Billing for Electronic Patient-Physician Communications: An Ethical Analysis.

This review paper analyzes the ethical implications of billing patients for electronic communication with physicians through electronic health records, a practice already adopted by medical institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic. The analysis assesses how billing aligns with pillars of medical ethics which include beneficence, respect for persons, and justice. Although billing may enhance communication, improve patient care, and alleviate physician burnout, concerns arise over potential consequences on patient autonomy, trust, and health care disparities. The review delves into the intricate balance of these ethical principles by first considering the potential benefits of incentivizing concise questions and improving physician workload management through billing. By reducing messages, this approach can potentially mitigate burnout and enhance care. It also acknowledges potential drawbacks such as deterring patients because of financial constraints and eroding trust in physicians and the medical team. It emphasizes the necessity of thoroughly examining all aspects of this intricate ethical dilemma to formulate a nuanced solution that protects patient well-being while respecting physicians. We propose a middle-ground approach involving nominal and transparent billing on the basis of the question's complexity, urgency, and level of expertise required in the response. Transparent billing policies, up-front communication of costs, and potential fee waivers on the basis of socioeconomic status can address equity concerns and maintain patient trust. Striking a balance between the potential benefits and drawbacks of billing for patient questions is crucial in maintaining ethical patient-physician interactions and equitable health care provision. The analysis underscores the importance of aligning online patient-physician communication with ethical principles within the evolving digital health care landscape.

Evaluating the impact of the Patient Preference Assessment Tool on clinicians' recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Many groups recommend assessment of patient preferences particularly for patients with advanced, incurable cancer. We, therefore, developed the Patient Preference Assessment Tool (PPAT) to ascertain patient preferences in order to inform clinician recommendations and improve shared decision-making. The aim of this study is to assess the PPAT's impact on clinicians' strength of recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials. METHODS: Clinicians recorded the strength of their recommendation on a Likert scale before viewing the patient's PPAT. After viewing the PPAT, the clinician discussed the clinical trial with the patient and then recorded the strength of recommendation again. If there was a change, the clinician noted the reason for the change: clinical findings or patient preference. Clinicians were interviewed about the acceptability of the tool. Our threshold for determining if a change in recommendation due to the PPAT was significant was 20%, given the multiple factors influencing a clinician's recommendation. We also noted the type of phase I conversation observed based on classifications defined in prior work-priming, treatment-options, trial logistics, consent. RESULTS: N = 29. The strength of the clinicians' recommendations changed due to patient preferences in 7 of 29 (24%) of the conversations. The seven changes due to preferences were all in the 23 treatment-options conversations, for an impact rate of 30% in this type of conversation. 82% of clinicians found the PPAT useful. CONCLUSION: The PPAT was impactful in an academic setting, exceeding our 20% impact threshold. This tool helps achieve the important goal of incorporating patient preferences into shared decision-making about clinical trials.

Patient perspectives on compensation for biospecimen donation.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether biospecimen donors believe they should receive compensation. This is the first study to report biospecimen donors' views on compensation and can potentially improve informed consent and recruitment practices. METHODS: Researchers asked patients undergoing surgical removal of tissue to donate biological materials to a biobank; the request was made at their presurgical appointment or in the preoperative clinic of the Emory University Hospital. We interviewed 126 biospecimen donors within 30 days post surgery regarding their perspective on compensation for biospecimen donation. RESULTS: In response to the question "Should you be paid for your participation in the tissue bank?," 95 (95/126, 75%) participants answered "No." Of these, 55 (55/95, 58%) indicated that donating biological materials should be about altruism, not gaining a monetary reward. Only 11 (11/126, 9%) participants unequivocally believed they should receive compensation, while 14 (14/126, 11%) felt entitled to compensation only under specific circumstances. Eleven (11/14) "Depends" participants indicated that donors should only be compensated when researchers perform for-profit research. Responses varied by race and income level, with whites more likely to not feel entitled to compensation and higher income participants more likely to respond "Depends." CONCLUSIONS: The majority of biospecimen donors stated they should not be paid for tissue bank participation. However, a minority believe they should be paid for donating tissue if the tissue is used in revenue-generating projects. These results provide some support for the current biobanking practice of not providing compensation.

Referral Patterns and Clinical Outcomes for Transplant-Eligible Lymphoma and Myeloma Patients Evaluated at an Urban County Hospital.

Disparities in clinical care have been described for patients with limited insurance coverage or social support. We hypothesized that patients with relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), or multiple myeloma (MM) treated at an urban county hospital serving indigent and under-insured patients would face barriers for referral to a private academic transplant center for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Charts of patients with HL, NHL, or MM treated at Grady Memorial Hospital between 2007 and 2013 were reviewed, and 215 patients with diagnosis of HD (n=40), NHL (n=96), and MM (n=79). 55 patients were referred for ASCT consults and 160 patients were not referred. Reasons for transplant non-referral included established clinical criteria (64% of cases), poor performance status (13%), refusal (4%), moved/lost-to-follow-up (4%), medical non-compliance (3%), death (3%), or referral to another hospital (1%). Non-referral based upon socio-economic criteria included: lack of legal immigration status/insurance (2%), and lack of social support/substance abuse (2%). Among the 55 referred patients, 27 patients (49%) underwent ASCT. Median follow-up for all referred patients from the time of diagnosis was 3.9 [0.7-22.7] years. 5-year survival from the date of diagnosis for patients who received ASCT was 80.2% versus 65.7% for non-transplanted patients (log-rank test, p-value=0.11). While the referral process did not demonstrate significant barriers based upon insurance or social status, further evaluation is needed to identify modifiable factors that can improve referral and assess the impact of the Affordable Care Act on access to ASCT.

Unmet needs of siblings of pediatric stem cell transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2010, the Bioethics Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics issued recommendations that pediatric hematopoietic stem cell donors should have an independent advocate. Formulating appropriate guidelines is hindered by the lack of prospective empirical evidence from families about the experience of siblings during typing and donation. Our aim was to provide these data. METHODS: Families with a child scheduled to undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant were recruited. All family members, including children aged 9 to 22 years, were eligible. Qualitative interviews were conducted within 3 time periods: pretransplant, 6 to 8, and 9 to 11 months posttransplant. Quantitative scales assessing decision satisfaction and regret were administered at time 2. RESULTS: Thirty-three families were interviewed. Of the 119 family members, 76% perceived there was no choice in the decision to HLA-type siblings; 77% perceived no choice in sibling donation; 86% had no concerns about typing other than needle sticks; and 64% had no concerns about donation. Common concerns raised were dislike of needle sticks (19%), stress before typing results (14%), and fear of donation (15%). Posttransplantation, 33% of donors wished they had been given more information; 56% of donors stated they benefited from donation. Only 1 donor expressed regret posttransplant. CONCLUSIONS: Most family members did not view sibling typing and donation as a choice, were positive about the experience, and did not express regrets. We recommend education for all siblings before typing, comprehensive education for the donor by a health care provider pretransplant, and systematic donor follow-up after transplantation.

Community consultation for prehospital research: experiences of study coordinators and principal investigators.

OBJECTIVE: To assess principal investigators' and study coordinators' views and experiences regarding community consultation in a multicenter trial of prehospital treatment for status epilepticus conducted under an exception from informed consent for research in emergency settings. METHODS: Principal investigators and study coordinators at all 17 hubs for the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) were invited to complete a web-based survey regarding community consultation at their site for RAMPART. Major domains included 1) perceived goals of community consultation, 2) experiences with and views of community consultation methods used, 3) interactions with IRB regarding community consultation, and 4) general satisfaction and lessons learned. Descriptive statistics were tabulated for Likert scale data; relevant themes were reported for text-based data. RESULTS: Twenty-eight individuals (16 coordinators and 12 investigators) representing all 17 RAMPART hubs completed the survey. Respondents considered multiple community consultation goals to be important, with least support for the role of community consultation in altering study design. All sites used multiple methods (median = 5). The most widely used, and generally favored, method was attending previously scheduled meetings of existing groups. Respondents expressed frustration with low attendance and responsiveness at open public meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinators and investigators in this trial viewed community consultation efforts as successful but reported real challenges generating public interest. Individuals with the condition under study were found to be more engaged and supportive of the trial. Respondents endorsed numerous potential goals of the community consultation process and often combined methods to achieve these goals.

Recommendations for the return of research results to study participants and guardians: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: The Children's Oncology Group (COG) strongly supports the widely recognized principle that research participants should be offered a summary of study results. The mechanism by which to do so in a cooperative research group setting has not been previously described. METHODS: On the basis of a review of the available empirical and theoretic literature and on iterative, multidisciplinary discussion, a COG Return of Results Task Force (RRTF) offered detailed recommendations for the return of results to research study participants. RESULTS: The RRTF established guidelines for the notification of research participants and/or their parents/guardians about the availability of research results, a mechanism for and timing of sharing results via registration on the COG public Web site, the scope of the research to be shared, the target audience, and a process for creating and vetting lay summaries of study results. The RRTF recognized the challenges in adequately conveying complex scientific results to audiences with varying levels of health literacy and recommended that particularly sensitive or complex results be returned using direct personal contact. The RRTF also recommended evaluation of the cost, effectiveness, and impact of sharing results. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide a framework for the offering and returning of results to participants. They can be used by individual investigators, multi-investigator research collaboratives, and large cooperative groups.

Spreading it around: money for researcher and research participants.

There is a consensus that inducements for participants in research studies are ethically permitted as long as they are not "undue." The subject of inducements for investigators has not been ethically analyzed. This essay outlines the three models for compensation suggested by Dickert and Grady--market model, reimbursement model and wage-payment model--and argues that this analysis can be fruitfully applied to remuneration for investigators. Currently, investigators are compensated according to the market model, resulting in undue inducement. Investigators should be compensated according to the wage-payment model, as skilled workers, at the rate an internist earns per hour. The wage-payment model avoids undue inducement, but compensates investigators, particularly non-academic investigators who are not salaried, for their time and effort. However, additional safeguards must be erected: investigators must demonstrate research competency for the studies they are to manage; they must understand research ethics; all investigators must be routinely audited; and subjects must be informed of all remuneration that investigators receive.