5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Rare diseases in healthcare priority setting: should rarity matter?

      Journal of Medical Ethics
      BMJ

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Rare diseases pose a particular priority setting problem. The UK gives rare diseases special priority in healthcare priority setting. Effectively, the National Health Service is willing to pay much more to gain a quality-adjusted life-year related to a very rare disease than one related to a more common condition. But should rare diseases receive priority in the allocation of scarce healthcare resources? This article develops and evaluates four arguments in favour of such a priority. These pertain to public values, luck egalitarian distributive justice the epistemic difficulties of obtaining knowledge about rare diseases and the incentives created by a higher willingness to pay. The first is at odds with our knowledge regarding popular opinion. The three other arguments may provide a reason to fund rare diseases generously. However, they are either overinclusive because they would also justify funding for many non-rare diseases or underinclusive in the sense of justifying priority for only some rare diseases. The arguments thus fail to provide a justification that tracks rareness as such.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Estimating cumulative point prevalence of rare diseases: analysis of the Orphanet database

          Rare diseases, an emerging global public health priority, require an evidence-based estimate of the global point prevalence to inform public policy. We used the publicly available epidemiological data in the Orphanet database to calculate such a prevalence estimate. Overall, Orphanet contains information on 6172 unique rare diseases; 71.9% of which are genetic and 69.9% which are exclusively pediatric onset. Global point prevalence was calculated using rare disease prevalence data for predefined geographic regions from the ‘Orphanet Epidemiological file’ (http://www.orphadata.org/cgi-bin/epidemio.html). Of the 5304 diseases defined by point prevalence, 84.5% of those analysed have a point prevalence of <1/1 000 000. However 77.3–80.7% of the population burden of rare diseases is attributable to the 4.2% (n = 149) diseases in the most common prevalence range (1–5 per 10 000). Consequently national definitions of ‘Rare Diseases’ (ranging from prevalence of 5 to 80 per 100 000) represent a variable number of rare disease patients despite sharing the majority of rare disease in their scope. Our analysis yields a conservative, evidence-based estimate for the population prevalence of rare diseases of 3.5–5.9%, which equates to 263–446 million persons affected globally at any point in time. This figure is derived from data from 67.6% of the prevalent rare diseases; using the European definition of 5 per 10 000; and excluding rare cancers, infectious diseases, and poisonings. Future registry research and the implementation of rare disease codification in healthcare systems will further refine the estimates.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Equality and equal opportunity for welfare

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Medical Ethics
                J Med Ethics
                BMJ
                0306-6800
                1473-4257
                August 22 2022
                September 2022
                September 2022
                June 08 2021
                : 48
                : 9
                : 624-628
                Article
                10.1136/medethics-2020-106978
                34103369
                bcb0d2a2-db16-48b2-8448-3aa94e46cf21
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article