Very high cost treatment for a single individual--a case report.

Jeremy Wight, Mike Richards
{"title":"Very high cost treatment for a single individual--a case report.","authors":"Jeremy Wight,&nbsp;Mike Richards","doi":"10.1093/pubmed/fdg002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A Health Authority was requested to fund immune tolerance induction for a young haemophiliac at a potential cost of up to 2 million pounds sterling over a year. The decision-making process adopted included an external review of the case, literature review to establish the evidence base for treatment, and extensive discussions with the clinicians involved. The Health Authority agreed to fund treatment, but with continuous review of the case and explicit criteria for abandoning treatment if it was not working. After 11 months these criteria were met, and the treatment was abandoned. The decision-making process and ethical issues involved in deciding whether or not to fund extremely high cost treatment for an individual patient are discussed. Cases such as this present a stark contrast between rights-based and utilitarian ethical approaches. Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are more vulnerable (because of their smaller populations and budgets) than Health Authorities were to the financial destabilization that high-cost cases can cause. PCTs are advised to make arrangements to enter risk-sharing arrangements to spread the cost of such high-cost treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":77224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of public health medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/pubmed/fdg002","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of public health medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdg002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

A Health Authority was requested to fund immune tolerance induction for a young haemophiliac at a potential cost of up to 2 million pounds sterling over a year. The decision-making process adopted included an external review of the case, literature review to establish the evidence base for treatment, and extensive discussions with the clinicians involved. The Health Authority agreed to fund treatment, but with continuous review of the case and explicit criteria for abandoning treatment if it was not working. After 11 months these criteria were met, and the treatment was abandoned. The decision-making process and ethical issues involved in deciding whether or not to fund extremely high cost treatment for an individual patient are discussed. Cases such as this present a stark contrast between rights-based and utilitarian ethical approaches. Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are more vulnerable (because of their smaller populations and budgets) than Health Authorities were to the financial destabilization that high-cost cases can cause. PCTs are advised to make arrangements to enter risk-sharing arrangements to spread the cost of such high-cost treatments.

一个人的治疗费用非常高——一份病例报告。
要求卫生当局资助一名年轻血友病患者的免疫耐受诱导,每年的潜在费用高达200万英镑。所采用的决策过程包括对病例进行外部审查,对文献进行审查以建立治疗的证据基础,并与相关临床医生进行广泛讨论。卫生当局同意为治疗提供资金,但要不断审查病例,并明确规定如果治疗无效就放弃治疗的标准。11个月后,这些标准都达到了,于是放弃了治疗。决策过程和伦理问题涉及决定是否资助极其昂贵的治疗个别病人讨论。诸如此类的案例在基于权利和功利主义的伦理方法之间形成了鲜明的对比。初级保健信托基金(pct)比卫生当局更容易受到高费用病例可能造成的财政不稳定的影响(因为它们的人口和预算较小)。建议pct作出安排,订立风险分担安排,以分摊这种高费用治疗的费用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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