PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Marion Danis

Publications and source records attributed to Marion Danis.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Health insurance benefit packages prioritized by low-income clients in India: three criteria to estimate effectiveness of choice.

We applied a decision tool for rationing choices, with a predetermined budget of about 11 US dollars per household per year, to identify priorities of poor people regarding health insurance benefits in India in late 2005. A total of 302 individuals, organized in 24 groups, participated from a number of villages and neighborhoods of towns in Karnataka and Maharashtra. Many individuals were illiterate, innumerate and without insurance experience. Involving clients in insurance package design is based on an implied assumption that people can make judicious rationing decisions. Judiciousness was assessed by examining the association between the frequency of choosing a package and its perceived effectiveness. Perceived effectiveness was evaluated by comparing respondents' choices to the costs registered in 2049 illness episodes among a comparable cohort, using three criteria: 'reimbursement' (reimbursement regardless of the absolute level of expenditure), 'fairness' (higher reimbursement rate for higher expenses) and 'catastrophic coverage' (insurance for catastrophic exposure). The most frequently chosen packages scored highly on all three criteria; thus, rationing choices were confirmed as judicious. Fully 88.4% of the respondents selected at least three of the following benefits: outpatient, inpatient, drugs and tests, with a clear preference to cover high aggregate costs regardless of their probability. The results show that involving prospective clients in benefit package design can be done without compromising the judiciousness of rationing choices, even with people who have low education, low-income and no previous experience in similar exercises.

Choice Behavior↗
PubMed2006

Prevalence and determinants of physician bedside rationing: data from Europe.

BACKGROUND: Bedside rationing by physicians is controversial. The debate, however, is clouded by lack of information regarding the extent and character of bedside rationing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed a survey instrument to examine the frequency, criteria, and strategies used for bedside rationing. Content validity was assessed through expert assessment and scales were tested for internal consistency. The questionnaire was translated and administered to General Internists in Norway, Switzerland, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Logistic regression was used to identify the variables associated with reported rationing. RESULTS: Survey respondents (N=656, response rate 43%) ranged in age from 28 to 82, and averaged 25 years in practice. Most respondents (82.3%) showed some degree of agreement with rationing, and 56.3% reported that they did ration interventions. The most frequently mentioned criteria for rationing were a small expected benefit (82.3%), low chances of success (79.8%), an intervention intended to prolong life when quality of life is low (70.6%), and a patient over 85 years of age (70%). The frequency of rationing by clinicians was positively correlated with perceived scarcity of resources (odds ratio [OR]=1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 1.16), perceived pressure to ration (OR=2.14, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.01), and agreement with rationing (OR=1.13, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.23). CONCLUSION: Bedside rationing is prevalent in all surveyed European countries and varies with physician attitudes and resource availability. The prevalence of physician bedside rationing, which presents physicians with difficult moral dilemmas, highlights the importance of discussions regarding how to ration care in the most ethically justifiable manner.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Rationing in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Critical care services represent a large and growing proportion of health care expenditures. Limiting the magnitude of these costs while maintaining a just allocation of these services will require rationing. We define rationing as "the allocation of healthcare resources in the face of limited availability, which necessarily means that beneficial interventions are withheld from some individuals." Although some have maintained that rationing of health care is unethical, we argue that rationing is not only unavoidable but essential to ensuring the ethical distribution of medical goods and services. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Intensivists have little to guide them in the rationing of critical care services. We have developed a taxonomy of the rationing choices faced by intensivists as a framework for ethical analysis. This taxonomy divides rationing decisions into three categories. First are those rationing decisions that may be justified by external constraints (such as not prescribing a potentially beneficial medication because it is not available on the hospital formulary). Second are those that may be justified by reference to clinical guidelines (as, for example, not prescribing a potentially beneficial medication because a valid guideline recommends treatment with a less expensive alternative). Third are those that are justified by individual clinical judgment (such as choosing which of two patients should be admitted into the last ICU bed, in the absence of any evidence-based guidance). Judgments made on the basis of clinical judgment deserve particular scrutiny, since they may mask unethical prejudices or bias. CONCLUSIONS: Although this taxonomy does not by itself determine which decisions are ethical, it does clarify the type of evidence that is appropriate to supporting the decision that is made. Additional work is needed to elucidate how both empirical evidence and ethical analysis can further inform the rationing decisions that arise in the taxonomy described here.

Health Care Rationing↗
PubMed2006

How does lack of insurance affect use of intensive care? A population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: One in six Americans aged <65 yrs are without health insurance. Although lack of insurance is associated with reduced access to many health services, the relationship between lack of insurance and use of intensive care services is unclear. We sought to compare the use of intensive care by insured and uninsured populations. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based cross-sectional study of five U.S. states (Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia), analyzing use of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) services by all residents of these states <65 yrs of age. Data sources included the five 1999 state hospital discharge databases and the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey. SETTING: Nonfederal hospitals in the five states (all hospitalizations in these during 1999). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 39.3 million and 7.8 million individuals aged 0-64 yrs with and without insurance, respectively, in the five-state sample. The uninsured population was far less likely to be hospitalized (odds ratio [OR], 0.458; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.456-0.460; p < .001) and to be admitted to the ICU (OR, 0.581, 95% CI: 0.576-0.587, p < .001). Differences persisted irrespective of age, gender, ethnicity, or reason for admission. Among those hospitalized, the uninsured were more likely to receive intensive care (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.22-1.25; p < .01). Hospital mortality rates for patients admitted to the ICU ranged by age from 4.0% to 6.9% for the uninsured and from 2.7% to 5.5% for the insured (OR, 1.12-1.54; p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Americans without insurance use ICU services less often than those with insurance, primarily because of decreased likelihood of hospital admission in the first place. Outcome is worse for those who are admitted to the ICU, possibly because they are sicker when they seek care.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

End-of-life care for the critically ill: A national intensive care unit survey.

OBJECTIVE: One in five Americans dies following treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU), and evidence indicates the need to improve end-of-life care for ICU patients. We conducted this study to elicit the views and experiences of ICU directors regarding barriers to optimal end-of-life care and to identify the type, availability, and perceived benefit of specific strategies that may improve this care. DESIGN: Self-administered mail survey. SETTING: Six hundred intensive care units. PARTICIPANTS: A random, nationally representative sample of nursing and physician directors of 600 adult ICUs in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: Mail survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We asked participants about barriers to end-of-life care (1 = huge to 5 = not at all a barrier), perceived benefit of strategies to improve end-of-life care, and availability of these strategies. From 468 ICUs (78.0% of sample), 590 ICU directors participated (406 nurses [65.1% response] and 184 physicians [31.7% response]). Respondents had a mean of 16.6 yrs (sd 7.6 yrs) of ICU experience. Important barriers to better end-of-life care included patient/family factors, including unrealistic patient/family expectations 2.5 (1.0), inability of patients to participate in discussions 2.7 (0.9), and lack of advance directives 2.9 (1.0); clinician factors, which included insufficient physician training in communication 2.9 (1.1) and competing demands on physicians' time 3.0 (1.1); and institution/ICU factors, such as suboptimal space for family meetings 3.5 (1.2) and lack of a palliative care service 3.4 (1.2). More than 80% of respondents rated 14 of 14 strategies as likely to improve end-of-life care, including trainee role modeling by experienced clinicians, clinician training in communication and symptom management, regular meetings of senior clinicians with families, bereavement programs, and end-of-life care quality monitoring. However, few of these strategies were widely available. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive care unit directors perceive important barriers to optimal end-of-life care but also universally endorse many practical strategies for quality improvement.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2006

The coverage priorities of disabled adult Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

Medi-Cal, like other Medicaid programs around the U.S., has been pressed to cut its budget. We report the results of a project using the CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together) exercise, designed to ascertain the priorities of disabled adult Medi-Cal beneficiaries to inform any decisions regarding Medi-Cal benefits. Participants voiced greatest interest in maintaining a wide spectrum of benefits and access to a large pool of providers and were most willing to restrict pharmacy benefits. The resulting findings may be of value to legislators drafting Medicaid proposals that revise benefits for this vulnerable population.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Physicians' responses to resource constraints.

BACKGROUND: A common dilemma that confronts physicians in clinical practice is the allocation of scarce resources. Yet the strategies used by physicians in actual situations of resource constraint have not been studied. This study explores the strategies and rationales reported by physicians in situations of resource constraints encountered in practice. METHODS: A national survey of US internists, oncologists, and intensive care specialists was performed by computer-assisted telephone interviews. As part of this survey, we asked physicians to tell us about a recent ethical dilemma encountered in practice. A subset of respondents reported difficulties regarding resource allocation. Transcripts of open-ended responses were coded for content based on consensus. RESULTS: Of the 600 physicians originally identified, 537 were eligible and 344 participated (response rate, 64%). Internists do not make allocation decisions alone but rather engage in negotiation in their resolution. Furthermore, these decisions are not made as dichotomous choices. Rather they often involve alternative solutions in the face of complexities of both the health care system and situations where limited resources must be allocated. Justice is not commonly the justification for rationing. CONCLUSION: Physicians' experiences in situations of resource constraints appear to be more complex than the normative literature on health care rationing assumes. In addition, reasoning about justice in health care seems to play only a small part in clinical decision making. Bridging this gap could be an important step in fostering fair allocation of resources in difficult cases.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Choosing Healthplans All Together: a deliberative exercise for allocating limited health care resources.

CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together) is an exercise in participatory decision making designed to engage the public in health care priority setting. Participants work individually and then in groups to distribute a limited number of pegs on a board as they select from a wide range of insurance options. Randomly distributed health events illustrate the consequences of insurance choices. In 1999-2000, the authors conducted fifty sessions of CHAT involving 592 residents of North Carolina. The exercise was rated highly regarding ease of use, informativeness, and enjoyment. Participants found the information believable and complete, thought the group decision-making process was fair, and were willing to abide by group decisions. CHAT holds promise as a tool to foster group deliberation, generate collective choices, and incorporate the preferences and values of consumers into allocation decisions. It can serve to inform and stimulate public dialogue about limited health care resources.

Community Participation↗
PubMed2004

A content analysis of forms, guidelines, and other materials documenting end-of-life care in intensive care units.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which data entry forms, guidelines, and other materials used for documentation in intensive care units (ICUs) attend to 6 key end-of-life care (EOLC) domains: 1) patient and family-centered decision making, 2) communication, 3) continuity of care, 4) emotional and practical support, 5) symptom management and comfort care, and 6) spiritual support. A second purpose was to determine how these materials might be modified to include more EOLC content and used to trigger clinical behaviors that might improve the quality of EOLC. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen adult ICUs-8 medical, 2 surgical, and 4 mixed ICUs from the United States, and 1 mixed ICU in Canada, all affiliated with the Critical Care End-of-Life Peer Workgroup METHODS: Physician-nurse teams in each ICU received detailed checklists to facilitate and standardize collection of requested documentation materials. Content analysis was performed on the collected documents, aimed at characterizing the types of materials in use and the extent to which EOLC content was incorporated. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The domain of symptom management and comfort care was integrated most consistently on forms and other materials across the 15 ICUs, particularly pain assessment and management. The 5 other EOLC domains of patient and family centered decision-making, communication, emotional and practical support, continuity of care, and spiritual support were not well-represented on documentation. None of the 15 ICUs supplied a comprehensive EOLC policy or EOLC critical pathway that outlined an overall, interdisciplinary, sequenced approach for the care of dying patients and their families. Nursing materials included more cues for attending to EOLC domains and were more consistently preprinted and computerized than materials used by physicians. Computerized forms concerning EOLC were uncommon. Across the 15 ICUs, there were opportunities to make EOLC- related materials more capable of triggering and documenting specific EOLC clinical behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of EOLC items on ICU formatted data entry forms and other materials capable of triggering and documenting clinician behaviors is limited, particularly for physicians. Standardized scales, protocols, and guidelines exist for many of the EOLC domains and should be evaluated for possible use in ICUs. Whether such materials can improve EOLC has yet to be determined.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2004

Enrollees choose priorities for Medicare.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and results of ascertaining Medicare enrollees' priorities for insured medical benefits. DESIGN AND METHODS: Structured group exercises were conducted with Medicare enrollees from clinical and community settings in central North Carolina. By participating in a decision exercise, CHAT: Choosing Healthplans All Together, individuals and groups chose medical benefits within the constraints of a monthly Medicare + Choice premium. The acceptability of the exercise and the resulting benefit package were assessed. RESULTS: Ten groups (121 individuals) made trade-offs that involved the selection of more tightly managed care in order to add pharmacy, dental, and long-term care benefits. All were willing to forgo experimental therapy; 7 groups gave priority to insuring the uninsured. Participants found the exercise overwhelmingly acceptable and were willing to abide by their groups' choices. IMPLICATIONS: Medicare enrollees are able to come to consensus about financially constrained benefit packages that may be useful in reform of the Medicare program.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

A national survey of U.S. internists' experiences with ethical dilemmas and ethics consultation.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the ethical dilemmas that internists encounter, the strategies they use to address them, and the usefulness of ethics consultation. DESIGN: National telephone survey. SETTING: Doctors' offices. PARTICIPANTS: General internists, oncologists, and critical care/pulmonologists (N = 344, 64% response rate). MEASUREMENTS: Types of ethical dilemmas recently encountered and likelihood of requesting ethics consultation; satisfaction with resolution of ethical dilemmas with and without ethics consultation. RESULTS: Internists most commonly reported dilemmas regarding end-of-life decision making, patient autonomy, justice, and conflict resolution. General internists, oncologists, and critical care specialists reported participating in an average of 1.4, 1.3, and 4.1 consultations in the preceding 2 years, respectively (P <.0001). Physicians with the least ethics training had the least access to and participated in the fewest ethics consultations; 19% reported consultation was unavailable at their predominant practice site. Dilemmas about end-of-life decisions and patient autonomy were often referred for consultation, while dilemmas about justice, such as lack of insurance or limited resources, were rarely referred. While most physicians thought consultations yielded information that would be useful in dealing with future ethical dilemmas (72%), some hesitated to seek ethics consultation because they believed it was too time consuming (29%), might make the situation worse (15%), or that consultants were unqualified (11%). CONCLUSIONS: While most internists recall recent ethical dilemmas in their practices, those with the least preparation and experience have the least access to ethics consultation. Health care organizations should emphasize ethics educational activities to prepare physicians for handling ethical dilemmas on their own and should improve the accessibility and responsiveness of ethics consultation when needed.

Codes of Ethics↗
PubMed2004

Will insured citizens give up benefit coverage to include the uninsured?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the willingness of insured citizens to trade off their own health benefits to cover the uninsured. DESIGN: Descriptive study of individual and group decisions and decision making using quantitative and qualitative methods. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-nine groups of citizens (N = 282) residing throughout Minnesota. INTERVENTIONS: Groups participated in Choosing Healthplans All Together (CHAT), a simulation exercise in which participants choose whether and how extensively to cover health services in a hypothetical health plan constrained by limited resources. We describe individual and group decisions, and group dialogue concerning whether to allocate 2% of their premium to cover uninsured children in Minnesota, or 4% of their premium to cover uninsured children and adults. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: While discussing coverage for the uninsured, groups presented arguments about personal responsibility, community benefit, caring for the vulnerable, social impact, and perceptions of personal risk. All groups chose to insure children; 22 of 29 groups also insured adults. More individuals chose to cover the uninsured at the end of the exercise, after group deliberation, than before (66% vs 54%; P < .001). Individual selections differed from group selections more often for the uninsured category than any other. Nevertheless, 89% of participants were willing to abide by the health plan developed by their group. CONCLUSION: In the context of tradeoffs with their own health insurance benefits, groups of Minnesotans presented value-based arguments about covering the uninsured. All 29 groups and two thirds of individuals chose to contribute a portion of their premium to insure all children and most groups chose also to insure uninsured adults.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Enrolling the uninsured in clinical trials: an ethical perspective.

Research participation by individuals who lack health insurance raises significant but seldom-discussed ethical issues for clinical investigators. Of particular concern are the possibility that their lack of options for getting care at the time of enrollment makes the uninsured susceptible to undue inducement to join trials and the possibility that their inability to access research products after trials leads to their exploitation. In tension with these concerns, however, is the right of the uninsured to fair consideration for research participation. We discuss these competing issues and make recommendations for how investigators can both protect uninsured research participants and provide the uninsured with fair access to research in their recruitment and enrollment strategies.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2003

Quality indicators for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this study was to address the documented deficiencies in end-of-life care (EOLC) in intensive care unit settings by identifying key EOLC domains and related quality indicators for use in the intensive care unit through a consensus process. A second goal was to propose specific clinician and organizational behaviors and interventions that might be used to improve these EOLC quality indicators. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were the 36 members of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) Critical Care End-of-Life Peer Workgroup and 15 nurse-physician teams from 15 intensive care units affiliated with the work group members. Fourteen adult medical, surgical, and mixed intensive care units from 13 states and the District of Columbia in the United States and one mixed intensive care unit in Canada were represented. METHODS: An in-depth literature review was conducted to identify articles that assessed the domains of quality of EOLC in the intensive care unit and general health care. Consensus regarding the key EOLC domains in the intensive care unit and quality performance indicators within each domain was established based on the review of the literature and an iterative process involving the authors and members of the RWJF Critical Care End-of-Life Peer Workgroup. Specific clinician and organizational behaviors and interventions to address the proposed EOLC quality indicators within the domains were identified through a collaborative process with the nurse-physician teams in 15 intensive care units. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seven EOLC domains were identified for use in the intensive care unit: a) patient- and family-centered decision making; b) communication; c) continuity of care; d) emotional and practical support; e) symptom management and comfort care; f) spiritual support; and g) emotional and organizational support for intensive care unit clinicians. Fifty-three EOLC quality indicators within the seven domains were proposed. More than 100 examples of clinician and organizational behaviors and interventions that could address the EOLC quality indicators in the intensive care unit setting were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These EOLC domains and the associated quality indicators, developed through a consensus process, provide clinicians and researchers with a framework for understanding quality of EOLC in the intensive care unit. Once validated, these indicators might be used to improve the quality of EOLC by serving as the components of an internal or external audit evaluating EOLC continuous quality improvement efforts in intensive care unit settings.

Advance Directives↗