Health Care Analysis

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 1–20 | Cite as

For the Sake of Justice: Should We Prioritize Rare Diseases?

Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Cost effectiveness Identifiability Justice Orphan drugs Prioritization Rare diseases 

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, C., & Brantner, V. (2010). Spending on new drug development. Health Economics, 19, 130–141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arrhenius, G. (2013). Egalitarian concerns and population change. In N. Eyal, S. A. Hurst, O. F. Norheim, & D. Wikler (Eds.), Inequalities in health: concepts, measures, and ethics (pp. 74–91). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 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 servicecontinued 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.
  5. 5.
    Casal, P. (2007). Why sufficiency is not enough. Ethics, 117, 296–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 7.
    Daniels, N. (2008). Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. 9.
    Fleck, L. M. (2011). Just caring: Defining a basic benefit package. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 26, 589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleck, L. M. (2014). Just caring: Assessing the ethical and economic costs of personalized medicine. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 32, 202–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fojo, T., & Grady, C. (2009). How much is life worth: Cetuximab, non-small cell lung cancer and the $440 billion question. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 101, 1044–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frankfurt, H. G. (1984). Necessity and desire. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 45, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gahl, W. A., Balog, J. Z., & Kleta, R. (2007). Nephropathic cystinosis in adults: natural history and effects of oral cysteamine therapy. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147, 242–250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gustavsson, E. (2014). From needs to health care needs. Health Care Analysis, 22, 22–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. 16.
    Hoffman, B. (2013). Priority setting in health care: Trends and models from Scandinavian experiences. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 16, 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hope, T. (2001). Rationing and life-saving treatments: Should identifiable patients have higher priority? Journal of Medical Ethics, 27, 179–185.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hughes, J., & Walker, T. (2009). The rule of rescue in clinical practice. Clinical Ethics, 4, 50–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    James, S. M. (2013). When helping the victim matters more than helping a victim. Utilitas, 25, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jarvis, L. M. (2013). Orphans find a home. Chemical & Engineer News, 91, 10–12.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jarvis, L. M. (2013). Small audience, large payoff. Chemical & Engineer News, 91, 12–15.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jecker, N. S. (2013). The problem with rescue medicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 38, 64–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Juth, N. (2003). Insurance companies access to genetic information: Why regulation alone is not enough. Monash Bioethics Review, 22, 25–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Juth, N. (2012). Genetic information—Values and rights: The morality of presymptomatic genetic testing. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. 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.
  26. 26.
    Largent, E. A., & Pearson, S. D. (2012). Which orphans will find a home? The rule of rescue in resource allocation for rare diseases. Hastings Center Report, 42, 27–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCabe, C., Claxton, K., & Tsuchiya, A. (2005). Orphan drugs and the NHS: Should we value rarity? BJM, 331, 1016–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 29.
    McKie, J., & Richardson, J. (2003). The rule of rescue. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 2407–2419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parfit, D. (1997). Equality and priority. Ratio, 10, 202–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parfit, D. (2013). Another defence of the priority view. Utilitas, 24, 399–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    SBU-rapport nr 170. (2004). Måttligt förhöjt blodtryck. (In Swedish: Moderately elevated blood pressure.) SBU: Stockholm.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Segall, S. (2010). Health, luck, and justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sheehan, M. (2007). Resources and the rule of rescue. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Temkin, L. S. (1993). Inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Temkin, L. S. (2013). Inequality and health. In N. Eyal, S. A. Hurst, O. F. Norheim, & D. Wikler (Eds.), Inequalities in health: Concepts, measures, and ethics (pp. 13–26). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. 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.
  39. 39.
    Young, I. D., & Harper, P. S. (1982). Incidence of Hunter’s syndrome. Human Genetics, 60, 391–392.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIME, Stockholm Centre for Healthcare EthicsKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations