Bomhof Charlotte H C, Smids Jilles, Sybesma Sybren, Schermer Maartje, Bunnik Eline M
Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Front Pharmacol. 2024 Jan 29;14:1265029. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1265029. eCollection 2023.
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. 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. 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. 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.
由于医疗保健支出不断增加,拥有公共资助医疗体系的国家在为所有符合条件的患者提供新批准的昂贵抗癌治疗时面临挑战。2015年在荷兰,引入了所谓的“覆盖锁定”(CL)机制,以帮助保障医疗体系的可持续性。自那时起,新批准的治疗不再自动获得报销。此前的研究表明,由于缺乏获取CL治疗的政策,患者获得未报销治疗的机会有限且参差不齐,这引发了伦理问题。荷兰通过一系列多利益相关方对话对获取治疗的伦理问题进行了讨论。2023年初举行了三次对话,参与方包括医生、健康保险公司、医院管理人员、政策制定者、患者、公民以及制药公司、患者和专业组织的代表。事先,参与者收到了一个“论证方案”,其中包含三种模式:1)基于第三方支付的获取方式(例如由制药公司、健康保险公司或医院支付);2)基于患者自掏腰包支付的获取方式;3)无法获取CL治疗。在对话过程中,要求参与者共同讨论支持和反对这些模式的伦理论据的优点,并最终进行权衡。对话进行了录音、转录、编码和主题分析。总体而言,大多数利益相关方赞成允许获取CL治疗——至少在治疗明显有益的情况下。在讨论第三方支付时,利益相关方更倾向于由制药公司支付,而不是健康保险公司或医院支付,因为在成本效益评估仍未完成时,他们不想挪用集体资金。在很大程度上,利益相关方不赞成自掏腰包支付,强调团结和平等获取是荷兰医疗体系的重要支柱。反复出现的主题包括个人利益与集体利益之间的冲突、态度的转变、通过拒绝提供获取机会向体系施压的手段,以及CL治疗获取透明度的重要性。获取未报销治疗的政策应解决利益相关方对透明度、平等获取、团结以及患者潜在健康益处丧失的担忧。多利益相关方对话是一个重要工具,有助于为面临医疗体系可持续性挑战的国家制定关于获取新批准(且过于昂贵)治疗的政策提供参考。