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.

[Cost-conscious medical decisions. Normative guidance within the conflicting demands of ethics and economics]. / Kostenbewusste ärztliche Entscheidungen. Normative Orientierung im Spannungsfeld zwischen Ethik und Ökonomie.

BACKGROUND: Under the current conditions in the health care system, physicians inevitably have to take responsibility for the cost dimension of their decisions on the level of single cases. This article, therefore, discusses the question how physicians can integrate cost considerations into their clinical decisions at the microlevel in a medically rational and ethically justified way. DISCUSSION: We propose a four-step model for "ethical cost-consciousness": (1) forego ineffective interventions as required by good evidence-based medicine, (2) respect individual patient preferences, (3) minimize the diagnostic and therapeutic effort to achieve a certain treatment goal, and (4) forego expensive interventions that have only a small or unlikely (net) benefit for the patient. Steps 1-3 are ethically justified by the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and respect for autonomy, step 4 by the principles of justice. For decisions on step 4, explicit cost-conscious guidelines should be developed locally or regionally. Following the four-step model can contribute to ethically defensible, cost-conscious decision-making at the microlevel. In addition, physicians' rationing decisions should meet basic standards of procedural fairness. Regular cost-case discussions and clinical ethics consultation should be available as decision support. Implementing step 4, however, requires first of all a clear political legitimation with the corresponding legal framework.