Development and Validation of a Risk Score Predicting Death Without Transplant in Adult Heart Transplant Candidates.

Importance: The US heart allocation system prioritizes medically urgent candidates with a high risk of dying without transplant. The current therapy-based 6-status system is susceptible to manipulation and has limited rank ordering ability. Objective: To develop and validate a candidate risk score that incorporates current clinical, laboratory, and hemodynamic data. Design, Setting, and Participants: A registry-based observational study of adult heart transplant candidates (aged ≥18 years) from the US heart allocation system listed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, split by center into training (70%) and test (30%) datasets. Adult candidates were listed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: A US candidate risk score (US-CRS) model was developed by adding a predefined set of predictors to the current French Candidate Risk Score (French-CRS) model. Sensitivity analyses were performed, which included intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (VAD) in the definition of short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for the US-CRS. Performance of the US-CRS model, French-CRS model, and 6-status model in the test dataset was evaluated by time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for death without transplant within 6 weeks and overall survival concordance (c-index) with integrated AUC. Results: A total of 16 905 adult heart transplant candidates were listed (mean [SD] age, 53 [13] years; 73% male; 58% White); 796 patients (4.7%) died without a transplant. The final US-CRS contained time-varying short-term MCS (ventricular assist-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or temporary surgical VAD), the log of bilirubin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, the log of B-type natriuretic peptide, albumin, sodium, and durable left ventricular assist device. In the test dataset, the AUC for death within 6 weeks of listing for the US-CRS model was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83), for the French-CRS model was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.76), and 6-status model was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.62-0.73). Overall c-index for the US-CRS model was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73-0.80), for the French-CRS model was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.65-0.73), and 6-status model was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71). Classifying IABP and percutaneous VAD as short-term MCS reduced the effect size by 54%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based study of US heart transplant candidates, a continuous multivariable allocation score outperformed the 6-status system in rank ordering heart transplant candidates by medical urgency and may be useful for the medical urgency component of heart allocation.

Rationing in an Era of Multiple Tight Constraints: Is Cost-Utility Analysis Still Fit for Purpose?

Cost-utility analysis may not be sufficient to support reimbursement decisions when the assessed health intervention requires a large proportion of the healthcare budget or when the monetary healthcare budget is not the only resource constraint. Such cases include joint replacement, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) interventions and settings where all resources are constrained (e.g. post-COVID-19 or in low/middle-income countries). Using literature on health technology assessment, rationing and reimbursement in healthcare, we identified seven alternative frameworks for simultaneous decisions about (dis)investment and proposed modifications to deal with multiple resource constraints. These frameworks comprised constrained optimisation; cost-effectiveness league table; 'step-in-the-right-direction' approach; heuristics based on effective gradients; weighted cost-effectiveness ratios; multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA); and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). We used numerical examples to demonstrate how five of these alternative frameworks would operate. The modified frameworks we propose could be used in local commissioning and/or health technology assessment to supplement standard cost-utility analysis for interventions that have large budget impact and/or are subject to additional constraints.

The Impact of Rationing Nursing Care on Patient Safety: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND Rationing of nursing care (RONC) has been associated with poor patient outcomes and is a growing concern in healthcare. The aim of this systematic study was to investigate the connection between patient safety and the RONC. MATERIAL AND METHODS A thorough search of electronic databases was done to find research that examined the relationship between restricting nurse services and patient safety. The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two reviewers (M.L. and A.P.) independently screened the titles and abstracts, and full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Data were extracted, and a quality assessment was performed using appropriate techniques. RESULTS A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included in the review demonstrated a correlation between rationing of nursing care and patient safety. The results of these studies revealed that there is an inverse relationship between rationing of nursing care and patient safety. The review found that when nursing care is rationed, there is a higher incidence of falls, medication errors, pressure ulcers, infections, and readmissions. In addition, the review identified that the work characteristics of nurses, such as workload, staffing levels, and experience, were associated with RONC. CONCLUSIONS RONC has a negative impact on patient safety outcomes. It is essential for healthcare organizations to implement effective strategies to prevent the RONC. Improving staffing levels, workload management, and communication amo0ng healthcare providers are some of the strategies that can support this.

The impact of sufferers' wealth status on pain perceptions: Its development and relation to allocation of healthcare resources.

Wealth-based disparities in health care wherein the poor receive undertreatment in painful conditions are a prominent issue that requires immediate attention. Research with adults suggests that these disparities are partly rooted in stereotypes associating poor individuals with pain insensitivity. However, whether and how children consider a sufferer's wealth status in their pain perceptions remains unknown. The present work addressed this question by testing 4- to 9-year-olds from the US and China. In Study 1 (N = 108, 56 girls, 79% White), US participants saw rich and poor White children experiencing identical injuries and indicated who they thought felt more pain. Although 4- to 6-year-olds responded at chance, children aged seven and above attributed more pain to the poor than to the rich. Study 2 with a new sample of US children (N = 111, 56 girls, 69% White) extended this effect to judgments of White adults' pain. Pain judgments also informed children's prosocial behaviors, leading them to provide medical resources to the poor. Studies 3 (N = 118, 59 girls, 100% Asian) and 4 (N = 80, 40 girls, 100% Asian) found that, when evaluating White and Asian people's suffering, Chinese children began to attribute more pain to the poor than to the rich earlier than US children. Thus, unlike US adults, US children and Chinese children recognize the poor's pain from early on. These findings add to our knowledge of group-based beliefs about pain sensitivity and have broad implications on ways to promote equitable health care. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Four studies examined whether 4- to 9-year-old children's pain perceptions were influenced by sufferers' wealth status. US children attributed more pain to White individuals of low wealth status than those of high wealth status by age seven. Chinese children demonstrated an earlier tendency to attribute more pain to the poor (versus the rich) compared to US children. Children's wealth-based pain judgments underlied their tendency to provide healthcare resources to people of low wealth status.

Complementary and Integrative Medicine: a plea for a better resource allocation by the SwissDRG grouping algorithm.

No abstract available.

[Prioritisation in health care: An ethical perspective]. / Keuzes maken in tijden van schaarste.

Scarcity is an increasingly pressing problem currently in health care. To help address growing waiting lists, some hospitals in the Netherlands have begun applying triage of referrals for specialist care by primary care physicians: Which patients must be seen in the hospital, and which patients may just as well be treated in primary care settings? Does this new practice of more stringent triage fall within the scope of normal good care provision, or is something else - such as implicit rationing - at play? This paper analyses decision-making about care from an ethical perspective, using various justice theories, including utilitarianism, egalitarianism, sufficientarianism, and prioritarianism.

Consequences of a shortage and rationing: Evidence from a pediatric vaccine.

Shortages and rationing are common in health care, yet we know little about the consequences. We examine an 18-month shortage of the pediatric Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib) vaccine. Using insurance claims data and variation in shortage exposure across birth cohorts, we find that the shortage reduced uptake of high-value primary doses by 4 percentage points and low-value booster doses by 26 percentage points. This suggests providers largely complied with rationing recommendations. In the long-run, catch-up vaccination occurred but was incomplete: shortage-exposed cohorts were 4 percentage points less likely to have received the ir booster dose years later. We also find that the shortage and rationing caused provider switches, extra provider visits, and negative spillovers to other care.

Equity assessment of maternal and child healthcare benefits utilization and distribution in public healthcare facilities in Bangladesh: a benefit incidence analysis.

BACKGROUND: The distribution of healthcare services should be based on the needs of the population, regardless of their ability to pay. Achieving universal health coverage implies first ensuring that people of all income levels have access to quality healthcare, and then allocating resources reasonably considering individual need. Hence, this study aims to understand how public benefits in Bangladesh are currently distributed among wealth quintiles considering different layers of healthcare facilities and to assess the distributional impact of public benefits. METHODS: To conduct this study, data were extracted from the recent Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2017-18. We performed benefit incidence analysis to determine the distribution of maternal and child healthcare utilization in relation to wealth quintiles. Disaggregated and national-level public benefit incidence analysis was conducted by the types of healthcare services, levels of healthcare facilities, and overall utilization. Concentration curves and concentration indices were estimated to measure the equity in benefits distribution. RESULTS: An unequal utilization of public benefits observed among the wealth quintiles for maternal and child healthcare services across the different levels of healthcare facilities in Bangladesh. Overall, upper two quintiles (richest 19.8% and richer 21.7%) utilized more benefits from public facilities compared to the lower two quintiles (poorest 18.9% and poorer 20.1%). Benefits utilization from secondary level of health facilities was highly pro-rich, while benefit utilization found pro-poor at primary levels. The public benefits in Bangladesh were also not distributed according to the needs of the population; nevertheless, poorest 20% household cannot access 20% share of public benefits in most of the maternal and child healthcare services even if we ignore their needs. CONCLUSIONS: Benefit incidence analysis in public health spending demonstrates the efficacy with which the government allocates constrained health resources to satisfy the needs of the poor. Public health spending in Bangladesh on maternal and child healthcare services were not equally distributed among wealth quintiles. Overall health benefits were more utilized by the rich relative to the poor. Hence, policymakers should prioritize redistribution of resources by targeting the socioeconomically vulnerable segments of the population to increase their access to health services to meet their health needs.

How new clinical roles in primary care impact on equitable distribution of workforce: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: There are inequalities in the geographical distribution of the primary care workforce in England. Primary care networks (PCNs), and the associated Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) funding, have stimulated employment of new healthcare roles. However, it is not clear whether this will impact inequalities. AIM: To examine whether the ARRS impacted inequality in the distribution of the primary care workforce. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective before-and-after study of English PCNs in 2019 and 2022. METHOD: The study combined workforce, population, and deprivation data at network level for March 2019 and March 2022. The change was estimated between 2019 and 2022 in the slope index of inequality (SII) across deprivation of full-time equivalent (FTE) GPs (total doctors, qualified GPs, and doctors-in-training), nurses, direct patient care, administrative, ARRS and non- ARRS, and total staff per 10 000 patients. RESULTS: A total of 1255 networks were included. Nurses and qualified GPs decreased in number while all other staff roles increased, with ARRS staff having the greatest increase. There was a pro- rich change in the SII for administrative staff (-0.482, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.841 to -0.122, P<0.01) and a pro- poor change for doctors-in-training (0.161, 95% CI = 0.049 to 0.274, P<0.01). Changes in distribution of all other staff types were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Between 2019 and 2022 the distribution of administrative staff became less pro-poor, and doctors-in-training became pro-poor. The changes in inequality in all other staff groups were mixed. The introduction of PCNs has not substantially changed the longstanding inequalities in the geographical distribution of the primary care workforce.

Rationing in healthcare-a scoping review.

Healthcare rationing has been the subject of numerous debates and concerns in the field of health economics in recent years. It is a concept which refers to the allocation of scarce healthcare resources and involves the use of different approaches to the delivery of health services and patient care. Regardless of the approach used, healthcare rationing fundamentally involves withholding potentially beneficial programs and/or treatments from certain people. As the demands placed on health services continue to rise and with that significant increases to the cost, healthcare rationing has become increasingly popular and is deemed necessary for the delivery of affordable, patient-care services. However, public discourse on this issue has largely been centered on ethical considerations with less focus on economic rationality. Establishing the economic rationality of healthcare rationing is essential in healthcare decision-making and consideration of its adoption by healthcare authorities and organizations. This scoping review of seven articles demonstrates that the economic rationality of healthcare rationing is the scarcity of healthcare resources amidst increased demand and costs. Therefore, supply, demand, and benefits are at the core of healthcare rationing practices and influence decisions on its suitability. Given the increased costs of care and resource scarcity, healthcare rationing is a suitable practice towards ensuring healthcare resources are allocated to people in a rational, equitable, and cost-effective manner. The rising costs and demands for care place significant pressure on healthcare authorities to identify suitable strategies for the allocation of healthcare resources. Healthcare rationing as a priority-setting strategy would support healthcare authorities identify mechanisms to allocate scarce resources in a cost-effective manner. When used in the context of a priority-setting approach, healthcare rationing helps healthcare organizations and practitioners to ensure that patient populations achieve maximum benefits at reasonable costs. It represents a fair allocation of healthcare resources to all populations, especially in low-income settings.

Toward a Hybrid Theory of How to Allocate Health-related Resources.

How should scarce health-related resources be allocated? This paper argues that values that apply to these decisions fail to always fully determine what we should do. Health maximization and allocation-according-to-need are suggested as two values that should be part of a general theory of how to allocate health-related resources. The "small improvement argument" is used to argue that it is implausible that one alternative is always better, worse, or equal to another alternative with respect to these values. Approaches that rely on these values are thus incomplete. To deal with this, it is suggested that we ought to use incomplete theories in a two-step process. Such a process first discards ineligible alternatives, and, second, uses reasons grounded in collective commitments to identify a unique, best alternative in the remaining set.

Rationing of resources in the National Health Service.

The National Health Service was set up to provide healthcare to every citizen, based not on the ability to pay, but on need. However, the Secretary of State for Health's duty under section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006 to promote a comprehensive health service is to provide services that can be provided within the resources available. As those resources are not unlimited, it is necessary to ration them. The issue of rationing of resources in the NHS came up again in R (Wallpott) v Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee and Aneurin Bevan University Health Board [2021] EWHC 3291 (Admin). This paper reviews that case and comments on it, looking at why there is rationing of NHS resources and at the approach of the courts to the issue. It concludes that, although rationing of NHS resources is controversial, it is lawful and necessary.

The shared ethical framework to allocate scarce medical resources: a lesson from COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has helped to clarify the fair and equitable allocation of scarce medical resources, both within and among countries. The ethical allocation of such resources entails a three-step process: (1) elucidating the fundamental ethical values for allocation, (2) using these values to delineate priority tiers for scarce resources, and (3) implementing the prioritisation to faithfully realise the fundamental values. Myriad reports and assessments have elucidated five core substantive values for ethical allocation: maximising benefits and minimising harms, mitigating unfair disadvantage, equal moral concern, reciprocity, and instrumental value. These values are universal. None of the values are sufficient alone, and their relative weight and application will vary by context. In addition, there are procedural principles such as transparency, engagement, and evidence-responsiveness. Prioritising instrumental value and minimising harms during the COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread agreement on priority tiers to include health-care workers, first responders, people living in congregate housing, and people with an increased risk of death, such as older adults and individuals with medical conditions. However, the pandemic also revealed problems with the implementation of these values and priority tiers, such as allocation on the basis of population rather than COVID-19 burden, and passive allocation that exacerbated disparities by requiring recipients to spend time booking and travelling to appointments. This ethical framework should be the starting point for the allocation of scarce medical resources in future pandemics and other public health conditions. For instance, allocation of the new malaria vaccine among sub-Saharan African countries should be based not on reciprocity to countries that participated in research, but on maximally reducing serious illness and deaths, especially among infants and children.

Inadequate number of staff and other reasons for implicit rationing of nursing care across hospital types and units.

AIM: The aim of the study was to find differences in perceived reasons for implicit rationing of nursing care across hospital types and units. DESIGN: A descriptive multicentre study. METHODS: The study in 14 Czech acute care hospitals was conducted from September 2019 to October 2020. The sample consisted of 8316 nurses working in medical and surgical units. Items for rating the reasons for implicit rationing of nursing care were selected from the MISSCARE Survey. Nurses were asked to rate each item on a scale from 0 (a not significant reason) to 10 (the most significant reason). RESULTS: The most significant reasons for implicit rationing of nursing care were 'Inadequate number of staff', 'Inadequate number of assistive personnel' and 'Unexpected patient admission and discharge'. Most reasons were rated as more significant by nurses from non-university hospitals. Nurses from medical units perceived all reasons for implicit rationing of nursing care as more significant.