Unconventional Practice, "Innovative" Interventions and the National Law

This column explores a recent health profession disciplinary case which throws light on the problems of unconventional interventions by medical practitioners under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld). The case involved "innovative" practices which were later found to have been scientifically unsupported, dangerous to patients and grounds for cancelling the health practitioner's registration. This column looks at common features of these kinds of cases in Australia and then examines recent attempts by the Medical Board of Australia to draft policy guidance around the use of unconventional practice in medicine. This column concludes with a number of changes to improve the effectiveness of the proposed policy.

A return to reasonableness and virtue in medical epistemology

The foundationalist and anti-foundationalist conceptions of medical knowledge have been at loggerheads for decades. Evidence-based medicine (EBM), the most prominent form of foundationalism, has attained wide appeal and acceptance among authorities. It proposes that evidence is the "base" upon which all clinical decisions should be grounded. Others have countered that the clinical encounter is far too complex for a singular base, and the different factors that impose on a clinical decision cannot be neatly and permanently ranked a priori. By its very nature, this anti-foundationalist outlook has resisted simplistic description, which is perhaps the reason it has not been as popular. In this paper, I provide a survey of the foundationalist and anti-foundationalist debate in medicine and defend anti-foundationalism on the basis that foundationalist approaches are anachronistic, and in the case of evidence-based medicine ultimately confuses inputs (evidence) for consideration in making a judgement with outputs (conclusions). I further propose that virtue ethics is inseparable from anti-foundationalism and conclude that the current infatuation with EBM implies something rather troubling; that physicians cannot be trusted to utilize their extensive training and skills to make reasonable decisions in the best interests of their patients. If this is in fact true, it suggests a crisis in virtue amongst medical professionals.

Does Consumer Engagement in Health Technology Assessment Enhance or Undermine Equity?

Consumer engagement in decisions about the funding of medicines is often framed as a good in and of itself and as an activity that should be universally encouraged. A common justification for calls for consumer engagement is that it enhances equity. In this paper we systematically critique this assumption. We show that consumer engagement may undermine equity as well as enhance it and show that a simple relationship cannot be assumed but must be justified and demonstrated. In concluding, we present a number of challenges that need to be overcome in order for consumer engagement to contribute to health technology assessment in a morally and politically sound manner.

Australian regulation of autologous human cell and tissue products: implications for commercial stem cell clinics

In 2018, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration introduced regulatory reforms that set stricter criteria around the regulation of products derived from a patient’s own cells and tissues, posing significant implications for clinics offering stem cell treatments. We review the regulatory framework and discuss its potential commercial implications, including the ambiguities that may arise from it in practice, as well as the likely impact it will have on product development and advertising practices in the future.

'Treat them into the grave': cancer physicians' attitudes towards the use of high-cost cancer medicines at the end of life

The prescribing of high-cost cancer medicines at the end of life has become a focus of criticism, due primarily to concerns about the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these medicines in this clinical context. In response to these concerns, a number of interventions have been proposed - frequently focused on improving physician-patient communication at the end of life. Underpinning these strategies is the assumption that the prescribing of high-cost cancer medicines at the end of life is primarily the result of poor communication on the part of cancer physicians. In this paper, we explore the factors perceived by cancer physicians to be driving the use of high-cost cancer medicines at the end of life. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 16 Australian oncologists and haematologists, we demonstrate that these physicians believe that the use of high-cost medicines at the end of life is driven by multiple factors - including individual, interpersonal, socio-cultural and public policy influences. We conclude that these factors, and their interactions, need to be taken into account in the development of public policy and clinical interventions to address the use of high-cost medicines at the end of life.

Caution needed in introduction of provisional approvals for medicines

The Australian government recently released its response to the Review of Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation, accepting most recommendations. One recommendation involves the introduction of provisional approvals for perceived life-saving and innovative new treatments, allowing these to be approved on the basis of more limited data on the condition that further safety and efficacy data (including real-world evidence) are collected to determine whether full approval should be granted. However, experience with similar schemes overseas raises significant questions about the safety and efficacy of products made available through these pathways. These uncertainties are compounded by the challenges associated with the collection and use of 'real-world' data and the difficulty of withdrawing products from the market once patients and clinicians become familiar with them. Although there may be good reasons to provide patients with earlier access to medicines on the basis of provisional evidence (including providing treatment options and hope to patients with serious illnesses), we must exercise caution in order to protect both current and future patients from potentially harmful and futile treatments and ensure that healthcare systems use their resources wisely.

Access to High Cost Cancer Medicines Through the Lens of an Australian Senate Inquiry-Defining the "Goods" at Stake

Cancer is a major burden on populations and health systems internationally. The development of innovative cancer medicines is seen as a significant part of the solution. These new cancer medicines are, however, expensive, leading to limited or delayed access and disagreements among stakeholders about which medicines to fund. There is no obvious resolution to these disagreements, with stakeholders holding firmly to divergent positions. Access to cancer medicines was recently explored in Australia in a Senate Inquiry into the Availability of New, Innovative, and Specialist Cancer Drugs in Australia. We analysed the resultant Senate Report to identify competing stakeholder values. Our analysis illustrates that there are four main "goods" prioritized by different stakeholders: 1) innovation, 2) compassion, 3) equity, and 4) sustainability. We observe that, with the exception of sustainability, all of these "goods" put pressure on payers to provide access to cancer medicines more quickly and based on less rigorous evaluation processes. We then explore the consequences of giving in to such pressure and suggest that deconstructing the implicit values in calls for "enhanced access" to cancer medicines is necessary so that more nuanced solutions to the challenge of providing access to these high cost medicines can be found.

Challenges to the validity of using medicine labels to categorize clinical behavior: An empirical and normative critique of "off-label" prescribing

This study aimed to determine whether the label status of a medicine penetrates into the clinical reasoning of Australian medical practitioners and to explore the possible reasons for our findings using semistructured interviews with 14 Australian physicians. The interviews revealed 3 broad catalysts for off-label prescribing. The first of these was lack of awareness or understanding of the regulatory process in general and labels more specifically. The second was the perception that labels are not meaningful guides for clinical practice. The third was the recognition of alternative mechanisms for ensuring safe, rational, and evidence-based prescribing occurs. This research suggests that Australian physicians do not consider whether a medicine is off-label to be a reliable measure of the appropriateness of their prescribing practices. Rather, the legitimacy of prescribing practices is determined by the abilities, skills, and knowledge base of particular prescribers by a culture that encourages and supports evidence-based practice, and safe prescribing. Although labels are of minimal clinical significance, there are real conceptual, practical, and moral problems associated with conflating "good" or "better" practice with "on-label" practice, and "bad" or "worse" practice with off-label prescribing as often occurs. To ascribe greater meaning to the term "off-label" than is warranted can have the unintended consequence of casting suspicion on and making it more difficult for physicians to provide appropriate clinical care. We conclude that labeling can, in some cases, provide assurances to both clinicians and patients that their medications have been demonstrated to be safe and effective, but that clinicians should be able to continue to prescribe responsibly off-label without having any stigma attached to their practice.

The complex legal and ethical issues related to generic medications. Viral hepatitis: a case study

The economic impact of medications is significant, with many countries unable to afford the essential medicines listed by the WHO. Generic medications are one strategy to address this issue. Generic medications are similar to but not the same as originator medications. They have a significant cost advantage because they do not require the background research and development studies to support registration. Consequently, they are gaining increased market share in both the developed and developing world. Many new medications are now licensed to generic manufacturers in the developing world. As a result, it is possible for patients to bypass regulatory and cost barriers by importing medications directly from generic producers. Importation of the novel hepatitis C direct-acting antiviral therapy into Australia before it was registered in the country is an illustrative case study. This review will characterise generic medications and some of the legal and ethical issues around their utilisation, focusing on the relevant players, including pharma, government, patients and doctors.

The Right to Health: Implications for the Funding of Medicines in Australia

Australia’s health system is characterised by an ongoing tension between a commitment to utility and a commitment to individual rights. This tension is particularly problematic for the Australian Government when deciding which cancer medicines to add to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in order to make them cheaper for patients. This article investigates how the right to the highest attainable standard of health has influenced decisions about funding high-cost cancer medicines in Australia. It considers the value of the right to health for funders and concludes that resource allocation decisions should not be entirely informed by the right to health. It is maintained that, instead, regard should be had to the cost-effectiveness and affordability of cancer treatments before they are subsidised.

Off-Label Promotion of Prescription Medicine: Is It Ever Justifiable?

Off-label promotion has attracted intense scrutiny from regulators in recent decades, resulting in many pharmaceutical companies paying hefty penalties for illegal marketing practices. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry has accused governments of applying double standards by encouraging the use of cheaper off-label alternatives to registered treatments, and defended their "right" to promote off-label drugs on freedom of speech grounds. However, the debate about off-label promotion and the prescribing that results has largely failed to address the issue that really matters-what impact does off-label promotion and prescribing have on patients and the health system? This paper explores the benefits and problems with off-label prescribing to determine whether off-label promotion is ever justified and, if so, under what conditions.