Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage.

BACKGROUND: As universal health coverage becomes the norm in many countries, it is important to determine public priorities regarding benefits to include in health insurance coverage. We report results of participation in a decision exercise among residents of Switzerland, a high-income country with a long history of universal health insurance and deliberative democracy. METHODS: We adapted the Choosing Healthplans All Together (CHAT) tool, an exercise developed to transform complex healthcare allocation decisions into easily understandable choices, for use in Switzerland. We conducted CHAT exercises in twelve Swiss cities with recruitment from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, taking into account differences in language and culture. RESULTS: Compared to existing coverage, a majority of 175 participants accepted greater general practice gatekeeping (94%), exclusion of invasive life-sustaining measures in dying patients (80%), longer waiting times for non-urgent episodic care (78%), greater adherence to cost-effectiveness guidelines in chronic care (66%), and lower premium subsidies (51%). Most initially chose greater coverage for dental care (59%), quality of life (57%), and long-term care (90%). During group deliberations, participants increased coverage for out-of-pocket costs (58%) and mental health to current levels (41%) and beyond current levels for rehabilitation (50%), and decreased coverage for quality of life to current levels (74%). Following group deliberation, they tended to change their views back to below current coverage for help with out-of-pocket costs, and back to current levels for rehabilitation. Most participants accepted the plan as appropriate and fair. A significant number would have added nothing. CONCLUSION: Swiss participants who have engaged in a priority setting exercise accept complex resource allocation trade-offs in healthcare coverage. Moreover, in the context of a well-funded healthcare system with universal coverage centered on individual choice, at least some of our participants believed a fully sufficient threshold of health insurance coverage was achieved.

Solidarity and cost management: Swiss citizens' reasons for priorities regarding health insurance coverage.

CONTEXT: Approaches to priority-setting for scarce resources have shifted to public deliberation as trade-offs become more difficult. We report results of a qualitative analysis of public deliberation in Switzerland, a country with high health-care costs, an individual health insurance mandate and a strong tradition of direct democracy with frequent votes related to health care. METHODS: We adapted the Choosing Healthplans All Together (CHAT) tool, an exercise developed to transform complex health-care allocation decisions into easily understandable choices, for use in Switzerland. We conducted focus groups in twelve Swiss cities, recruiting from a range of socio-economic backgrounds in the three language regions. FINDINGS: Participants developed strategic arguments based on the importance of basic coverage for all, and of cost-benefit evaluation. They also expressed arguments relying on a principle of solidarity, in particular the importance of protection for vulnerable groups, and on the importance of medical care. They struggled with the place of personal responsibility in coverage decisions. In commenting on the exercise, participants found the degree of consensus despite differing opinions surprising and valuable. CONCLUSION: The Swiss population is particularly attentive to the costs of health care and means of reducing these costs. Swiss citizens are capable of making trade-offs and setting priorities for complex health issues.

Assisted Suicide in Switzerland: Clarifying Liberties and Claims.

Assisting suicide is legal in Switzerland if it is offered without selfish motive to a person with decision-making capacity. Although the 'Swiss model' for suicide assistance has been extensively described in the literature, the formally and informally protected liberties and claims of assistors and recipients of suicide assistance in Switzerland are incompletely captured in the literature. In this article, we describe the package of rights involved in the 'Swiss model' using the framework of Hohfeldian rights as modified by Wenar. After outlining this framework, we dissect the rights involved in suicide assistance in Switzerland, and compare it with the situation in England and Germany. Based on this approach, we conclude that in Switzerland, claim rights exist for those requesting suicide assistance, and for those who are considering providing such assistance, even though no entitlements exist toward suicide assistance. We then describe the implementation of the 'Swiss model' and difficulties arising within it. Clarifying these issues is important to understand the Swiss situation, to evaluate what features of it may or may not be worth correcting or emulating, and to understand how it can impact requests for suicide assistance in other countries due to 'suicide tourism'. It is also important to understand exactly what sets Switzerland apart from other countries with different legislations regarding suicide assistance.

Self-Reported Rationing Behavior Among US Physicians: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Rationing is a controversial topic among US physicians. Understanding their attitudes and behaviors around rationing may be essential to a more open and sensible professional discourse on this important but controversial topic. OBJECTIVE: To describe rationing behavior and associated factors among US physicians. DESIGN: Survey mailed to US physicians in 2012 to evaluate self-reported rationing behavior and variables related to this behavior. SETTING: US physicians across a full spectrum of practice settings. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2541 respondents, representing 65.6 % of the original mailing list of 3872 US addresses. INTERVENTIONS: The study was a cross-sectional analysis of physician attitudes and self-reported behaviors, with neutral language representations of the behaviors as well as an embedded experiment to test the influence of the word "ration" on perceived responsibility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall percentage of respondents reporting rationing behavior in various contexts and assessment of attitudes toward rationing. KEY RESULTS: In total, 1348 respondents (53.1 %) reported having personally refrained within the past 6 months from using specific clinical services that would have provided the best patient care, because of health system cost. Prescription drugs (n = 1073 [48.3 %]) and magnetic resonance imaging (n = 922 [44.5 %]) were most frequently rationed. Surgical and procedural specialists were less likely to report rationing behavior (adjusted odds ratio [OR] [95 % CI], 0.8 [0.9-0.9] and 0.5 [0.4-0.6], respectively) compared to primary care. Compared with small or solo practices, those in medical school settings reported less rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.4 [0.2-0.7]). Physicians who self-identified as very or somewhat liberal were significantly less likely to report rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.7 [0.6-0.9]) than those self-reporting being very or somewhat conservative. A more positive opinion about rationing tended to align with greater odds of rationing. CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of respondents engaged in behavior consistent with rationing. Practicing physicians in specific subgroups were more likely to report rationing behavior.

Adapting Preclinical Benchmarks for First-in-Human Trials of Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Based Therapies.

UNLABELLED: : As research on human embryonic stem cell (hESC)-based therapies is moving from the laboratory to the clinic, there is an urgent need to assess when it can be ethically justified to make the step from preclinical studies to the first protocols involving human subjects. We examined existing regulatory frameworks stating preclinical requirements relevant to the move to first-in-human (FIH) trials and assessed how they may be applied in the context of hESC-based interventions to best protect research participants. Our findings show that some preclinical benchmarks require rethinking (i.e., identity, purity), while others need to be specified (i.e., potency, viability), owing to the distinctive dynamic heterogeneity of hESC-based products, which increases uncertainty and persistence of safety risks and allows for limited predictions of effects in vivo. Rethinking or adaptation of how to apply preclinical benchmarks in specific cases will be required repeatedly for different hESC-based products. This process would benefit from mutual learning if researchers included these components in the description of their methods in publications. SIGNIFICANCE: To design translational research with an eye to protecting human participants in early trials, researchers and regulators need to start their efforts at the preclinical stage. Existing regulatory frameworks for preclinical research, however, are not really adapted to this in the case of stem cell translational medicine. This article reviews existing regulatory frameworks for preclinical requirements and assesses how their underlying principles may best be applied in the context of human embryonic stem cell-based interventions for the therapy of Parkinson's disease. This research will help to address the question of when it is ethically justified to start first-in-human trials in stem cell translational medicine.

Fleshing out vulnerability.

In the literature on medical ethics, it is generally admitted that vulnerable persons or groups deserve special attention, care or protection. One can define vulnerable persons as those having a greater likelihood of being wronged - that is, of being denied adequate satisfaction of certain legitimate claims. The conjunction of these two points entails what we call the Special Protection Thesis. It asserts that persons with a greater likelihood of being denied adequate satisfaction of their legitimate claims deserve special attention, care or protection. Such a thesis remains vague, however, as long as we do not know what legitimate claims are. This article aims at dispelling this vagueness by exploring what claims we have in relation to health care - thus fleshing out a claim-based conception of vulnerability. We argue that the Special Protection Thesis must be enriched as follows: If individual or group X has a greater likelihood of being denied adequate satisfaction of some of their legitimate claims to (i) physical integrity, (ii) autonomy, (iii) freedom, (iv) social provision, (v) impartial quality of government, (vi) social bases of self-respect or (vii) communal belonging, then X deserves special attention, care or protection. With this improved understanding of vulnerability, vulnerability talk in healthcare ethics can escape vagueness and serve as an adequate basis for practice.

Why physicians ought to lie for their patients.

Sometimes physicians lie to third-party payers in order to grant their patients treatment they would otherwise not receive. This strategy, commonly known as gaming the system, is generally condemned for three reasons. First, it may hurt the patient for the sake of whom gaming was intended. Second, it may hurt other patients. Third, it offends contractual and distributive justice. Hence, gaming is considered to be immoral behavior. This article is an attempt to show that, on the contrary, gaming may sometimes be a physician's duty. Under specific circumstances, gaming may be necessary from the viewpoint of the internal morality of medicine. Moreover, the objections against gaming are examples of what we call the idealistic fallacy, that is, the fallacy of passing judgments in a nonideal world according to ideal standards. Hence, the objections are inconclusive. Gaming is sometimes justified, and may even be required in the name of beneficence.

Clinical indication as an ethical appraisal: the example of imaging before middle ear surgery.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Asking whether imaging is indicated before middle ear surgery requires us to examine the question of indication more generally. PROCEDURES: Clinical indication integrates different levels, which are distinguished in this paper. As deciding whether or not an intervention is indicated requires different approaches on each of these levels, these approaches are also explored. RESULTS: Even when sufficient data are available to determine whether an intervention brings some benefit, knowing whether or not this intervention is indicated still requires us to answer 3 additional questions: (1) Is the intervention sufficiently beneficial to be clinically relevant? (2) Is the intervention 'reasonable' in terms of its opportunity costs? (3) How are we to decide which interventions 'make the cut', and which do not? Although we may all have an informed opinion on this topic, the question of the thresholds we ought to apply to very marginal benefits is one where the best answer can only be the one we have all agreed on. This requires a guideline integrating elements of procedural fairness, developed in conditions of protection from the risks of conflicts of interests. CONCLUSION: Although some of these questions integrate considerations of costs, not all do. However, all integrate value judgements, making clinical indication in part a question of ethical appraisal.

Vulnerability in research and health care; describing the elephant in the room?

Despite broad agreement that the vulnerable have a claim to special protection, defining vulnerable persons or populations has proved more difficult than we would like. This is a theoretical as well as a practical problem, as it hinders both convincing justifications for this claim and the practical application of required protections. In this paper, I review consent-based, harm-based, and comprehensive definitions of vulnerability in healthcare and research with human subjects. Although current definitions are subject to critique, their underlying assumptions may be complementary. I propose that we should define vulnerability in research and healthcare as an identifiably increased likelihood of incurring additional or greater wrong. In order to identify the vulnerable, as well as the type of protection that they need, this definition requires that we start from the sorts of wrongs likely to occur and from identifiable increments in the likelihood, or to the likely degree, that these wrongs will occur. It is limited but appropriately so, as it only applies to special protection, not to any protection to which we have a valid claim. Using this definition would clarify that the normative force of claims for special protection does not rest with vulnerability itself, but with pre-existing claims when these are more likely to be denied. Such a clarification could help those who carry responsibility for the protection of vulnerable populations, such as Institutional Review Boards, to define the sort of protection required in a more targeted and effective manner.

Physicians' views on resource availability and equity in four European health care systems.

BACKGROUND: In response to limited resources, health care systems have adopted diverse cost-containment strategies and give priority to differing types of interventions. The perception of physicians, who witness the effects of these strategies, may provide useful insights regarding the impact of system-wide priority setting on access to care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey to ascertain generalist physicians' perspectives on resources allocation and its consequences in Norway, Switzerland, Italy and the UK. RESULTS: Survey respondents (N = 656, response rate 43%) ranged in age from 28-82, and averaged 25 years in practice. Most respondents (87.7%) perceived some resources as scarce, with the most restrictive being: access to nursing home, mental health services, referral to a specialist, and rehabilitation for stroke. Respondents attributed adverse outcomes to scarcity, and some respondents had encountered severe adverse events such as death or permanent disability. Despite universal coverage, 45.6% of respondents reported instances of underinsurance. Most respondents (78.7%) also reported some patient groups as more likely than others to be denied beneficial care on the basis of cost. Almost all respondents (97.3%) found at least one cost-containment policy acceptable. The types of policies preferred suggest that respondents are willing to participate in cost-containment, and do not want to be guided by administrative rules (11.2%) or restrictions on hospital beds (10.7%). CONCLUSION: Physician reports can provide an indication of how organizational factors may affect availability and equity of health care services. Physicians are willing to participate in cost-containment decisions, rather than be guided by administrative rules. Tools should be developed to enable physicians, who are in a unique position to observe unequal access or discrimination in their health care environment, to address these issues in a more targeted way.

A framework for rationing by clinical judgment.

Although rationing by clinical judgment is controversial, its acceptability partly depends on how it is practiced. In this paper, rationing by clinical judgment is defined in three different circumstances that represent increasingly wider circles of resource pools in which the rationing decision takes place: triage during acute shortage, comparison to other potential patients in a context of limited but not immediately strained resources, and determination of whether expected benefit of an intervention is deemed sufficient to warrant its cost by reference to published population based thresholds. Notions of procedural justice are applied along with an analytical framework of six minimal requisites in order to facilitate fair bedside rationing: (1) a closed system that offers reciprocity, (2) attention to general concerns of justice, (3) respect for individual variations, (4) application of a consistent process, (5) explicitness, and (6) review of decisions. The process could be monitored for its applicability and appropriateness.