Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:37:49.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Autonomy, Coercion, and Public Healthcare Guarantees: The Uptake of Sofosbuvir in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2020

AFSCHIN GANDJOUR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Health insurance coverage for incarcerated citizens is generally acceptable by Western standards. However, it creates internal tensions with the prevailing justifications for public healthcare. In particular, a conceptualization of medical care as a source of autonomy enhancement does not align with the decreased autonomy of incarceration and the needs-based conceptualization of medical care in cases of imprisonment; and rejecting responsibility as a criterion for assigning medical care conflicts with the use of responsibility as a criterion for assigning punishment. The recent introduction of sofosbuvir in Germany provides a particularly instructive illustration of such tensions. It requires searching for a refined reflective equilibrium regarding the scope, limits, and justifications of publicly guaranteed care.

Keywords

autonomyresponsibilityright to healthcareuniversal coverage
Type
Bioethics Beyond Borders
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 90 - 102
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgment: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The author would like to thank Hartmut Kliemt for very valuable comments on an earlier draft. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

Notes

1. German Federal Joint Committee. Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über eine Änderung der Arzneimittel-Richtlinie (AM-RL): Anlage XII—Beschlüsse über die Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln mit neuen Wirkstoffen nach § 35a SGB V—Sofosbuvir. 17. July 2014.

2. See note 1, German Federal Joint Committee 2014.

3. Zentralinstitut für die kassenärztliche Versorgung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ausgaben für Arzneimittel gegen Hepatitis C. 2018; available at https://www.zi.de/presse/grafikdesmonats/ (accessed 23 April 2018).

4. See note 3, Zentralinstitut für die kassenärztliche Versorgung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2018.

5. Robert Koch Institut. Zur Situation bei wichtigen Infektionskrankheiten in Deutschland: Hepatitis C im Jahr 2017. Epidemiologisches Bulletin 2018; 271–284.

6. “The relevant provisions of the Social Code and the regulations made in pursuance thereof shall apply to the type of health examinations and preventive medical services, as well as the extent of these benefits and of the benefits regarding therapeutic treatment, including the supply of medical aids.” (Section 61 of Prison Act).

7. “Prisoners shall be entitled to be supplied with visual and hearing aids, prosthetic appliances, orthopedic and other aids that are necessary in a particular case to ensure the effectiveness of therapeutic treatment or to compensate for a disability, unless this would be unreasonable in view of the short imprisonment term (…).“(Section 59 of Prison Act).

8. Beauchamp, T, Childress, J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994, at 121.Google Scholar

9. Given that hepatitis C is transmitted through direct contact with blood from an infected person, its treatment displays public good characteristics. However, the spread of HCV may not be contained by treatment in regions where it occurs primarily through undiagnosed cases (who are thus untreated) or people who inject drugs (and thus are at risk of reinfection).

10. Kliemt, H. On justifying a minimum welfare state. Constitutional Political Economy 1993;4(2):159–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Breyer, F, Kliemt, H. “Priority of liberty” and the design of a two-tier health care system. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2015;40(2):137–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University; 1971.Google Scholar

13. As far as human cadaveric organs are concerned, practically all Western legal orders have endorsed policies of so-called strict or hard rationing that preclude the acquisition of additional quantities by citizens in their private capacities. Yet, except for a short spell of trying to extend hard rationing practices to other realms of medical care in the U.S. state of Oregon ( Oberlander, J, Marmor, T, Jacobs, L. Rationing medical care: Rhetoric and reality in the Oregon Health Plan. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2001;164(11):1583–7Google ScholarPubMed), the prevailing practice in Western societies is characterized by soft or weak rationing, which provides rations below market clearing prices—typically through state subsidies—but allows for the acquisition of additional quantities by citizens in their private capacities or through private insurance systems.

14. Legal systems that prevent individuals from using their own means for health care reduce those individuals’ autonomy in the name of equality. Although some may deem this desirable, they should be aware that it rests uncomfortably not only with the basic principles of a Western legal order but also with the ethics of care and support for individual autonomy.

15. Daniels, N. Just Health Care. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. Sen, AK. Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1985.Google Scholar

17. Gandjour, A. Resource allocation in health care and the role of personal autonomy. Gesundheitswesen 2015;77(3):e44–50.Google ScholarPubMed

18. See note 17, Gandjour 2015.

19. Daniels, N. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008, at 66.Google Scholar

20. Louis Blanc used almost the same words as Marx much earlier: “All should work according to their capacity, and receive according to their wants” ( Mill, JS. Principles of Political Economy, with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. London: John W. Parker, West Strand; 1948 Google Scholar).

21. Daniels, N. Justice, health, and healthcare. American Journal of Bioethics 2001;1(2):2–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

22. Rugger, JP. Toward a theory of a right to health: Capability and incompletely theorized agreements. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 2006;18(2):3.Google Scholar

23. Robins, I. The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development 2005;6(1):93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Niederau, C, Kapagiannidis, C. Epidemiology of hepatitis C in Germany (in German). Medizinische Klinik (Munich) 2006;101(6):448–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

25. Radun D. Seroprävalenz, Risikoverhalten, Wissen und Einstellungen in Bezug auf HIV, Hepatitis B und C bei erwachsenen Justizvollzugsinsassen, Deutschland. Vorstellung erster Ergebnisse. Hamburg: 4. Internationale Fachtagung Hepatitis C:12.

26. Statistisches Bundesamt. Strafvollzug—Demographische und kriminologische Merkmale der Strafgefangenen zum Stichtag 31.3. Fachserie 10 Reihe 4.1. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt; 2015.

27. Robert Koch Institut. Große Unterschiede bei TB-, HIV-, HCV-Behandlung und Opioid-Substitutions-Therapie unter Gefangenen in Deutschland. Epidemiologisches Bulletin 2018;13.

28. See note 25, Radun 2007.

29. Keppler, KH, Stöver, H. Gefängnismedizin: Medizinische Versorgung unter Haftbedingungen. Stuttgart: Thieme-Verlag; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Since the launch of sofosbuvir, its benefit has been a matter of ongoing debate. Although many authors have been enthusiastic about its real-world impact, a critical appraisal of its clinical trial efficacy was published by the Cochrane Collaboration ( Jakobsen, JC, Nielsen, EE, Feinberg, J, Katakam, KK, Fobian, K, Hauser, G, et al. Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017;9:CD012143Google ScholarPubMed). As reconciling the contradictory viewpoints goes beyond the scope of this article, we would like to maintain that even if sofosbuvir is considered to offer a “dramatic” improvement, a discussion about delayed access will still be of relevance in the case of asymptomatic HCV infection.

31. Cook, TD, Campbell, DT, Day, A. Quasi-experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1979.Google Scholar

32. Mackie, JL. The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation. Oxford University Press; 1974.Google Scholar

33. Mackie’s view is expressed by the following definition of “cause”: “ABC is a minimal sufficient condition: none of its conjuncts is redundant: no part of it, such as AB, is itself sufficient for P. But each single factor, such as A, is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for P. Yet it is clearly related to P in an important way: it is an insufficient but nonredundant part of an unnecessary but sufficient condition” (note 30, Mackie 1974).

34. Following classical work, for example, by Hart ( Hart, HL. The ascription of responsibility and rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 1948;49:171–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

35. Ascribing responsibility in these cases might not be as clear because behavior can also be influenced by biology/genetics, environment, socialization, culture, or advertising.

36. Ahlert, M, Gubernatis, G, Klein, R. Common sense in organ allocation. Analyse & Kritik 2001;23:221–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. “By serving his prison sentence, the prisoner shall be enabled in the future to lead a life of social responsibility without committing criminal offences (objective of treatment). The execution of the prison sentence shall also serve to protect the general public from further criminal offences” (Section 2 of Prison Act).

38. See note 5, Robert Koch Institute 2018.

39. See note 17, Gandjour 2015.

40. Dolan, P, Cookson, R, Ferguson, B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: Focus group study. British Medical Journal 1999;318(7188):916–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

41. McIver, S. Healthy Debate: Independent Evaluation of Citizens’ Juries in Health Settings. King’s Fund; 1998.Google Scholar

42. Strictly speaking, according to German law, “minor additional benefit” refers to a “moderate” benefit such as a reduction in “non-severe” symptoms (AM-NutzenV §5).