gain are better or worse off than the rest of the population in terms of their health - what we might call "equity" criteria. Two studies recently published in this journal by Shmueli and colleagues suggest that this efficiency-oriented imbalance in the use of quantitative evidence may have unfortunate consequences - as the old adage goes: "what gets measured, gets done". The first study, by Shmueli, Golan, Paolucci and Mentzakis, found that health policy makers in Israel think equity considerations are just as important as efficiency considerations - at least when it comes to making hypothetical technology funding decisions in a survey. By contrast, the second study - by Shmueli alone - found that efficiency rules the roost when it comes to making real decisions about health technology funding in Israel. Both studies have limitations and potential biases, and more research is needed using qualitative methods and more nuanced survey designs to determine precisely which kinds of equity consideration decision makers think are most important and why these considerations do not appear to be given much weight in decision making. However, the basic overall finding from the two studies seems plausible and important. It suggests that health technology funding bodies need to pay closer attention to equity considerations, and to start making equity a quantitative endpoint of health technology assessment using the methods of equity-informative economic evaluation that are now available.

Producing a worthy illness: Personal crowdfunding amidst financial crisis.

For Americans experiencing illnesses and disabilities, crowdfunding has become a popular strategy for addressing the extraordinary costs of health care. The political, social, and health consequences of austerity--along with fallout from the 2008 financial collapse and the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)--are made evident in websites like GoFundMe. Here, patients and caregivers create campaigns to solicit donations for medical care, hoping that they will spread widely through social networks. As competition increases among campaigns, patients and their loved ones are obliged to produce compelling and sophisticated appeals. Despite the growing popularity of crowdfunding, little research has explored the usage, impacts, or consequences of the increasing reliance on it for health in the U.S. or abroad. This paper analyzes data from a mixed-methods study conducted from March-September 2016 of 200 GoFundMe campaigns, identified through randomized selection. In addition to presenting exploratory quantitative data on the characteristics and relative success of these campaigns, a more in-depth textual analysis examines how crowdfunders construct narratives about illness and financial need, and attempt to demonstrate their own deservingness. Concerns with the financial burdens of illness, combined with a high proportion of campaigns in states without ACA Medicaid expansion, underscored the importance of crowdfunding as a response to contexts of austerity. Successful crowdfunding requires that campaigners master medical and media literacies; as such, we argue that crowdfunding has the potential to deepen social and health inequities in the U.S. by promoting forms of individualized charity that rely on unequally-distributed literacies to demonstrate deservingness and worth. Crowdfunding narratives also distract from crises of healthcare funding and gaping holes in the social safety net by encouraging hyper-individualized accounts of suffering on media platforms where precarity is portrayed as the result of inadequate self-marketing, rather than the inevitable consequences of structural conditions of austerity.