Allocation of Scarce Drugs: A Drug Is on Shortage, Who Gets It First? The Ethical Framework for Making Life-and-Death Decisions.

Allocation of Scarce Drugs: A Drug Is on Shortage, Who Gets It First? The Ethical Framework for Making Life-and-Death Decisions.

by

When a vital drug runs out, someone will be told “not available.” That decision can save lives or cause preventable harm. It must be made with clear ethics, not panic or favoritism. This article lays out a practical, transparent framework for allocating scarce medications in hospitals and health systems, with examples to show how it works under pressure.

What “fair” allocation means

Fair allocation balances several ethical aims that sometimes conflict. The key is to make these aims explicit and to explain why they matter:

  • Maximize benefit. Use the drug where it is most likely to prevent death or major disability. Why: scarce supply should produce the most health impact.
  • Treat people equally. When candidates are similar on clinical grounds, use impartial tie-breakers. Why: equal moral worth demands neutrality.
  • Prioritize the worst-off—when benefit is real. Consider greater urgency or a life stage with few lived years (life-cycle). Why: need matters, but only if the drug can help.
  • Respect reciprocity and instrumental value carefully. Limited priority for those who protect others (e.g., frontline healthcare workers) if it helps sustain care for many. Why: protecting system function amplifies benefit.
  • Avoid discrimination. Do not use race, wealth, disability status, social role, or perceived “worth” to decide. Use only clinical criteria that predict response and benefit.

Why “first come, first served” fails

First-come rewards speed, not need. It privileges people with better transportation, internet access, or insider information. It also encourages hoarding. In shortages, this method increases inequity and wastes benefit. A better approach ranks claims based on expected clinical gain per unit of drug and uses randomization only to break true ties.

Clinical criteria that should drive priority

Translate ethical aims into concrete, measurable factors. Weight them in a written policy so clinicians can apply them consistently.

  • Magnitude and probability of benefit. Prioritize cases with high likelihood of a large health gain (e.g., preventing death or severe disability). Use prognosis tools when available, but rely on disease-specific evidence. Why: effect size and likelihood together capture impact.
  • Time-sensitivity. If delay erodes benefit quickly (e.g., early antibiotics for sepsis), that case moves up. Why: timing can convert an effective drug into a useless one.
  • Lack of safe, effective alternatives. If a patient has no viable substitute, they outrank someone with a comparable alternative. Why: opportunity cost is higher when the drug is irreplaceable.
  • Dose efficiency (benefit per dose unit). Prefer regimens where each vial does more good (e.g., completing curative therapy for many vs extended prophylaxis for few). Why: stretches supply while maximizing total benefit.
  • Public health impact. If use reduces transmission (e.g., treating infectious syphilis in pregnancy), prioritize. Why: one treatment can protect many others.
  • Continuity of therapy already started. Patients mid-course for time-limited, curative regimens usually get priority over starting new courses with lower expected benefit. Why: withdrawal wastes prior investment and can cause rebound harm.
  • Special clinical contexts. Pediatrics and pregnancy often receive higher priority when risks of death or lifelong harm to the fetus/child are high and alternatives are limited. Why: larger lifetime impact and fewer substitutes.

Who should be de-prioritized

  • Cases with low expected benefit (low probability of response or small improvement).
  • Cases with equally effective substitutes that are available.
  • Non-urgent uses where delay does not change outcome.
  • Extended or marginal uses (e.g., prolonged maintenance when evidence of additional benefit is weak).

Never de-prioritize based on social status, wealth, disability as such, race, ethnicity, immigration status, or perceived social worth. If disability affects clinical prognosis for the specific disease in a validated way, it may be part of medical assessment; otherwise it must not be used.

Tie-breakers that preserve fairness

When clinical priority is essentially equal, use impartial methods:

  • Random lottery among tied candidates.
  • Life-cycle tie-breaker (children and young adults ahead of older adults) only when ethically accepted and transparently adopted. Use cautiously.
  • Reciprocity for essential healthcare workers when it sustains care for many others and clinical need is similar.

How to implement decisions

  • Create a triage committee. Small group not involved in day-to-day care to reduce bedside conflicts and bias. Include pharmacy, ethics, clinical leaders, and community representation where possible.
  • Adopt a point system. Score each case on expected benefit, time-sensitivity, alternatives, and dose efficiency. Keep it simple and disease-specific.
  • Document and disclose. Record reasons for decisions. Share the policy with staff and the public in plain language. Transparency builds trust and enables correction.
  • Appeals and review. Allow rapid appeal for new clinical information, not for status or influence. Reassess the policy as evidence and supply change.
  • Separate roles. Clinicians advocate for patients; the committee or pharmacy applies policy. This reduces moral distress and inconsistency.

Concrete examples

Example 1: Carboplatin/cisplatin shortage in oncology. These drugs are central to many cancers.

  • Highest priority: Regimens with curative intent (e.g., testicular cancer, certain head and neck cancers) where omission markedly lowers survival. Why: large absolute survival benefit, few substitutes.
  • Next: Adjuvant therapy with substantial survival benefit in early-stage disease. Why: prevents recurrence and death.
  • Lower: Palliative use where benefit is symptom relief with small survival gain and alternatives exist. Why: lower expected benefit and substitutable.
  • Dose-sparing: Reduce dose or extend intervals only where evidence shows preserved outcomes. Avoid across-the-board cuts that harm curative cases.
  • Continuity: Complete cycles already started for curative regimens before initiating new palliative courses. Why: protects prior investment and survival gains.

Example 2: Penicillin G shortage for syphilis.

  • Highest priority: Pregnant patients with syphilis. Why: only penicillin prevents congenital syphilis; alternatives are inadequate.
  • Next: Neurosyphilis and ocular syphilis. Why: risk of irreversible harm; limited alternatives.
  • Then: Early syphilis in non-pregnant adults may receive doxycycline when appropriate. Why: safe, effective substitute for many.
  • Public health: Rapid treatment of highly infectious cases reduces spread, adding weight to priority.

Example 3: Tocilizumab or a scarce antiviral during a respiratory outbreak.

  • Highest priority: Hospitalized patients meeting evidence-based criteria (e.g., rapidly escalating oxygen needs plus systemic inflammation) where treatment reduces mortality. Why: high probability of preventing death.
  • Lower: Mild disease or late-stage multiorgan failure where benefit is unlikely. Why: low expected gain.
  • Instrumental value: If tied on clinical grounds, modest priority to frontline ICU staff to sustain healthcare capacity.

Stewardship: stretch supply before rationing

  • Inventory control. Centralize stock, prevent over-ordering by individual units, and forecast demand.
  • Therapeutic interchange. Use proven alternatives where outcomes are comparable. Update local guidelines so prescribers do not default to scarce drugs.
  • Dose optimization. Apply weight- or AUC-based dosing precisely; avoid “rounding up” that wastes partial vials. Coordinate scheduling to share vials safely for multiple patients when allowed.
  • Restrict non-critical use. Pause off-label or marginal indications.
  • Procurement and compounding. Source from multiple suppliers; consider compliant compounding when quality and legal standards are met.
  • Communication. Notify clinicians early; set an order set with criteria; educate patients on rationale to maintain trust.

Common pitfalls—and how to avoid them

  • Hidden bias. Use standardized criteria and blinded reviews where feasible. Audit decisions for patterns by race, language, or insurance status.
  • Mission creep. Stick to evidence-based indications. Do not expand eligibility because of pressure.
  • Exception creep. Limit special exceptions and require committee approval with documentation.
  • Hoarding/VIP influence. Centralize allocation; prohibit private stockpiles; apply the same rules to all, including leaders and donors.
  • Static policy. Update rules as new data or supplies change the benefit calculus.

Legal and rights considerations

  • No categorical exclusions based on age, disability, or chronic illness. Use individualized clinical assessment tied to the drug’s expected effect.
  • Accessible process. Provide clear explanations and interpreter services. Offer a rapid appeal for new medical information.
  • Documentation. Keep records to show consistent, non-discriminatory application.

When research and clinical care compete

During shortages, clinical care usually takes priority over research use unless the study offers near-term direct benefit equal or superior to standard care. Why: duty to treat current patients is stronger when the drug can save lives now. If research proceeds, use independent review and reserve only a justified fraction of supply.

Checklist for hospitals and public agencies

  • Define the ethical aims: maximize benefit, equity, protect the worst-off, maintain system function.
  • List clinical criteria: expected benefit, urgency, alternatives, dose efficiency, public health impact, continuity.
  • Create a triage committee and a simple scoring tool; train clinicians.
  • Publish the policy; explain tie-breakers (lottery for true ties).
  • Centralize inventory; implement interchange and dose-sparing protocols.
  • Track outcomes and equity metrics; revise as evidence changes.
  • Offer rapid appeals for new clinical data; document all decisions.

Scarcity forces hard choices, but it does not excuse arbitrary ones. A disciplined, transparent framework protects patients, supports clinicians, and makes the most of every vial. When the rationale is clear—and applied the same way to everyone—people are more likely to accept decisions, even painful ones. That is what fairness looks like when a drug shortage becomes a life-and-death decision.

Leave a Comment