For the Sake of Justice: Should We Prioritize Rare Diseases?
- 594 Downloads
This article is about the justifiability of accepting worse cost effectiveness for orphan drugs, that is, treatments for rare diseases, in a publicly financed health care system. Recently, three arguments have been presented that may be used in favour of exceptionally advantageous economic terms for orphan drugs. These arguments share the common feature of all referring to considerations of justice or fairness: the argument of the irrelevance of group size, the argument from the principle of need, and the argument of identifiability. It is argued that all of these arguments fail to support the conclusion that orphan drugs should be subsidized to a larger extent than treatments for common diseases. The argument of the irrelevance fails to distinguish between directly and indirectly relevant considerations of fairness or justice. The recent attempt to revive the moral relevance of identifiability has provided no novel reasons to think that identifiability is morally relevant in itself or due to considerations of fairness and justice. The argument from the principle of need does not fail due to any inherent flaw in the principle as such. Rather, this principle can be interpreted in different ways, and none of these interpretations support exceptionally advantageous terms economically for treating rare diseases specifically. It is concluded that we are awaiting justice based reasons for the preferential treatment of orphan drugs.
KeywordsCost effectiveness Identifiability Justice Orphan drugs Prioritization Rare diseases
- 3.Brock, D. W. (2002). Priority to the worse off in health-care resource prioritization. In R. Rosamond, M. P. Battin, & M. Silvers (Eds.), Medicine and social justice. Essays on the distribution of health care (pp. 362–372). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 4.Carlsson, P., Hoffman, M., Levin, L.-Å., Sandman, L., & Wiss, J. (2012). Prioritization and financing of drugs for treatment of patients with rare diseases. (In Swedish: Prioritering och finansiering av läkemedel för behandling av patienter med sällsynta sjukdomar.) Appendix 4 in the Official Governmental Inquiry (SOU) 2012:75. Price, access, and service—continued developments in the drug and pharmaceutical markets. (In Swedish: Pris, tillgång och service—fortsatt utveckling av läkemedels- och apoteksmarknaden). http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/20/25/65/36dbeb36.pdf. Accessed May 14, 2014.
- 6.Crisp, R. (2002). Treatment according to need: Justice and the British National Health Service. In R. Rosamond, M. P. Battin, & M. Silvers (Eds.), Medicine and social justice. Essays on the distribution of health care (pp. 134–143). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 7.Daniels, N. (2008). Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 8.European Commission. Regulation No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2000_141/reg_2000_141_en.pdf. Accessed May 14, 2014.
- 15.Hayes, E. (2013) GSK prices Tafinlar at $7,600/month, undercutting Roche’s Zelboraf. Elsevier Business Intelligence. http://www.kantarhealth.com/docs/default-source/press-articles/gsk-prices-tafinlar-at-7600-month-undercutting-roches-zelboraf.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed May 14, 2014.
- 20.Jarvis, L. M. (2013). Orphans find a home. Chemical & Engineer News, 91, 10–12.Google Scholar
- 21.Jarvis, L. M. (2013). Small audience, large payoff. Chemical & Engineer News, 91, 12–15.Google Scholar
- 24.Juth, N. (2012). Genetic information—Values and rights: The morality of presymptomatic genetic testing. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
- 25.Juth, N. (2013). Challenges for principles of needs in health care. Health Care Analysis 2013 March 12. Published online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s10728-013-0242-7.
- 28.McCabe, C. (2010). Balancing economic, ethical and equity concerns in orphan drugs and rare diseases. European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy Practice, 16, 22–25.Google Scholar
- 32.SBU-rapport nr 170. (2004). Måttligt förhöjt blodtryck. (In Swedish: Moderately elevated blood pressure.) SBU: Stockholm.Google Scholar
- 33.Segall, S. (2010). Health, luck, and justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 35.Temkin, L. S. (1993). Inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 37.Ward, S., Lloyd Jones, M., Pandor, A., Holmes, M., Ara, R., Ryan, A., et al. (2007). A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events. Health Technology Assessment, 11, 1–160., iii–iv.Google Scholar
- 38.World Health Organization (WHO). (2010). International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD 10). http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/. Accessed Aug 05, 2014.