Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles. RESULTS: Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

Procedural fairness for radiotherapy priority setting in a low resource context.

Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve their populations. This mismatch between demand and supply creates the need for priority setting. There is no widely accepted system to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in a low resource context. In the absence of consensus on allocation principles, fair procedures for priority setting should be established. Research is needed to understand what elements of procedural fairness are important to decision makers in diverse settings, assess the feasibility of implementing fair procedures for priority setting in low resource contexts, and improve these processes. This study presents the views of decision makers engaged in everyday radiotherapy priority setting at a cancer center in Rwanda. Semi-structured interviews with 22 oncology physicians, nurses, program leaders, and advisors were conducted. Participants evaluated actual radiotherapy priority setting procedures at the program (meso) and patient (micro) levels, reporting facilitators, barriers, and recommendations. We discuss our findings in relation to the leading Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) framework. Participants emphasized procedural elements that facilitate adherence to normative principles, such as objective criteria that maximize lives saved. They ascribed fairness to AFR's substantive requirement of relevance more than transparency, appeals, and enforcement. They identified several challenges unresolved by AFR, such as conflicting relevant rationales and unintended consequences of publicity and appeals. Implementing fair procedure itself is resource intensive, a paradox that calls for innovative, context-appropriate solutions. Finally, socioeconomic and structural barriers to care that undermine procedural fairness must be addressed.

Moral Distress and Resilience Associated with Cancer Care Priority Setting in a Resource-Limited Context.

BACKGROUND: Moral distress and burnout are highly prevalent among oncology clinicians. Research is needed to better understand how resource constraints and systemic inequalities contribute to moral distress in order to develop effective mitigation strategies. Oncology providers in low- and middle-income countries are well positioned to provide insight into the moral experience of cancer care priority setting and expertise to guide solutions. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology physicians, nurses, program leaders, and clinical advisors at a cancer center in Rwanda. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the framework method. RESULTS: Participants identified sources of moral distress at three levels of engagement with resource prioritization: witnessing program-level resource constraints drive cancer disparities, implementing priority setting decisions into care of individual patients, and communicating with patients directly about resource prioritization implications. They recommended individual and organizational-level interventions to foster resilience, such as communication skills training and mental health support for clinicians, interdisciplinary team building, fair procedures for priority setting, and collective advocacy for resource expansion and equity. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the current literature an in-depth examination of the impact of resource constraints and inequities on clinicians in a low-resource setting. Effective interventions are urgently needed to address moral distress, reduce clinician burnout, and promote well-being among a critical but strained oncology workforce. Collective advocacy is concomitantly needed to address the structural forces that constrain resources unevenly and perpetuate disparities in cancer care and outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: For many oncology clinicians worldwide, resource limitations constrain routine clinical practice and necessitate decisions about prioritizing cancer care. To the authors' knowledge, this study is the first in-depth analysis of how resource constraints and priority setting lead to moral distress among oncology clinicians in a low-resource setting. Effective individual and organizational interventions and collective advocacy for equity in cancer care are urgently needed to address moral distress and reduce clinician burnout among a strained global oncology workforce. Lessons from low-resource settings can be gleaned as high-income countries face growing needs to prioritize oncology resources.

Higher levels of state funding for Home- and Community-Based Services linked to better state performances in Long-Term Services and Supports.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the level of state funding for Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) and state overall and dimension-specific performances in Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We employed state-level secondary data from the Medicaid LTSS Annual Expenditures Reports, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) State Scorecards, the U.S. Census, and Federal Reserve Economic data, spanning the timeframe of 2010-2020. STUDY DESIGN: Overall state LTSS rankings, along with dimension-specific rankings, were modeled separately against state Medicaid spending on HCBS relative to total Medicaid spending on LTSS. All models were adjusted for state covariates, secular trend, and state fixed effects. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The study sample included all 50 states and the District of Columbia. However, California, Delaware, Illinois, and Virginia were excluded from FY2019 due to missing data on Medicaid HCBS expenditures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Every 10 percentage-point increase in the proportion of Medicaid LTSS spending to HCBS demonstrated 2.05 points improvement (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.88 to 0.22, p = 0.03) in rankings for state overall LTSS system performance, 2.92 points improvement (95% CI: -4.87 to 0.98, p < 0.01) in rankings for the Choice of Setting and Provider dimension, as well as 1.73 points (95% CI: -3.14 to 0.32, p = 0.02) ranking improvement in the dimension of Effective Transitions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested promising effects of increased state funding for HCBS on LTSS performance.