Bystander Ethics and Good Samaritanism: A Paradox for Learning Health Organizations.

In 2012, a U.S. Institute of Medicine report called for a different approach to health care: "Left unchanged, health care will continue to underperform; cause unnecessary harm; and strain national, state, and family budgets." The answer, they suggested, would be a "continuously learning" health system. Ethicists and researchers urged the creation of "learning health organizations" that would integrate knowledge from patient-care data to continuously improve the quality of care. Our experience with an ongoing research study on atrial fibrillation-a trial known as IMPACT-AFib-gave us some insight into one of the challenges that will have to be dealt with in creating these organizations. Although the proposed educational intervention study placed no restrictions on what providers and health plans could do, the oversight team argued that the ethical principle of beneficence did not allow the researchers to be "bystanders" in relation to a control group receiving suboptimal care. In response, the researchers designed a "workaround" that allowed the project to go forward. We believe the experience suggests that what we call "bystander ethics" will create challenges for the kinds of quality improvement research that LHOs are designed to do.

Rationing Care through Collaboration and Shared Values.

Although "rationing" continues to be a dirty word for the public in health policy discourse, Nir Eyal and colleagues handle the concept exactly right in their article in this issue of the Hastings Center Report. They correctly characterize rationing as an ethical requirement, not a moral abomination. They identify the key health policy question as how rationing can best be done, not whether it should be done at all. They make a cogent defense of what they call "rationing through inconvenience" as a justifiable allocational technique. And they wisely call for research on the effectiveness and fairness of this approach and other methods of rationing. I fully agree with their approach to rationing and with their argument that the process they provocatively label "rationing through inconvenience" should not be rejected out of hand. But I believe they have underestimated two ways in which the practical impacts of rationing through inconvenience limit its potential usefulness: the asymmetry of its effect on patients and physicians and the way in which it reduces the capacity of health systems to learn from experience.

A framework of ethics for telepsychiatry practice.

Psychiatrists who provide telepsychiatric services must uphold the standards of ethics and professionalism expected in in-person interactions. Psychiatrists' fundamental ethical responsibilities do not change when they take up a new form of practice. But as in other areas of medicine, the introduction of a new technology - here, Internet use and videoconferencing - raises new ethical challenges, requiring a fresh look at clinical practice and social issues such as equitable access. This review discusses these new challenges under six headings: providing competent, safe care, ensuring informed consent, promoting privacy and confidentiality, managing boundaries, encouraging continuity of care, and addressing health equity. Ethical guidelines for in-person practice have emerged from decades of clinical discussion and carefully observed treatment in the office and hospital setting. New observations, clinical reports, and shared discussion and learning must do the same for telepsychiatry in the years to come.

Consumer awareness and strategies among families with high-deductible health plans.

OBJECTIVE: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are a new and controversial approach to increasing the share of health care costs paid by patients. Our study had the following aims: (1) to describe the experiences of families with HDHPs who had incurred high out-of-pocket costs and (2) to identify areas where clinicians could support more effective health care decisions by such families. METHODS: We conducted four focus groups with adults whose families had HDHPs in a New England-based health plan and had experienced high or unexpected out-of-pocket health care costs during the past 12 months. Transcripts of audio recordings were independently coded by three investigators using modified grounded theory techniques. RESULTS: The 21 focus group participants had a good general understanding of how their HDHP worked, but reported confusion about specific processes due to the plans' complexity. They described heightened awareness of health care costs, and identified important barriers to their ability to control costs. These included needing to seek care for urgent problems without having the time to assess potential costs; having mistaken expectations about what services the HDHP covered; and being reluctant to discuss costs with doctors. They attempted to control costs by delaying or avoiding visits to doctors, but felt they had little control over costs once a clinical encounter had begun. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HDHPs reported heightened sensitivity to health care costs, and described important barriers to their ability to make effective choices. Helping such patients make optimal decisions will likely require systems-level changes that involve clinicians and health insurers.

Best practices in policy and access (coding and reimbursement) for weight loss surgery.

To update evidence-based best practice guidelines for coding and reimbursement and establish policy and access standards for weight loss surgery (WLS). Systematic search of English-language literature on WLS and health-care policy, access, insurance reimbursement, coding, private payers, public policy, and mandated benefits published between April 2004 and May 2007 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Use of key words to narrow the search for a selective review of abstracts, retrieval of full articles, and grading of evidence according to systems used in established evidence-based models. We identified 51 publications in our literature search; the 20 most relevant were examined in detail. These included reviews, cost-benefit analyses, and trend and cost studies from administrative databases. Literature on policy issues surrounding WLS are very sparse and largely focused on economic analyses. Reports on policy initiatives in the public and private arenas are primarily limited to narrative reviews of nonsurgical efforts to fight obesity. A substantial body of work shows that WLS improves or reverses most obesity-related comorbidities. Mounting evidence also indicates that WLS confers a significant survival advantage for those who undergo it. WLS is a viable and cost-effective treatment for an increasingly common disease, and policy decisions are more frequently being linked to incentives for national health-care goals. However, access to WLS often varies by payer and region. Currently, there are no uniform criteria for determining patient appropriateness for surgery.

Cluster randomized trials to study the comparative effectiveness of therapeutics: stakeholders' concerns and recommendations.

PURPOSE: To describe the concerns raised by health plan members, providers and purchasers related to studying the comparative effectiveness of therapeutics using cluster randomized trials (CRTs) within health plans. An additional goal was to develop recommendations for increasing acceptability. METHODS: Eighty-four qualitative in-depth telephone interviews were conducted; 50 with health plan members, 21 with providers, and 13 with purchasers. Interviews focused on stakeholders' concerns about and recommendations for conducting CRTs in health plans. RESULTS: Members expressed concerns that CRTs might compromise their healthcare. Providers and purchasers recognized the value of and the need for comparative effectiveness research. Providers expressed concerns that they would not have sufficient time to discuss a CRT with patients, and that participation in such a study could negatively impact their relationships with patients. Purchasers would want assurances that study participation would not result in members receiving lesser care, and that benefits would remain equitable for all members. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into how health plan members, providers and purchasers might react to a CRT being conducted in their health plan. The recommendations reported here provide guidance for researchers and policy makers considering this methodological approach and suggest that with sufficient preparation and planning CRTs can be an acceptable and efficient methodology for studying the comparative effectiveness of therapeutics in real world settings.

Cluster randomized trials: opportunities and barriers identified by leaders of eight health plans.

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) offer unique advantages over standard randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and observational methodologies, and may provide a cost-efficient alternative for answering questions about the best treatments for common conditions. OBJECTIVES: To describe health plan leaders' views on CRTs, identify barriers to conducting CRTs, and solicit recommendations for increasing the acceptability of CRTs. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative in-depth telephone interviews with leaders from 8 health plans. SUBJECTS: : Thirty-four health plan leaders (medical directors, pharmacy directors, Institutional Review Board leaders, ethics leaders, compliance leaders, and others). MEASURES: Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts to identify barriers, factors influencing leaders' views, ethical issues, aspects of CRTs that appeal to leaders, and recommendations for increasing acceptability of CRTs. RESULTS: Multiple barriers were identified, including financial costs, concerns about stakeholders' perceptions of CRTs, impact on physicians' prescribing habits, and formulary changes. Most leaders recognized the potential value of studying the comparative effectiveness of therapeutics, and many stressed the need for head-to-head trials. Leaders' views would be influenced by variations in study design and implementation. Recommendations for increasing acceptability of CRTs included ensuring that the fiscal impact of a CRT be budget neutral, and that researchers educate stakeholders and decision-makers about CRTs. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, health plan leaders recognized the need for studies of the comparative effectiveness of therapeutics under real world conditions, and many expressed support for CRTs. However, researchers seeking to conduct CRTs in health plans are likely to face numerous barriers, and preparatory work will be essential.

Gaps in vaccine financing for underinsured children in the United States.

CONTEXT: The number of new vaccines recommended for children and adolescents has nearly doubled during the past 5 years, and the cost of fully vaccinating a child has increased dramatically in the past decade. Anecdotal reports from state policy makers and clinicians suggest that new gaps have arisen in financial coverage of vaccines for children who are underinsured (ie, have private insurance that does not cover all recommended vaccines). In 2000, approximately 14% of children were underinsured for vaccines in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To describe variation among states in the provision of new vaccines to underinsured children and to identify barriers to state purchase and distribution of new vaccines. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 2-phase mixed-methods study of state immunization program managers in the United States. The first phase included 1-hour qualitative telephone interviews conducted from November to December 2005 with 9 program managers chosen to represent different state vaccine financing policies. The second phase incorporated findings from phase 1 to develop a national telephone and paper-based survey of state immunization program managers that was conducted from January to June 2006. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of states in which underinsured children are unable to receive publicly purchased vaccines in the private or public sectors. RESULTS: Immunization program managers from 48 states (96%) participated in the study. Underinsured children were not eligible to receive publicly purchased meningococcal conjugate or pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in the private sector in 70% and 50% of states, respectively, or in the public sector in 40% and 17% of states, respectively. Due to limited financing for new vaccines, 10 states changed their policies for provision of publicly purchased vaccines between 2004 and early 2006 to restrict access to selected new vaccines for underinsured children. The most commonly cited barriers to implementation in underinsured children were lack of sufficient federal and state funding to purchase vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The current vaccine financing system has resulted in gaps for underinsured children in the United States, many of whom are now unable to receive publicly purchased vaccines in either the private or public sectors. Additional strategies are needed to ensure financial coverage for all vaccines, particularly new vaccines, among this vulnerable population.

Confronting trade-offs in health care: Harvard Pilgrim Health Care's organizational ethics program.

Patients, providers, and policy leaders need a new moral compass to guide them in the turbulent U.S. health care system. Task forces have proposed excellent ethical codes, but these have been seen as too abstract to provide guidance at the front lines. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care's ten-year experience with an organizational ethics program suggests ways in which health care organizations can strengthen transparency, consumer focus, and overall ethical performance and contribute to the national health policy dialogue.

A proposed ethical framework for prescription drug benefit allocation policy.

OBJECTIVES: To present an ethical framework that could aid prescription drug benefit design and to propose that such a framework could be organized around a benefit allocation hierarchy. SUMMARY: Four hierarchical levels of allocation are proposed, as follows: (1) drug categories and subcategories, (2) individual drugs within covered drug categories, (3) specific indications of covered drugs, and (4) special features of drug use, such as quantities covered for specific indications. Rationales for decision making should address the distinct ethical issues apparent at each level. CONCLUSION: Ethical issues associated with designing and managing a pharmacy benefit can be identified by using a hierarchical prescription drug allocation scheme. Articulating these issues is an important first step toward arriving at a fully developed framework that will serve to produce rationales acceptable to typical stakeholders in prescription drug benefits.

An ethical template for pharmacy benefits.

We propose an ethical template for pharmacy benefits and a fair process for using it. The template delineates four levels of decisions about pharmacy coverage, connecting ethically acceptable types of rationales for limits with decisions made at each level. It provides a framework for organizing ethically relevant reasons for coverage (or the tiered copayments). The process for using the template assures accountability for the reasonableness of benefit decisions. It requires transparency and relevance of rationales for limit setting and revisability of decisions, including through fair procedures for appeals. The template and the process facilitate broader public learning about fair limit setting.