Iltis Ana S
Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2005 Jun;15(2):135-60. doi: 10.1353/ken.2005.0014.
Four principal arguments have been offered in support of requiring public and private third-party payers to help fund medical research: (1) many of the costs associated with clinical trial participation are for routine care that would be reimbursed if delivered outside of a trial; (2) there is a need to promote scientific research and medical progress and lack of coverage is an impediment to enrollment; (3) to cover the costs of trials expands health care and treatment options for the sick; and (4) it is beneficial for private insurers to cover the costs associated with cancer clinical trials because doing so makes such companies more attractive to consumers. Although many see third-party-payer coverage as a victory for patients and for the future of research, requiring coverage of services provided in a trial beyond those that would be provided to a comparable patient outside the research context raises a number of concerns.
为支持要求公共和私人第三方支付者帮助资助医学研究,人们提出了四个主要论点:(1)与参与临床试验相关的许多成本是用于常规护理的,如果在试验之外提供这些护理,是会得到报销的;(2)有必要促进科学研究和医学进步,而缺乏保险覆盖是招募受试者的一个障碍;(3)支付试验成本可扩大对病人的医疗保健和治疗选择;(4)对私人保险公司来说,支付与癌症临床试验相关的成本是有益的,因为这样做会使这些公司对消费者更具吸引力。尽管许多人将第三方支付者的保险覆盖视为患者的胜利以及研究未来的胜利,但要求对试验中提供的服务进行保险覆盖,且超出在非研究背景下向类似患者提供的服务范围,引发了一些担忧。