Drew Carter

Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups

BackgroundMeasures to improve the quality and sustainability of healthcare practice and provision have become a policy concern. In addition, the involvement of stakeholders in health policy decision-making has been advocated, as complex questions arise around the structure of funding arrangements in a context of limited resources. Using a case study of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), deliberative engagements with a range of stakeholder groups were held on the topic of how best to structure the distribution of Australian public funding in this domain.MethodsDeliberative engagements were carried out with groups of ART consumers, clinicians and community members. The forums were informed by a systematic review of ART treatment safety and effectiveness (focusing, in particular, on maternal age and number of treatment cycles), as well as by international policy comparisons, and ethical and cost analyses. Forum discussions were transcribed and subject to thematic analysis.ResultsEach forum demonstrated stakeholders’ capacity to understand concepts of choice under resource scarcity and disinvestment, and to countenance options for ART funding not always aligned with their interests. Deliberations in each engagement identified concerns around ‘equity’ and ‘patient responsibility’, culminating in a broad preference for (potential) ART subsidy restrictions to be based upon individual factors rather than maternal age or number of treatment cycles. Community participants were open to restrictions based upon measures of body mass index (BMI) and smoking status, while consumers and clinicians saw support to improve these factors as part of an ART treatment program, as distinct from a funding criterion. All groups advocated continued patient co-payments, with measures in place to provide treatment access to those unable to pay (namely, equity of access).ConclusionsDeliberations yielded qualitative, socially-negotiated evidence required to inform ethical, accountable policy decisions in the specific area of ART and health care more broadly. Notably, reductionist, deterministic characterizations of stakeholder ‘self-interest’ proved unfounded as each group sought to prioritise universal values (in particular, ‘equity’ and ‘responsibility’) over specific, within-group concerns. Our results - from an emotive case study in ART - highlight that evidence-informed disinvestment decision-making is feasible, and potentially less controversial than often presumed.

Should There Be a Female Age Limit on Public Funding for Assisted Reproductive Technology

Should there be a female age limit on public funding for assisted reproductive technology (ART)? The question bears significant economic and sociopolitical implications and has been contentious in many countries. We conceptualise the question as one of justice in resource allocation, using three much-debated substantive principles of justice—the capacity to benefit, personal responsibility, and need—to structure and then explore a complex of arguments. Capacity-to-benefit arguments are not decisive: There are no clear cost-effectiveness grounds to restrict funding to those older women who still bear some capacity to benefit from ART. Personal responsibility arguments are challenged by structural determinants of delayed motherhood. Nor are need arguments decisive: They can speak either for or against a female age limit, depending on the conception of need used. We demonstrate how these principles can differ not only in content but also in the relative importance they are accorded by governments. Wide variation in ART public funding policy might be better understood in this light. We conclude with some inter-country comparison. New Zealand and Swedish policies are uncommonly transparent and thus demonstrate particularly well how the arguments we explore have been put into practice.

The Appeal to Nature Implicit in Certain Restrictions on Public Funding for Assisted Reproductive Technology

Certain restrictions on public funding for assisted reproductive technology (ART) are articulated and defended by recourse to a distinction between medical infertility and social infertility. We propose that underlying the prioritization of medical infertility is a vision of medicine whose proper role is to restore but not to improve upon nature. We go on to mark moral responses that speak of investments many continue to make in nature as properly an object of reverence and gratitude and therein (sometimes) a source of moral guidance. We draw on the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein in arguing for the plausibility of an appeal to nature in opposition to the charge that it must contain a logical fallacy. We also invite consideration of the moral plausibility of some appeal to nature. Finally, we examine what follows in the case of ART. Should medicine respect as natural limits that should not be overcome: the need for a man and a woman in reproduction; menopause; and even declining fertility with age? We must first ask ourselves to what degree we should defer to nature in the conduct of medicine, at least in the particular if not the general case. This will involve also asking ourselves what we think is natural and in what instances and spirit might we defy nature. Divergent opinions and policies concerning who should receive ART treatment and public funding are more easily understood in view of the centrality, complexity and fundamental nature of these questions.

Justice and Surgical Innovation: The Case of Robotic Prostatectomy

Surgical innovation promises improvements in healthcare, but it also raises ethical issues including risks of harm to patients, conflicts of interest and increased injustice in access to health care. In this article, we focus on risks of injustice, and use a case study of robotic prostatectomy to identify features of surgical innovation that risk introducing or exacerbating injustices. Interpreting justice as encompassing matters of both efficiency and equity, we first examine questions relating to government decisions about whether to publicly fund access to innovative treatments. Here the case of robotic prostatectomy exemplifies the difficulty of accommodating healthcare priorities such as improving the health of marginalized groups. It also illustrates challenges with estimating the likely long-term costs and benefits of a new intervention, the difficulty of comparing outcomes of an innovative treatment to those of established treatments, and the further complexity associated with patient and surgeon preferences. Once the decision has been made to fund a new procedure, separate issues of justice arise at the level of providing care to individual patients. Here, the case of robotic prostatectomy exemplifies how features of surgical innovation, such as surgeon learning curves and the need for an adequate volume of cases at a treatment centre, can exacerbate injustices associated with treatment cost and the logistics of travelling for treatment. Drawing on our analysis, we conclude by making a number of recommendations for the just introduction of surgical innovations.

Governments Need Better Guidance to Maximise Value for Money: The Case of Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee

AbstractIn Australia, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) makes recommendations to the Minister for Health on which pharmaceuticals should be subsidised. Given the implications of PBAC recommendations for government finances and population health, PBAC is required to provide advice primarily on the basis of value for money. The aim of this article is twofold: to describe some major limitations of the current PBAC decision-making process in relation to its implicit aim of maximising value for money; and to suggest what might be done toward overcoming these limitations. This should also offer lessons for the many decision-making bodies around the world that are similar to PBAC. The current PBAC decision-making process is limited in two important respects. First, it features the use of an implicit incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold that may not reflect the opportunity cost of funding a new technology, with unknown and possibly negative consequences for population health. Second, the process does not feature a means of systematically assessing how a technology may be of greater or lesser value in light of factors that are not captured by standard measures of cost effectiveness, but which are nonetheless important, particularly to the Australian community. Overcoming these limitations would mean that PBAC could be more confident of maximising value for money when making funding decisions.

The CREATE Critical Appraisal Tool: Establishing The Validity, Reliability And Feasibility Of A Tool To Appraise Research From Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Perspective

Abstract presented at the Global Evidence Summit: Using evidence. Improving lives, 13-16 September 2017, Cape Town, South Africa

The ethics of ambulance ramping

Ramping is the practice of requiring paramedics to continue to care for patients rather than hand over clinical responsibility to the ED. It arose as an alternative to admitting patients to EDs that are deemed to be already operating at or beyond capacity. This paper analyses the ethics of ramping.

What Indigenous Australian clients value about primary health care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

Objective: To synthesise client perceptions of the unique characteristics and value of care provided in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) compared to mainstream/general practitioner services, and implications for improving access to quality, appropriate primary health care for Indigenous Australians.

Building workforce capacity for ethical reflection in health promotion: a practitioner’s experience

Health promotion does not have a code of ethics, although attempts have been made to assist practitioners in their understanding and application of ethical concepts. This article describes and analyses one such attempt, sustained from 2006 to 2014 in rural South Australia. The attempt comprised capacity-building activities that were informed by principles of organisational change management, especially the principle of creating champions. The article also presents a framework (largely comprising ethical questions) that may help practitioners as a prompt and guide to ethical reflection. The framework was developed to be as accessible as possible in light of the diverse educational backgrounds found in rural settings. Finally, the article highlights some philosophical dimensions to the framework and defends its role, proposing that ethical reflection is integral to good practice and never simply the province of theorists. The article does all this with a view to stimulating discussion on how to increase the frequency and quality of ethical reflection undertaken by health promotion practitioners.

Melanoma follow up: time to generate the evidence

Research is needed into current melanoma follow-up practices and their implications for patients and society. We highlight the need and suggest a way forward.