Physician services and costs after disclosure of diagnostic sequencing results in the NYCKidSeq program.

PURPOSE: To better understand the effects of returning diagnostic sequencing results on clinical actions and economic outcomes for pediatric patients with suspected genetic disorders. METHODS: Longitudinal physician claims data after diagnostic sequencing were obtained for patients aged 0 to 21 years with neurologic, cardiac, and immunologic disorders with suspected genetic etiology. We assessed specialist consultation rates prompted by primary diagnostic results, as well as marginal effects on overall 18-month physician services and costs. RESULTS: We included data on 857 patients (median age: 9.6 years) with a median follow-up of 17.3 months after disclosure of diagnostic sequencing results. The likelihood of having ≥1 recommendation for specialist consultation in 155 patients with positive findings was high (72%) vs 23% in 443 patients with uncertain findings and 21% in 259 patients with negative findings (P < .001). Follow-through consultation occurred in 30%. Increases in 18-month physician services and costs following a positive finding diminished after multivariable adjustment. Also, no significant differences between those with uncertain and negative findings were demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Our study did not provide evidence for significant increases in downstream physician services and costs after returning positive or uncertain diagnostic sequencing findings. More large-scale longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Medicine and Contextual Justice.

This article provides a critique of the monolithic accounts that define justice in terms of a single and often inappropriate goal. By providing an array of real examples, I argue that there is no simple definition of justice, because allocations that express justice are governed by a variety of reasons that reasonable people endorse for their saliency. In making difficult choices about ranking priorities, different considerations have different importance in different kinds of situations. In this sense, justice is a conclusion about whether an allocation reflects the human interests and priorities that are at stake. The article describes how several principles of justice have a legitimate place in medical allocations. To achieve justice within medical practice, professionals should focus on the human interests and compelling reasons for prioritizing specific principles within their specific medical domain.

The Ethical Implications of the Reclassification of Noninvasive Follicular Variant Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have highlighted the lack of consensus in the diagnosis of follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (FVPTC). An international multidisciplinary panel to address the controversy was assembled at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Pathology Society in March of 2015, leading to the recent publication reclassifying encapsulated (or noninvasive) FVPTC (EFVPTC) as a benign neoplasm. Does this change in histologic taxonomy warrant a change in clinical practice, and how should it affect those who have been given this diagnosis in the past? We consider the financial and psychological impact of this reclassification and discuss the ethical, legal, and practical issues involved with sharing this information with the patients who are affected. SUMMARY: The total direct and indirect cost of thyroid cancer surveillance in patients is significant. High levels of clinically relevant distress affect up to 43% of patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma, as estimated by the Distress Thermometer developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for detecting distress in cancer patients. Although there are currently no legal opinions that establish a precedent for recontacting patients whose clinical status is altered by a change in nomenclature, the prudent course would be to attend to the requirements of medical ethics. CONCLUSION: Informing patients with a previous diagnosis of EFVPTC that the disease has been reclassified as benign is expected to have a dramatic effect on their surveillance needs and to alleviate the psychological impact of living with a diagnosis of cancer. It is important to re-evaluate the pathologic slides of those patients at risk to ensure that the invasive nature of the tumor is comprehensively evaluated before notifying a patient of a change in diagnosis. The availability of the entire tumor for evaluation of the capsule may prove to be a challenge for a portion of the population at risk. We believe that it is the clinician's professional duty to make a sincere and reasonable effort to convey the information to the affected patients. We also believe that the cost savings with respect to the need for additional surgery, radioactive iodine, and rigorous surveillance associated with a misinterpretation of the biology of the diagnosis of EFVPTC in less experienced hands will likely more than offset the cost incurred in histologic review and patient notification.

An Ethical Exploration of Barriers to Research on Controlled Drugs.

We examine the ethical, social, and regulatory barriers that may hinder research on therapeutic potential of certain controversial controlled substances like marijuana, heroin, or ketamine. Hazards for individuals and society and potential adverse effects on communities may be good reasons for limiting access and justify careful monitoring of these substances. Overly strict regulations, fear of legal consequences, stigma associated with abuse and populations using illicit drugs, and lack of funding may, however, limit research on their considerable therapeutic potential. We review the surprisingly sparse literature and address the particular ethical concerns pertinent to research with illicit and addictive substances, such as undue inducement, informed consent, therapeutic misconception, and risk to participants, researchers, and institutions. We consider the perspectives of key research stakeholders and explore whether they may be infected with bias. We conclude by proposing an empirical research agenda to provide an evidentiary basis for ethical reasoning.

Rethinking research ethics.

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.

Transplant tourism.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Because of the ongoing organ donor shortage, transplant tourism is occurring at an increasing rate both in the USA and abroad. To date, there have been little published data to help guide the programmatic philosophy of the USA transplant centers regarding transplant tourism. RECENT FINDINGS: We summarize position statements from several transplant societies regarding transplant tourism and specifically transplantation occurring in China (because of the use of executed prisoners as organ donors). Transplant tourism is ever increasing and patients may be at risk for greater post-transplant morbidity as well as inadequate follow up care. Transplant centers require some guidance with regard of how to deal with these patients. SUMMARY: Transplant tourism is an increasing reality facing the USA transplant centers. Most professional societies do not condone it yet cannot abrogate a physician's right to care for such patients. Ethical principles mandate transplant physicians provide adequate care for returning transplant tourists. Better ways of assessing the scope of the problem are necessary. Transplant tourism may exist because of the disparity between the need for organ donors and their availability and is thus is likely to continue into the future.

Transplant tourism in China: a tale of two transplants.

The use of organs obtained from executed prisoners in China has recently been condemned by every major transplant organization. The government of the People's Republic of China has also recently made it illegal to provide transplant organs from executed prisoners to foreigners transplant tourists. Nevertheless, the extreme shortage of transplant organs in the U.S. continues to make organ transplantation in China an appealing option for some patients with end-stage disease. Their choice of traveling to China for an organ leaves U.S. transplant programs with decisions about how to respond to the needs of patients who return after transplantation. By discussing two cases that raised this dilemma, we argue for upholding medicine's commitments to traditional principles of beneficence and nonjudgmental regard in sorting out the policies that a transplant program should adopt. We also explain how position statements that aim for the high ground of moral purity fail to give appropriate weight to the needs and suffering of present and future patients in the U.S. and in China.

The not unreasonable standard for assessment of surrogates and surrogate decisions.

Standard views on surrogate decision making present alternative ideal models of what ideal surrogates should consider in rendering a decision. They do not, however, explain the physician's responsibility to a patient who lacks decisional capacity or how a physician should regard surrogates and surrogate decisions. The authors argue that it is critical to recognize the moral difference between a patient's decisions and a surrogate's and the professional responsibilities implied by that distinction. In every case involving a patient who lacks decisional capacity, physicians and the treatment team have to make judgments about the appropriateness of both the surrogate and the surrogate's decision. They have to assess the surrogate's decisional capacity and attitude toward the patient as well as the reasons that support the surrogate's decision. This paper provides a model for acceptable surrogate decisions and a standard for blocking inappropriate surrogates. Only decisions based on widely shared reasons are allowable for surrogate refusal of highly beneficial treatment.