Abstract
AbstractMany countries currently invest in technologies and data infrastructures to foster precision medicine (PM), which is hoped to better tailor disease treatment and prevention to individual patients. But who can expect to benefit from PM? The answer depends not only on scientific developments but also on the willingness to address the problem of structural injustice. One important step is to confront the problem of underrepresentation of certain populations in PM cohorts via improved research inclusivity. Yet, we argue that the perspective needs to be broadened because the (in)equitable effects of PM are also strongly contingent on wider structural factors and prioritization of healthcare strategies and resources. When (and before) implementing PM, it is crucial to attend to how the organisation of healthcare systems influences who will benefit, as well as whether PM may present challenges for a solidaristic sharing of costs and risks. We discuss these issues through a comparative lens of healthcare models and PM-initiatives in the United States, Austria, and Denmark. The analysis draws attention to how PM hinges on—and simultaneously affects—access to healthcare services, public trust in data handling, and prioritization of healthcare resources. Finally, we provide suggestions for how to mitigate foreseeable negative effects.
Funder
Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond
Carlsbergfondet
NIH Office of the Director
Royal Library, Copenhagen University Library
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Education,Health (social science),Philosophy
Reference135 articles.
1. 21st Century Cures Act. H.R. 34, 114th Congress. 2016. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr34enr/pdf/BILLS-114hr34enr.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2021.
2. Aagaard, E. 2019. Læger: DNA tests købt på nettet kan tvinge sundhedsvæsenet i knæ. DR Nyheder June 8, 2019. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/viden/kroppen/laeger-dna-tests-koebt-paa-nettet-kan-tvinge-sundhedsvaesenet-i-knae.
3. Alami, H., P. Lehoux, S.E. Shaw, C. Papoutsi, S. Rybczynska-Bunt, and J.P. Fortin. 2022. Virtual care and the inverse care law: Implications for policy, practice, research, public and patients. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (17): 10591.
4. All of Us Research Program Investigators (AoURP investigators). 2019. The “All of Us” research program. New England Journal of Medicine 381 (7): 668–676.
5. Anderson, G.F., P. Hussey, and V. Petrosyan. 2019. It’s still the prices, stupid: Why the US spends so much on health care, and a tribute to Uwe Reinhardt. Health Affairs 38 (1): 87–95.
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献