[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.

Expanded access to investigational drugs in psychiatry: A systematic review.

Some psychiatric patients have exhausted all approved treatment options. Numerous investigational drugs are currently being developed and tested in clinical trials. However, not all patients can participate in clinical trials. Expanded access programs may provide an opportunity for patients who cannot participate in clinical trials to use investigational drugs as a therapeutic option outside of clinical trials. It is unknown to what extent expanded access occurs in psychiatry. We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, and PscyInfo, with additional information from ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and FDA/EMA approvals, in order to find all expanded access programs ever conducted, globally, in the field of psychiatry. This resulted in a total of fourteen expanded access programs ever conducted in psychiatry. Given the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, the activity in clinical research in psychiatry, the regulatory framework enabling expanded access, and the impact of psychiatric disorders on patients, their families, and society, we had expected a higher utilization of expanded access. We propose that the psychiatric community, with pharmaceutical industry, should consider establishing and optimizing expanded access programs.

Clinical Translation of Bio-Artificial Pancreas Therapies: Ethical, Legal and Psychosocial Interdisciplinary Considerations and Key Recommendations.

The field of regenerative medicine offers potential therapies for Type 1 Diabetes, whereby metabolically active cellular components are combined with synthetic medical devices. These therapies are sometimes referred to as "bioartificial pancreases." For these emerging and rapidly developing therapies to be clinically translated to patients, researchers must overcome not just scientific hurdles, but also navigate complex legal, ethical and psychosocial issues. In this article, we first provide an introductory overview of the key legal, ethical and psychosocial considerations identified in the existing literature and identify areas where research is currently lacking. We then highlight two principal areas of concern in which these discrete disciplines significantly overlap: 1) individual autonomy and 2) access and equality. Using the example of beta-cell provenance, we demonstrate how, by harnessing an interdisciplinary approach we can address these key areas of concern. Moreover, we provide practical recommendations to researchers, clinicians, and policymakers which will help to facilitate the clinical translation of this cutting-edge technology for Type 1 Diabetes patients. Finally, we emphasize the importance of exploring patient perspectives to ensure their responsible and acceptable translation from bench to body.

Awe and anxiety for cancer cells: connecting scientists and patients in a holistic approach of metastasis research.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic cancer is often experienced by patients as a death sentence. At the same time, translational scientists approach metastasis also as an interesting phenomenon that they try to understand and prevent. These two sides of the same coin do not mask the considerable gap that exists between the laboratory world of scientists and the life world of patients. Funding agencies nowadays increasingly demand researchers to be responsive to the values and priorities of patients and public. One approach to bridge this gap and to increase the impact of science is patient and public involvement (PPI). A concise literature review of PPI research and practice in this paper revealed that although PPI is often deployed in translational health care research, its methodology is not settled, it is not sufficiently emancipatory, and its implementation in basic and translational science is lagging behind. Here, we illustrate the practical implementation of PPI in basic and translational science, namely in the context of HOUDINI, a multidisciplinary network with the ultimate goal to improve the management of metastatic disease. METHODS: This paper reports on a societal workshop that was organized to launch the holistic PPI approach of HOUDINI. During this workshop, societal partners, patients, and physicians discussed societal issues regarding cancer metastasis, and contributed to prioritization of research objectives for HOUDINI. In a later stage, the workshop results were discussed with scientists from the network to critically review its research strategy and objectives. RESULTS: Workshop participants chose the development of metastasis prediction tools, effective therapies which preserve good quality of life, and non-invasive tissue sampling methods as most important research objectives for HOUDINI. Importantly, during the discussions, mutual understanding about issues like economic feasibility of novel therapies, patient anxiety for metastases, and clear communication between stakeholders was further increased. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the PPI workshop delivered valuable early-stage input and connections for HOUDINI, and may serve as example for similar basic and translational research projects.

Metastatic cancer is an aggravated form of cancer, that patients are afraid of. At the same time, cancer researchers are fascinated by this disease. Therefore, there is an apparent gap between how patients and researchers feel about cancer. If researchers wish to be most helpful to cancer patients, it is important to consult the patients and ask what they need and find important. This is also stimulated by agencies that financially support research projects. A possible way to do this is Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), in which not only scientists, but also patients and lay people are asked to provide input. It appears, however, that PPI is scarcely applied in basic science. In this article, we describe how a collaborative network of basic and translational cancer researchers, HOUDINI, intends to include the patients' voice throughout the research progress and actively asked for input from patients, societal partners and physicians at the start of their project. These people discussed what themes they found most important to be researched by HOUDINI. Later, the HOUDINI researchers reflected on this. This example shows how PPI can be applied and how HOUDINI received valuable input for their research goals.

Can Voluntary Health Insurance for Non-reimbursed Expensive New Treatments Be Just?

Public healthcare systems are increasingly refusing (temporarily) to reimburse newly approved medical treatments of insufficient or uncertain cost-effectiveness. As both patient demand for these treatments and their list prices increase, a market might arise for voluntary additional health insurance (VHI) that covers effective but (very) expensive medical treatments. In this paper, we evaluate such potential future practices of VHI in public healthcare systems from a justice perspective. We find that direct (telic) egalitarian objections to unequal access to expensive treatments based on different ability to afford VHI do not stand up to scrutiny. However, such unequal access might lead to loss of self-respect among individuals, or loss of fraternity within society, rendering it more difficult for citizens to interact on equal moral footing. This would be problematic from a relational egalitarian perspective. Moreover, the introduction of VHI might turn out to have negative consequences for the comprehensiveness and/or the quality of the public healthcare services that are offered to all patients equally through basic health insurance. These consequences must be weighed against potential health gains and the value of liberty. We conclude that governments should be careful when considering the introduction of VHI in public healthcare systems.

[Dilemmas regarding access to non-reimbursed treatments in the Netherlands: an ethical perspective]. / Dilemma's rond de toegang tot niet-vergoede behandelingen.

With the expected rise in healthcare costs, the growing burden of expensive treatments on healthcare budgets and the increasing emphasis on efficient uses of resources, physicians are increasingly confronted with ethical dilemmas regarding access to treatments which are not (yet) reimbursed within the basic healthcare package. In practice, physicians and hospital executives seem to have different experiences and perspectives regarding these dilemmas. While some physicians actively pursue access to non-reimbursed treatments, based on the values of beneficence and liberty, others do not, basing themselves on the values of solidarity and justice. This article provides an overview of the relevant ethical values, to enable physicians to make a well-considered decision when confronted with dilemmas regarding access to non-reimbursed treatments in the consultation room.

Do Physicians Have a Duty to Discuss Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs with their Patients? A Normative Analysis.

Drawing on ethical and legal frameworks in the Netherlands, the United States and France, we examine whether physicians are expected to inform patients about potentially relevant opportunities for expanded access to investigational drugs. While we found no definitive legal obligation, we argue that physicians have a moral obligation to discuss opportunities for expanded access with patients who have run out of treatment options to prevent inequality, to promote autonomy, and to achieve beneficence.

Ethics of allocation of donor organs.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is no widely accepted single ethical principle for the fair allocation of scarce donor organs for transplantation. Although most allocation systems use combinations of allocation principles, there is a particular tension between 'prioritizing the worst-off' and 'maximizing total benefits'. It is often suggested that empirical research on public preferences should help solve the dilemma between equity and efficiency in allocation policy-making. RECENT FINDINGS: This review shows that the evidence on public preferences for allocation principles is limited, and that the normative role of public preferences in donor organ allocation policy making is unclear. The review seeks to clarify the ethical dilemma to the transplant community, and draws attention to recent attempts at balancing and rank-ordering of allocation principles. SUMMARY: This review suggests that policy makers should make explicit the relative weights attributed to equity and efficiency considerations in allocation policies, and monitor the effects of policy changes on important ethics outcomes, including equitable access among patient groups. Also, it draws attention to wider justice issues associated not with the distribution of donor organs among patients on waiting lists, but with barriers in referral for transplant evaluation and disparities among patient groups in access to waiting lists.

Access to effective but expensive treatments: An analysis of the solidarity argument in discussions on funding of medical treatments.

The development of new effective but expensive medical treatments leads to discussions about whether and how such treatments should be funded in solidarity-based healthcare systems. Solidarity is often seen as an elusive concept; it appears to be used to refer to different sets of concerns, and its interrelations with the concept of justice are not well understood. This paper provides a conceptual analysis of the concept of solidarity as it is used in discussions on the allocation of healthcare resources and the funding of expensive treatments. It contributes to the clarification of the concept of solidarity by identifying in the literature and discussing four uses of the concept: (1) assisting patients in need, (2) upholding the solidarity-based healthcare system, (3) willingness to contribute and (4) promoting equality. It distinguishes normative and descriptive uses of the concept and outlines the overlap and differences between solidarity and justice. Our analysis shows that the various uses of the concept of solidarity point to different, even conflicting, ethical stances on whether and how access to effective, expensive treatments should be provided. We conclude that the concept of solidarity has a role to play in discussions on the accessibility and funding of newly approved medical treatments. It requires, for instance, that healthcare policies promote and maintain both societal willingness to contribute to the care of others and the value of providing care to vulnerable patients through public funding.

Ethics of access to newly approved expensive medical treatments: multi-stakeholder dialogues in a publicly funded healthcare system.

Background: Due to rising healthcare expenditures, countries with publicly funded healthcare systems face challenges when providing newly approved expensive anti-cancer treatments to all eligible patients. In the Netherlands in 2015, the so-called Coverage Lock (CL), was introduced to help safeguard the sustainability of the healthcare system. Since then, newly approved treatments are no longer automatically reimbursed. Previous work has shown that as policies for access to CL treatments are lacking, patient access to non-reimbursed treatments is limited and variable, which raises ethical issues. The ethics of access were discussed in a series of multi-stakeholder dialogues in the Netherlands. Methods: Three dialogues were held in early 2023 and included physicians, health insurers, hospital executives, policymakers, patients, citizens, and representatives of pharmaceutical companies, patient and professional organizations. In advance, participants had received an 'argument scheme' featuring three models: 1) access based on third-party payment (e.g., by pharmaceutical companies, health insurers or hospitals) 2) access based on out-of-pocket payments by patients 3) no access to CL treatments. During the dialogues, participants were asked to discuss the merits of the ethical arguments for and against these models together, and ultimately to weigh them. The discussions were audio-taped, transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. Results: Generally, most stakeholders were in favour of allowing access-at least when treatments are clearly beneficial-to treatments in the CL. When discussing third-party payment, stakeholders favoured payment by pharmaceutical companies over payment by health insurers or hospitals, not wanting to usurp collective funds while cost-effectiveness assessments are still pending. Largely, stakeholders were not in favour of out-of-pocket payments, emphasizing solidarity and equal access as important pillars of the Dutch healthcare system. Recurrent themes included the conflict between individual and collective interests, shifting attitudes, withholding access as a means to put pressure on the system, and the importance of transparency about access to CL-treatments. Conclusion: Policies for access to non-reimbursed treatments should address stakeholders' concerns regarding transparency, equal access and solidarity, and loss of potential health benefits for patients. Multi-stakeholder dialogues are an important tool to help inform policy-making on access to newly approved (too) expensive treatments in countries facing challenges to the sustainability of healthcare systems.

Ethical Frameworks for Disclosure of Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers to Research Participants: Conflicting Norms and a Nuanced Policy.

More and more frequently, clinical trials for Alzheimer disease (AD) are targeting cognitively unimpaired individuals who are at increased risk of developing the disease. It is not always clear whether AD biomarker information should be disclosed to research participants: on the one hand, research participants may be interested in learning this information because of its perceived utility, but on the other hand, learning this information may be harmful, as there are very few effective preventive or therapeutic options available for AD. In this article, we bring together three separate sets of ethical guidance literature: on the return of individual research results, on an individual's right to access personal data, and on transparent enrollment into clinical trials. Based on these literatures, we suggest policies for the disclosure of AD biomarker test results in longitudinal observational cohort studies, clinical trials, and hybrid research projects, such as the European Prevention of Alzheimer's Dementia (EPAD) project, in which we served as an ethics team. We also present and critically discuss recommendations for disclosure of AD biomarkers in practice. We underscore that, as long as the clinical validity of AD biomarkers remains limited, there are good reasons to avoid actively disclosing them to cognitively unimpaired research participants.

Early-Phase Clinical Trials of Bio-Artificial Organ Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Issues.

Regenerative medicine has emerged as a novel alternative solution to organ failure which circumvents the issue of organ shortage. In preclinical research settings bio-artificial organs are being developed. It is anticipated that eventually it will be possible to launch first-in-human transplantation trials to test safety and efficacy in human recipients. In early-phase transplantation trials, however, research participants could be exposed to serious risks, such as toxicity, infections and tumorigenesis. So far, there is no ethical guidance for the safe and responsible design and conduct of early-phase clinical trials of bio-artificial organs. Therefore, research ethics review committees will need to look to related adjacent fields of research, including for example cell-based therapy, for guidance. In this systematic review, we examined the literature on early-phase clinical trials in these adjacent fields and undertook a thematic analysis of relevant ethical points to consider for early-phase clinical trials of transplantable bio-artificial organs. Six themes were identified: cell source, risk-benefit assessment, patient selection, trial design, informed consent, and oversight and accountability. Further empirical research is needed to provide insight in patient perspectives, as this may serve as valuable input in determining the conditions for ethically responsible and acceptable early clinical development of bio-artificial organs.

The 'false hope' argument in discussions on expanded access to investigational drugs: a critical assessment.

When seriously ill patients reach the end of the standard treatment trajectory for their condition, they may qualify for the use of unapproved, investigational drugs regulated via expanded access programs. In medical-ethical discourse, it is often argued that expanded access to investigational drugs raises 'false hope' among patients and is therefore undesirable. We set out to investigate what is meant by the false hope argument in this discourse. In this paper, we identify and analyze five versions of the false hope argument which we call: (1) the limited chance at benefit argument, (2) the side effects outweighing benefits argument, (3) the opportunity costs argument, (4) the impossibility of making informed decisions argument, and (5) the difficulty of gaining access argument. We argue that the majority of these five versions do not provide normative ground for disqualifying patients' hopes as false. Only when hope is rooted in a mistaken belief, for example, about the likelihood of benefits or chances on medical risks, or when hope is directed at something that cannot possibly be obtained, should it be considered false. If patients are adequately informed about their odds of obtaining medical benefit, however small, and about the risks associated with an investigational treatment, it is unjustified to consider patients' hopes to be false, and hence, to deny them access to investigational drug based on that argument.

Physicians' Perspectives on Ethical Issues Regarding Expensive Anti-Cancer Treatments: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: When anti-cancer treatments have been given market authorization, but are not (yet) reimbursed within a healthcare system, physicians are confronted with ethical dilemmas. Arranging access through other channels, e.g., hospital budgets or out-of-pocket payments by patients, may benefit patients, but leads to unequal access. Until now, little is known about the perspectives of physicians on access to non-reimbursed treatments. This interview study maps the experiences and moral views of Dutch oncologists and hematologists. METHODS: A diverse sample of oncologists and hematologists (n = 22) were interviewed. Interviews were analyzed thematically using Nvivo 12 qualitative data software. RESULTS: This study reveals stark differences between physicians' experiences and moral views on access to anti-cancer treatments that are not (yet) reimbursed: some physicians try to arrange other ways of access and some physicians do not. Some physicians inform patients about anti-cancer treatments that are not yet reimbursed, while others wait for reimbursement. Some physicians have principled moral objections to out-of-pocket payment, while others do not. CONCLUSION: Oncologists and hematologists in the Netherlands differ greatly in their perspectives on access to expensive anti-cancer treatments that are not (yet) reimbursed. As a result, they may act differently when confronted with dilemmas in the consultation room. Physicians working in different healthcare systems may face similar dilemmas.