Operational Recommendations for Scarce Resource Allocation in a Public Health Crisis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic may require rationing of various medical resources if demand exceeds supply. Theoretical frameworks for resource allocation have provided much needed ethical guidance, but hospitals still need to address objective practicalities and legal vetting to operationalize scarce resource allocation schemata. To develop operational scarce resource allocation processes for public health catastrophes, including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, five health systems in Maryland formed a consortium-with diverse expertise and representation-representing more than half of all hospitals in the state. Our efforts built on a prior statewide community engagement process that determined the values and moral reference points of citizens and health-care professionals regarding the allocation of ventilators during a public health catastrophe. Through a partnership of health systems, we developed a scarce resource allocation framework informed by citizens' values and by general expert consensus. Allocation schema for mechanical ventilators, ICU resources, blood components, novel therapeutics, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and renal replacement therapies were developed. Creating operational algorithms for each resource posed unique challenges; each resource's varying nature and underlying data on benefit prevented any single algorithm from being universally applicable. The development of scarce resource allocation processes must be iterative, legally vetted, and tested. We offer our processes to assist other regions that may be faced with the challenge of rationing health-care resources during public health catastrophes.

Influence of Community and Culture in the Ethical Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in a Pandemic Situation: Deliberative Democracy Study.

BACKGROUND: Stark gaps exist between projected health needs in a pandemic situation and the current capacity of health care and medical countermeasure systems. Existing pandemic ethics discussions have advocated to engage the public in scarcity dilemmas and attend the local contexts and cultural perspectives that shape responses to a global health threat. This public engagement study thus considers the role of community and culture in the ethical apportionment of scarce health resources, specifically ventilators, during an influenza pandemic. It builds upon a previous exploration of the values and preferences of Maryland residents regarding how a finite supply of mechanical ventilators ought to be allocated during a severe global outbreak of influenza. An important finding of this earlier research was that local history and place within the state engendered different ways of thinking about scarcity. OBJECTIVE: Given the intrastate variation in the themes expressed by Maryland participants, the project team sought to examine interstate differences by implementing the same protocol elsewhere to answer the following questions. Does variation in ethical frames of reference exist within different regions of the United States? What practical implications does evidence of sameness and difference possess for pandemic planners and policymakers at local and national levels? METHODS: Research using the same deliberative democracy process from the Maryland study was conducted in Central Texas in March 2018 among 30 diverse participants, half of whom identified as Hispanic or Latino. Deliberative democracy provides a moderated process through which community members can learn facts about a public policy matter from experts and explore their own and others' views. RESULTS: Participants proposed that by evenly distributing supplies of ventilators and applying clear eligibility criteria consistently, health authorities could enable fair allocation of scarce lifesaving equipment. The strong identification, attachment, and obligation of persons toward their nuclear and extended families emerged as a distinctive regional and ethnic core value that has practical implications for the substance, administration, and communication of allocation frameworks. CONCLUSIONS: Maryland and Central Texas residents expressed a common, overriding concern about the fairness of allocation decisions. Central Texas deliberants, however, more readily expounded upon family as a central consideration. In Central Texas, family is a principal, culturally inflected lens through which life and death matters are often viewed. Conveners of other pandemic-related public engagement exercises in the United States have advocated the benefits of transparency and inclusivity in developing an ethical allocation framework; this study demonstrates cultural competence as a further advantage.

Associations between community-level disaster exposure and individual-level changes in disability and risk of death for older Americans.

Disasters occur frequently in the United States (US) and their impact on acute morbidity, mortality and short-term increased health needs has been well described. However, barring mental health, little is known about the medium or longer-term health impacts of disasters. This study sought to determine if there is an association between community-level disaster exposure and individual-level changes in disability and/or the risk of death for older Americans. Using the US Federal Emergency Management Agency's database of disaster declarations, 602 disasters occurred between August 1998 and December 2010 and were characterized by their presence, intensity, duration and type. Repeated measurements of a disability score (based on activities of daily living) and dates of death were observed between January 2000 and November 2010 for 18,102 American individuals aged 50-89 years, who were participating in the national longitudinal Health and Retirement Study. Longitudinal (disability) and time-to-event (death) data were modelled simultaneously using a 'joint modelling' approach. There was no evidence of an association between community-level disaster exposure and individual-level changes in disability or the risk of death. Our results suggest that future research should focus on individual-level disaster exposures, moderate to severe disaster events, or higher-risk groups of individuals.

The community speaks: understanding ethical values in allocation of scarce lifesaving resources during disasters.

INTRODUCTION: Pandemic influenza or other crises causing mass respiratory failure could easily overwhelm current North American critical care capacity. This threat has generated large-scale federal, state, and local efforts to prepare for a public health disaster. Few, however, have systematically engaged the public regarding which values are most important in guiding decisions about how to allocate scarce healthcare resources during such crises. METHODS: The aims of this pilot study were (1) to test whether deliberative democratic methods could be used to promote engaged discussion about complex, ethically challenging healthcare-related policy issues and (2) to develop specific deliberative democratic procedures that could ultimately be used in a statewide process to inform a Maryland framework for allocating scarce healthcare resources during disasters. Using collaboratively developed focus group materials and multiple metrics for assessing outcomes, we held 5-hour pilot community meetings with a combined total of 68 community members in two locations in Maryland. The key outcomes used to assess the project were (1) the comprehensibility of the background materials and ethical principles, (2) the salience of the ethical principles, (3) the perceived usefulness of the discussions, (4) the degree to which participants' opinions evolved as a result of the discussions, and (5) the quality of participant engagement. RESULTS: Most participants were thoughtful, reflective, and invested in this pilot policy-informing process. Throughout the pilot process, changes were made to background materials, the verbal introduction, and pre- and post-surveys. Importantly, by holding pilot meetings in two distinct communities (an affluent suburb and inner city neighborhood), we discerned that participants' ethical reflections were framed in large part by their place-based life experiences. CONCLUSION: This pilot process, coupled with extensive feedback from participants, yielded a refined methodology suitable for wider-scale use and underscored the need for involvement of diverse communities in a statewide engagement process on this critical policy issue.