key: cord-0759057-suodxs8z
authors: Pathak, Parag A.; Sönmez, Tayfun; Ünver, M. Utku
title: Reserve Systems for Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Path From April 2020 to April 2021
date: 2021-10-05
journal: Chest
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.06.001
sha: 32222563777f58a906001a58d68d7482f667f932
doc_id: 759057
cord_uid: suodxs8z

nan

Before 2020, nearly all medical resource allocation frameworks were based on a priority system in which patients are rank-ordered based on various criteria, and scarce medical resources would be allotted according to this ordering. This rank order could depend on a single variable such as a severity-of-illness score or on multiple variables aggregated into a single ordering through some formula.

Depending on the ethical considerations and the scarcity of the medical resources, however, a single-ranking priority system may not be able to accommodate the desired balance of ethical values. For example, in trying to maximize the number of lives saved or the number of life-years saved, a single-ranking priority system may not be able to address inequities borne by historically marginalized populations or it may not sufficiently protect patients of instrumental value to the disaster response (an essential worker). A more flexible system divides the supply of the scarce resource into multiple groupings or categories and then uses a distinct priority system for each category with its own priority order. Such a system is known as a reserve (or categorized priority) system. Through the design of categories, the number of units in each category, and the category-specific prioritization, the system can accommodate the desired compromises in COVID-19 resource allocation.

Reserve systems date back to ancient China, post-colonial India, and 1960s and 1970s era US affirmative action systems. [1] [2] [3] In these relatively basic reserve systems, one or several portions of the supply of the resource are reserved for various protected groups, but otherwise a single criterion is used for allocation. Since that time, the reserve system has found diverse applications throughout society, such as in the allocation of immigration visas or marathon entry slots. 4,5 A reserve system also provides a natural way to embed equity into standard priority systems through an index of disadvantage, as in affirmative action systems used in education. 6 As economics professors, we spent the early months of 2020 reading of the medical community's challenges with existing pandemic resource allocation guidelines. For example, many Crisis Standards of Care documents struggled with their treatment of essential personnel. While embracing ethical justifications for prioritizing essential personnel, existing guidelines did not provide a mechanism to accommodate this prioritization. There was a tangible concern that essential personnel could exhaust scarce resources such as ventilators, unacceptably depleting the supply for other patients. The inflexibility of these ordinal priority systems forced an abandonment of any essential personnel priority. 7, 8 Anticipating similar challenges for COVID-19 pandemic resource allocation, we further developed reserve systems to accommodate multiple ethical values. 9 In a reserve system tailored for pandemic resource allocation, a portion of resources can be reserved for essential personnel, and a portion can be made available to other patients. This provides a method to sidestep the concern that essential personnel exhaust all resources. The proportion of resource "reserved" for certain priority groups is decided by the architects of the allocation policy but can be titrated to achieve a desired outcome (if, for instance, too few ventilators are left for the general population). Recognizing the possible applications of reserve systems to shortages faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, we began outreach to medical ethics and public health communities. These interactions lead to several fruitful collaborations, most prominently with Govind Persad, Emily Rubin, Harald Schmidt, Robert Truog, and Douglas White. Our initial effort was focused on allocation of ventilators and antiviral treatments. 10 By the summer 2020, attention had shifted to the upcoming vaccine rollout. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there has been a vigorous debate on equitable vaccine allocation. [11] [12] [13] These debates focused exclusively on the chestjournal.org structure of priority tiers under a presumed priority system, as used in prior frameworks.

In September 2020, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released a discussion draft of their framework for equitable allocation of COVID-19 vaccine. The preliminary NASEM system was formulated as a tiered priority system following its predecessors. The draft also emphasized a potential role for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerabilities Index to advance health equity. However, it did not provide any specific guidance on how to use this index to embed equity into the system. After the release of the draft, the NASEM committee solicited public comments. University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Harald Schmidt's public comments asked for clarification about the method to embed equity into the system. We published a manuscript illustrating how a traditional tiered priority system can be easily modified as a reserve system to build equity into the system with a disadvantage index. 14 In response to the NASEM discussion draft, Persad, Peek, and Emmanuel 15 also endorsed our proposed reserve system.

In October, NASEM issued a revised framework. The NASEM framework recommended a 10% reserve for high Social Vulnerabilities Index areas, building equity into the system using our formulation and emphasizing its distinction from traditional tiering system. 14 The NASEM recommendation and our further outreach influenced the adoption of a reserve system in several jurisdictions. For example, in many group meetings, we introduced the reserve system to Surgeon General Dr Nadine-Burke Harris and her team, advocated for its adoption in California as an instrument for equity in their upcoming vaccine rollout and coached members of her team on the subtleties of the reserve system. In March 2021, they announced that 40% of vaccines will be reserved for communities in the first quartile of the Healthy Places Index, a California-based index of socioeconomic disadvantage, and 20% will be reserved for communities in each of the other quartiles. Within each socioeconomic quartile, 70% of vaccines reserved for the quartile will be allocated based on age eligibility, and 30% will be based on sector eligibility. 16 Our proposed reserve system has also gained traction for scarce resources other than vaccines. One notable example is allocation of monoclonal antibody therapies in Massachusetts. The state Department of Public Health assembled a working group to advise on the equitable allocation of COVID-19 therapies. A member of the working group, Dr Emily Rubin, asked us whether a reserve system can be used for equitable allocation of COVID-19 monoclonal antibody therapies. We supported the committee with a reserve system design tailored to the specifications of Massachusetts policies. In November 2020, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued guidelines adopting a reserve system. 17 Although these plans continue to evolve, the widespread uptake of reserve systems spurred by COVID-19 affirms several advantages of reserve systems over simple priority systems, such as flexibility, ability to reach compromise outcomes, enhancement of equity, and responsiveness to new information. It also illustrates the benefit of interdisciplinary interaction between experts in market design who specialize in designing allocation mechanisms and scarce resource allocation plan designers who articulate ethical goals and objectives. Fifteen months after the release of our initial work, we expect new challenges to emerge but are optimistic this fruitful collaboration has left our society better equipped to grapple with the complexities of prioritizing access to scarce medical resources.

A cultural history of civil examinations in late imperial China

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. vs

How the New York City marathon allocates its entries as fairly as possible

Immigration lottery design: engineered and coincidental consequences of H-1B reforms

Explicit vs statistical targeting in affirmative action: Theory and evidence from Chicago's exam schools

For the good of us all: ethically rationing health resources in Minnesota in a severe influenza pandemic

New York State Task Force on Life and the Law

Triage protocol design for ventilator rationing in a pandemic: integrating multiple ethical values through reserves

Categorized priority systems: a new tool for fairly allocating scarce medical resources in the face of profound social inequities

Government Must Not Assign Coronavirus Vaccine by Race

Should people of color get access to the Covid-19 vaccine before others?" VOX

Vaccine rationing and the urgency of social justice in the Covid-19 response

Do black and indigenous communities receives their fair share of vaccines under the 2018 CDC guidelines? NBER Working Paper 27817

Fairly prioritizing groups for access to COVID-19 vaccines

California Leads with Public Health and Vaccine Equity to Safely and Sustainably Reopen

Guidance for Allocation of Covid-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapeutics