Search

The development of new effective but expensive medical treatments leads to discussions about whether and how such treatments should be funded in solidarity‐based healthcare systems. Solidarity is often seen as an elusive concept; it appears to be used to refer to different sets of concerns, and its interrelations with the concept of justice are not well understood. This paper provides a conceptual analysis of the concept of solidarity as it is used in discussions on the allocation of healthcare resources and the funding of expensive treatments. It contributes to the clarification of the concept of solidarity by identifying in the literature and discussing four uses of the concept: (1) assisting patients in need, (2) upholding the solidarity‐based healthcare system, (3) willingness to contribute and (4) promoting equality. It distinguishes normative and descriptive uses of the concept and outlines the overlap and differences between solidarity and justice. Our analysis shows that the various uses of the concept of solidarity point to different, even conflicting, ethical stances on whether and how access to effective, expensive treatments should be provided. We conclude that the concept of solidarity has a role to play in discussions on the accessibility and funding of newly approved medical treatments. It requires, for instance, that healthcare policies promote and maintain both societal willingness to contribute to the care of others and the value of providing care to vulnerable patients through public funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsAdministrative burdens, which are the onerous experiences people have when trying to access government benefits and services, reduce older adult's access to health promoting policies.Although considerable attention has been focused on threats to the old‐age welfare state, ranging from long‐term financing problems to attempts to roll back benefits, administrative barriers to these programs already threaten their effectiveness.Reducing administrative burden is a viable way to improve population health among older adults going forward over the next decade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsPeople are dying at record numbers from overdose in the United States.Concerted action has led to a number of successes, including reduced inappropriate opioid prescribing and increased availability of opioid use disorder treatment and harm‐reduction efforts, yet ongoing challenges include criminalization of drug use and regulatory and stigma barriers to expansion of treatment and harm‐reduction services.Priorities for action include investing in evidence‐based and compassionate policies and programs that address sources of opioid demand, decriminalizing drug use and drug paraphernalia, enacting policies to make medication for opioid use disorder more accessible, and promoting drug checking and safe drug supply. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To focus on the needs, challenges and opportunities to improve access to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) (Heart: Road to health [HRH]) for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in rural and remote (R&R) areas of North Queensland. Context: It is known that there is insufficient access to HRH for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in R&R areas of NQ, who have the highest rates of heart disease and socioeconomic disadvantage mainly due to poor social determinants of health. However, at least in part due to the impact of colonialism and predominantly western medicalised approach to health care, few gains have been made. Approach: This commentary draws on recent research and literature and reflects on cultural issues that impact on improving access to an HRH for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in R&R areas. The underutilisation of the skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers (ATSIHW) and a lack of a defined process to ensure access to culturally responsive HRH are discussed. Finally, a way forward is proposed that includes the development of policies, pathways and guidelines to ensure that appropriate support is available in the client's home community. Conclusion: It is proposed that culturally responsive, accessible and effective HRH is achievable through the reorientation of current health systems that include a continuous client‐centred pathway from hospital to home. In this model, ATSIHW will take a lead or partnership role in which their clinical, cultural brokerage and health promotion skills are fully utilised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]