Defining 'medical necessity' in an age of personalised medicine: A view from Canada

Surrogacy and the Fiction of Medical Necessity

A number of countries and states prohibit surrogacy except in cases of "medical necessity" or for those with specific medical conditions. Healthcare providers in some countries have similar policies restricting the provision of clinical assistance in surrogacy. This paper argues that surrogacy is never medically necessary in any ordinary understanding of this term. The author aims to show first that surrogacy per se is a socio-legal intervention and not a medical one and, second, that the intervention in question does not treat, prevent, or mitigate any actual or potential harm to health. Legal regulations and healthcare-provider policies of this kind therefore codify a fiction-one which both obscures the socio-legal motivations for surrogacy and inhibits critical examination of those motivations while mobilizing normative connotations of appeals to medical need. The persisting distinction, in law and in moral discourse, between "social" and "medical" surrogacy, is unjustified.

Medical need and health need

I introduce a distinction between health need and medical need, and raise several questions about their interaction. Health needs are needs that relate directly to our health condition. Medical needs are needs which bear some relation to medical institutions or processes. I suggest that the question of whether medical insurance or public care should cover medical needs, health needs, or only needs which fit both categories is a political question that cannot be resolved definitionally. I also argue against an overly strict definition of medical need on the grounds that this presupposes, wrongly, that medical intervention should always be a last resort.

[Medical Necessity: A Notoriously Fuzzy and Therefore Dispensable Concept?]

The concept of a 'medical necessity' (medN) of interventions is used as a dichotomous attribute with steering and orientating function in various contexts without, however, being precisely defined. We see this lack as a virtue if medN is understood as the dynamic result of transparent, trustworthy, and coherent deliberative procedures on both facts and norms. We suggest using the medN concept relative to health care systems, but independent of economic aspects.

Policy Challenges for Organ Allocation in an Era of "Precision Medicine"

There is increasing interest in the use of precision medicine tools and evidence-based outcome measures for donor-recipient matching to optimize transplant outcomes. Although the shift toward greater precision can provide health and resource benefits, it may be perceived as conflicting with both established equity-focused organ allocation norms and the legal and ethical obligations of health care providers and related institutions. With increasing evidence that various forms of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch and/or prognostic biomarkers can affect outcomes, the tension between maximizing utility and ensuring equity seems likely to intensify. In Canada, health care providers are generally required by law to put the interests of their patient, such as access to an organ, above the needs of the health care system and other patients. In addition, transplantation right of access lawsuits, which have been successful in the past, could affect the implementation of precision approaches. These legal tensions could be further heightened by media representations, which have historically favored strong rights of access. When implementing new precision technologies in organ allocation, there will be a recurrent need for policymakers to revisit the balance of equity and utility and to assess how to craft rules that reflect our society’s conception of a fair allocation system.

Just healthcare and human flourishing: Why resource allocation is not just enough

Over many years, different theories have been developed to guide the social practices and policies of institutions so that they demonstrate equal concern and respect for all, and satisfy the requirements of justice. Although the normative principles described in a theory may support just institutions, whether this results in just outcomes will depend on how the decisions that implement the principles are made and actioned. As a societal institution charged with caring for people, ensuring just outcomes is a distinct concern in healthcare. Relationships within this institution are constitutive of human flourishing and are also important to justice. Yet, it is not possible to create, maintain or evaluate interpersonal relationships in the same manner as institutions because rather than being universal and impartial, they are particular and partial. Consequently, the link between theories of justice that guide decision-making in relation to structures or institutions, and the relationships that influence those with a proximate effect on individuals, is not explicit. To address this gap, this article argues that a focus on human flourishing provides a nexus between the decision-making for just institutions and just outcomes for individuals.

Challenges of Multimorbidities in the Era of an Aging Population

The health care system introduced a reimbursement system based on the existing care when the prevalence rate of acute diseases was still. However, the types of diseases in developed countries are mostly noncommunicable diseases such as cancer or vascular disease, and thus, it impossible to fully recover from these chronic diseases. The increase in noncommunicable diseases is related to unhealthy lifestyle habits such as smoking, heavy drinking, and lack of exercise. Thus, the health care system is changing by improving the prevention of diseases and promoting healthy lifestyles. However, multimorbidities have emerged as an important concept in this process. In countries where the population is rapidly aging, those who have multimorbidities have become a burden to the health care system's revenue, manpower, and service quality. Therefore, health care reform to cope with those who are aging and have multimorbidities is necessary to establish. Reform measures can consist of the following suggestions. First, proper medical guidelines for multiple diseases need to be developed. Second, professional manpower should be trained. Third, the reimbursement system should be improved to relieve those with multimorbidities. Fourth, disease prevention services should be improved. Finally, instruments to measure health care service quality for chronic disease need to be developed.