Prioritising the vaccine

 Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine

Health equity is intertwined with the impact of COVID-19 and there are certain populations that are at increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19. In the United States and worldwide, the pandemic is having a disproportionate impact on people who are already disadvantaged by virtue of their race and ethnicity, age, health status, residence, occupation, socioeconomic condition, or other contributing factors.

Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine offers an overarching framework for vaccine allocation to assist policy makers in the domestic and global health communities. Built on widely accepted foundational principles and recognizing the distinctive characteristics of COVID-19, this report's recommendations address the commitments needed to implement equitable allocation policies for COVID-19 vaccine.

If vaccines are coming in the next months and we all agree that supply will not fulfill demand, then we need to prioritise. This publication of the National Academy of Medicine provides some usegul insights. However, the most important is to have a concrete application in specific contexts.

Joana Biarnés

Pandemètica

 The shared ethical framework to allocate scarce medical resources: a lesson from COVID-19

Durant la pandèmia i des d'aquest blog he parlat repetidament dels principis ètics en l'assignació de recursos. Ara l'Ezequiel Emanuel i en Govind Persad des del Lancet fan un article de resum imprescindible. I diuen:

The ethical allocation of scarce medical resources entails a three-step process: (1) elucidating the fundamental ethical values for allocation, (2) using the values to delineate priority tiers for scarce resources, and (3) actually implementing the prioritisation to faithfully realise the fundamental values. The COVID-19 pandemic engendered many assessments and reports on the ethical allocation of vaccines, therapeutics, and other medical interventions that have elucidated the definitive ethical framework for distributing scarce resources. The pandemic also provided major tests for implementing ethical allocation frameworks, revealing important lessons on the challenges of moving from theory to practice, and  refinements that would enhance realisation of the ethical framework

I després d'explicar els tres passos, mostren quins són els valors fonamentals per assignar recursos mèdics escassos en aquesta taua: 

Table 2Fundamental values for allocating scarce medical resources

	Definition
Maximising benefits and preventing harm	Preferential allocation of medical resources towards individuals who can gain most benefit and protection against harm; harms can be broad to include both health (eg, death) and non-health (eg, poverty); harms can occur directly from the disease and indirectly when health-care system functioning is compromised
Mitigating disadvantage	Preferential allocation of medical resources towards people who are disadvantaged by income, race, ethnicity, religion, or other characteristics
Equal moral concern	Treating similar people similarly, and not discriminating on the basis of morally irrelevant characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or religion; typically requires not treating people the same, but treating people in different circumstances (eg, in communities with a higher or lower burden of COVID-19) differently
Reciprocity	Preferential allocation of medical resources towards people, communities, or countries who in the past took on burdens to address the current health problem
Instrumental value	Preferential allocation of medical resources towards people who will be able to mitigate harms and disadvantage of others; not an independent value but facilitates realising the other values particularly benefitting people

I després entren en detalls de documents que han tractat la qüestió, i alhora els reptes en la seva aplicació pràctica, i conclouen:

The lessons learned clarify that the ethical framework to guide allocation entails five substantive values—minimising harms, mitigating disadvantage (ensuring equity), equal moral concern (not identical treatment), reciprocity, and instrumental value. The pandemic also helped to clarify the establishment of priority tiers that primarily emphasise instrumental value, minimising harm, and mitigating  disadvantage.

Article de referència, per guardar. 

A Foto Colectania ara

Pandemethics (2)

 Pandemic Bioethics

Contents:
Chapter 1 Historical Epidemics
The Spanish Flu of 1918
Cholera
Plague
Smallpox
Yellow Fever
Malaria
Chapter 2 Modern Viral Pandemics
Polio
Asian Flu of 1957 and Hong Kong Flu of 1968
Ebola
Swine Flu of 1976
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
SARS1
Swine Flu of 2009
Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)
Zika
Other Viral Diseases Affecting Humans
Chapter 3 The Medical Nature of SARS2
Disputed Origins of SARS2
The Clinical Course of COVID-19
Transmission and Immunity
Chapter 4 Policies for Containment
Quarantine as a Preventive Allocation Strategy
Four Models of Fighting Pandemics
Successes and Failures around the World
Intermittent Lockdowns, Denial, and the American Confusion
Chapter 5 Who Should Live When Not All Can?
Ethical Theories as Guides
Historical Background: The God Committee and Social Worth
A Relevant Digression: “Sickest First” Allocation and UNOS
Enter Bioethicists
Saints and Sacrifice
Covid, Cognitively Challenged Patients, and Rights of Disabled Persons
Unexpected Allocation Issues
Chapter 6 Developing Vaccines
A Brief History of Vaccines
Kinds of Vaccines
Ethical Issues in Developing Vaccines
Speeding Up Development of Experimental Vaccines
Other Problems with Vaccine Trials
Politics and Vaccines for Covid
Chapter 7 Allocating Vaccines
Success with Quick Production of Vaccines
The CDC and the States
Ability to Pay and Access to Vaccines
Allocation Priorities
Vaccination Complexities
Mandatory Vaccinations
Global Vaccine Distribution
Possible Bad Scenarios
Chapter 8 Acts and Omissions, the Trolley Problem, and Prisoner’s Dilemmas
Acts vesus Omissions
The Trolley Problem
Prisoner’s Dilemmas and Vaccination Uptake
Chapter 9 Liberty and Privacy
Philosophical Positions on Liberty
Problems of Contact Tracing
Controlling Pandemics versus Protecting Privacy
Privacy of Genetic Information Collected during Testing in Pandemics
Chapter 10 Status Certificates
Defining Key Terms
What Is the Purpose of Status Certificates?
Benefits of Status Certificates
Problems with Status Certificates
Chapter 11 Structural Inequalities and Vulnerable Groups
Who Is Most Vulnerable in a Pandemic?
Differences in Efforts to Control Infection in Different Vulnerable Groups
Chapter 12 Leadership during Pandemics
Leadership and the Virtue of Trust
The WHO’s Leaders Made Mistakes
Donald Trump and American Leadership
Judgment of US Leaders during the Pandemic
Chapter 13 The Future
The Future of COVID-19
Lessons to Learn
More Pandemics Will Come
What Will Happen Next?

Vaccine allocation

 Discussion Draft of the Preliminary Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine

Guiding Principles from Allocation Frameworks Developed for the COVID-19 Pandemic:

• Ensure that allocation maximizes benefit to patients, mitigates inequities and disparities, and adheres to ethical principles.

• Promote the common good through fairness, transparency, accountability, and trustworthiness.

• Save the greatest number of lives possible—while respecting rights and fairness—to

maximize benefit to the community as a whole.

• Use the best available evidence to assess benefit to communities and address uncertainty.

• Allocate scarce resources responsibly to reduce risk while providing benefit.

• Provide clear and transparent criteria for prioritization strategies.

• Ensure that allocation policies are flexible, responsive to the concerns of the affected

population, and proportionate to the epidemiological situation and the vaccine supply relative to need.

How to proceed in practical terms? Who knows...

 Hockney

Vaccine nationalism (2)

 Designing Pull Funding For A COVID-19 Vaccine

If somebody wants to avoid vaccine nationalism, then there is a need for a global mechanism of allocation. You'll find a specific proposal in Health Affairs about this issue. Unfortunately, it seems that nobody cares about its application.

In baseline simulations, the optimal pull program spends an average of $50 per dose to obtain an average of 2.2 billion doses—$110.4 billion in total. The size of our pull program is driven by the enormous estimated benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, leading the optimal program to induce nearly all firms to participate (average of 9.8 out of 10), installing nearly all  available capacity, and allowing more people to be vaccinated with less delay. To secure this level of participation requires the award to cover all but the most exorbitant cost draws. On average, 2.9 of the 10 candidate firms develop a successful vaccine, generating a social benefit (net of program costs) of $2.8 trillion.

 Our mechanism offers two advantages over the free market. First, it dramatically lowers cost—by a factor of thirteen—by averting a bidding war. Given our program’s larger size compared with other policy proposals, it is ironic that its advantage would be to lower costs compared with the private market. Second, it allows for more efficient allocation, moving some vulnerable people in lowerincome countries up in the queue ahead of some from richer countries experiencing lower harm. A conjectured third benefit of our mechanism— enhancing investment in more candidates and more capacity—did not materialize in baseline simulations. Demand for a COVID-19 vaccine is so high that every firm in every simulation finds investing profitable under a free-market scenario. This third benefit does materialize in scenarios with substantially more per firm capacity than in the baseline.

 Eivissa, Francesc Català i Roca

 

Pandemethics

The Ethics of Pandemics

From this timely book I'm specially interested in Chapter 4: Scarce Resource Allocation. The whole book offers an overview of some of the most pressing issues of our time. Outline of chapter 4:

4.1 Ezekiel J. Emanuel et al., Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of COVID-19

4.2 Angela Ballantyne, ICU Triage: How Many Lives or Whose Lives?

4.3 Jackie Leach Scully, Disablism in a Time of Pandemic

4.4 Joseph J. Fins, Disabusing the Disability Critique of the New York State Task Force Report on Ventilator Allocation

4.5 Franklin G. Miller, Why I Support Age-Related Rationing of Ventilators for COVID-19 Patients

4.6 Shai Held, The Staggering, Heartless Cruelty toward the Elderly: A Global Pandemic Doesn’t Give Us Cause to Treat the Aged Callously

Case Study: Ventilator Shortages: Who Should Live?

Vaccine allocation (2)

 An ethical framework for global vaccine allocation

Ezequiel Emanuel et al. article:

Fairly distributing a COVID-19 vaccine among countries is a problem of distributive justice. Although governments will be the initial recipients of vaccine, fair distribution across countries must reflect a moral concern for the ultimate recipients: individuals. Three values are particularly relevant: benefiting people and limiting harm, prioritizing the disadvantaged, and equal moral concern.

Benefiting people and limiting harm is widely recognized as important across ethical theories. Realizing this value requires defining relevant benefits, measuring them, and assessing the relative urgency—the importance and time sensitivity—of countries’ needs. A successful vaccine produces direct benefits by protecting people against death and morbidity caused by infection. It also produces indirect benefits by reducing death and morbidity arising from health systems overstressed by the pandemic, and by reducing poverty and social hardship such as closed schools.

Prioritizing the disadvantaged is a fundamental value in ethics and global health (10, 11). Realizing this value requires that vaccine distribution reflect special concern for people who are disadvantaged. Fairly distributing a COVID-19 vaccine internationally therefore requires assessing different types of disadvantage. Are the worst-off countries those experiencing the greatest poverty? Those where people have the lowest life expectancies?

Equal moral concern requires treating similar individuals similarly and not discriminating on the basis of morally irrelevant differences, such as sex, race, and religion. Distributing different quantities of vaccine to different countries is not discriminatory if it effectively benefits people while prioritizing the disadvantaged.

And the allocation model: 

 The Fair Priority Model proceeds in three phases, preventing more urgent harms earlier (see the Table). Phase 1 aims at reducing premature deaths and other irreversible direct and indirect health impacts. Phase 2 continues to address enduring health harms but additionally aims at reducing serious economic and social deprivations such as the closure of nonessential businesses and schools. Restoring these activities will lower unemployment, reduce poverty, and improve health. Finally, phase 3 aims at reducing community transmission, which in turn reduces spread among countries and permits the restoration of prepandemic freedoms and economic and social activities.

 

On rationing (ventilators) (2)

Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19

The four fundamental values for allocating resources, according Ezequiel Emanuel and colleagues are those included in this article:

Maximizing the benefits produced by scarce resources, treating people equally, promoting and rewarding instrumental value, and giving priority to the worst off. Consensus exists that an individual person’s wealth should not determine who lives or dies.

And,

Maximization of benefits can be understood as saving the most individual lives or as saving the most life-years by giving priority to patients likely to survive longest after treatment. Treating people equally could be attempted by random selection, such as a lottery, or by a first-come, first-served allocation. Instrumental value could be promoted by giving priority to those who can save others, or rewarded by giving priority to those who have saved others in the past. And priority to the worst off could be understood as giving priority either to the sickest or to younger people who will have lived the shortest lives if they die untreated.

The proposals for allocation discussed above also recognize that all these ethical values and ways to operationalize them are compelling. No single value is sufficient alone to determine which patients should receive scarce resources.24-33 Hence, fair allocation requires a multivalue ethical framework that can be adapted, depending on the resource and context in question.

Here you'll find some reflections on how to put this into practice.

Eating in pandemic times

Vaccine nationalism

 The Optimal Allocation of Covid-19 Vaccines

Covid-19 vaccine prioritization is key if the initial supply of the vaccine is limited. A consensus is emerging to first prioritize populations facing a high risk of severe illness in high-exposure occupations. The challenge is assigning priorities next among high-risk populations in low-exposure occupations and those that are young and healthy but work in high-exposure occupations. We estimate occupation-based infection risks and use age-based infection fatality rates in a model to assign priorities over populations with different occupations and ages. Among others, we find that 50-year-old food-processing workers and 60-year-old financial advisors are equally prioritized. Our model suggests a vaccine distribution that emphasizes age-based mortality risk more than occupation-based exposure risk.

Today we can confirm that the probability of such proposal is low. After reading FT, WHO framework has suffered a setback.

Banksy

Mazzucato as a supplier of a flattering narrative for politicians

 The Myth of the Entrepreneurial State

Some delicious words by Deirdre McCloskey on Mazzucato recent contributions:

Mazzucato, a loyal daughter of the left, is suspicious of private gain, of the sort you pursue when you go shopping, say, and is therefore suspicious of people doing things for a private reward. She wants the State, advised by herself, to decide for you. Yet the private entrepreneur, she would concede, gets a reward if she pleases her customers. And it is in fact what Mazzucato in her own trade has done. She has parachuted herself into the center of the debate about the role of state planning as against private profit-making for innovation and allocation. It is not because she is innovative herself (though that is what her brave rhetoric suggests), but because she is, market-style, giving people what most of them want: magical thinking, mythical certitude, free lunches all around, wise and loving parents guiding the people in a coerced routine from on high. Modern “statism.” Her theory is the illiberal one that has dominated economics since John Maynard Keynes eight decades ago spoke out loud and bold.

 The statists imagine that it is always COVID-19 time, for anything: the legitimate actions by a State to suppress a plague or a forest fire or a military invasion are to be applied to all manner of private matters, always, with no such persuasive claim to legitimacy as fighting plagues, forest fires, or invasions, being technically speaking public goods. Braiding hair for a living is to be regulated by the State. Innovation and allocation, says Mazzucato in particular, are to be socialized.

And we could say that Deirdre is a loyal daughter of the right. And no problem. However, you may imagine what follows...in her book. I have read Mazzucato and part of her arguments are convincing. However, there is a need for a balanced perspective according to the current trends. Deirdre provides such perspective. A book that deserves to be read.

How testing market fails during a pandemic

What Caused the COVID-19 Testing Deficit?

The evidence of market failure during this pandemic is everywhere. Shortages, excessive prices, unavailable capacity...It is a clear example of mismatch between demand and supply. The question is, Can we do it otherwise?. In this article there are some hints for resource allocation for testing activities.

Globally, the development of diagnostics has long been left to markets, many of which are highly specialized. But while there are diagnostics markets for major infectious and non-infectious diseases, and even neglected tropical diseases, there is none for pandemic diseases.
Governments can of course counteract market deficiencies, but the commonly used mechanisms still require a trace level of demand, which does not exist for pandemic-disease diagnostics until the brink of an outbreak. And national governments, subject as they are to political and ideological constraints, cannot be relied upon always to create markets with the same swiftness demonstrated by South Korea. Reactive market creation is therefore not the way forward.
Instead, national governments should support the creation of a global coordinating platform for pandemic preparedness. Such a platform can take the lead in raising and pooling capital to channel toward rapid development, production, and distribution of diagnostics for pandemic diseases.
The blueprint for such a platform already exists. The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) is a coordinating mechanism focused on advancing vaccine development and facilitating clinical validation, mass-scale manufacturing, and stockpiling. By reducing uncertainty and minimizing disruptions, CEPI makes vaccine markets more secure, accessible, and dynamic.
CEPI relies on both traditional financing (large grants from governments and foundations) and innovative financing (the returns from instruments like the International Finance Facility for Immunization, or IFFIm). In the event of an outbreak, CEPI uses instruments like Advanced Market Commitments (AMCs) or volume guarantees – which can be structured through mechanisms like the Global Health Investment Fund and InnovFin, or as conditional pledges to IFFIm and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance – to enable it to scale up production quickly.
This blueprint can easily be replicated for diagnostics. All that is needed is a specialized entity – an institution or initiative that couples research and development with market access. 

Vaccine equity

 From Vaccine Nationalism to Vaccine Equity — Finding a Path Forward

From NEJM: 

Vaccinating the world is not only a moral obligation to protect our neighbors, it also serves our self-interest by protecting our security, health, and economy. These goals will not be accomplished by making the world wait for wealthy countries to be vaccinated first. By investing in multilateral partnerships with a sense of shared commitment and employing a global allocation strategy that increases supply and manufacturing, we can meet the urgent challenge of Covid-19, while creating sustainable infrastructures and health systems for the future. Getting the world vaccinated may well be the critical test of our time.

 Anna Billing