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

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Charlotte H C Bomhof, Maartje Schermer, Stefan Sleijfer, Eline M Bunnik
{"title":"Physicians' Perspectives on Ethical Issues Regarding Expensive Anti-Cancer Treatments: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Charlotte H C Bomhof,&nbsp;Maartje Schermer,&nbsp;Stefan Sleijfer,&nbsp;Eline M Bunnik","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2022.2110963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A diverse sample of oncologists and hematologists (n = 22) were interviewed. Interviews were analyzed thematically using Nvivo 12 qualitative data software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"13 4","pages":"275-286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2022.2110963","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

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.

医师对昂贵抗癌治疗伦理问题的看法:一项定性研究。
背景:当抗癌治疗已经获得市场许可,但尚未在医疗保健系统内报销时,医生面临着伦理困境。通过医院预算或病人自付费用等其他渠道安排就诊可能有利于病人,但会导致就诊不平等。到目前为止,人们对医生获得非报销治疗的观点知之甚少。本访谈研究描绘了荷兰肿瘤学家和血液学家的经验和道德观。方法:对不同样本的肿瘤学家和血液学家(n = 22)进行了访谈。使用Nvivo 12定性数据软件对访谈进行主题分析。结果:这项研究揭示了医生在获得(尚未)报销的抗癌治疗方面的经验和道德观之间的明显差异:一些医生试图安排其他途径获得治疗,而一些医生则没有。一些医生会告知患者尚未报销的抗癌治疗,而另一些医生则等待报销。一些医生在道义上反对自费付款,而另一些医生则没有。结论:荷兰的肿瘤学家和血液学家在获得尚未报销的昂贵抗癌治疗方面的观点存在很大差异。因此,当他们在咨询室面对困境时,他们可能会采取不同的行动。在不同医疗系统工作的医生可能面临类似的困境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信