500 words

Instructions Provide a brief overview of the ten essential public health services. Using the case study that I have attached. describe which of the ten essential services this case study is addressing and how it illustrates that essential service.Requirements The paper should be at least 500 words in length. Include a list of references in APA format, including a citation for the case study. Please be sure to download the file “Writing Center Resources” from Doc Sharing to assist you with meeting APA expectations for written assignments

Module 8: Public Health Genetics: Screening Programs and Individual Testing/Counseling
221

Case Study 2: Ethical Implications of a Decision on MCADD Screening of
Newborns

As Director of the State Health Department, John Jamison has responsibility for the state’s Newborn
Screening Program, which currently screens every infant born in the state for six disorders, including
phenylketonuria, hypothyroidism, and hemoglobinopathies. The state’s newborn screening program has
had a quiet and respected history in the state up until now, unlike some other health department
programs, such as the state cancer registry that was a recent focus of legislative hearings and a public
outcry over privacy concerns.

The nurse practitioner who directs the newborn screening program, Sally Scott, has just reported that
pressure is building for the addition of new testing for genetic disorders to the battery of required state
screenings for newborns. Sally says pressure is coming from many sources, including individual parents,
powerful advocacy groups within the state, and even some physicians. A coalition of these interested
parties has just met with her and requested the state health department’s support for a bill to add a test
for one particular disorder this legislative session – the test for Medium Chain Acyl-CoA
Dehydrogenase Deficiency (MCADD). The group intends to issue a press release within two or three
days and plans to publicize whether the state health department is supportive of the test.

Sally believes the test for MCADD is likely to garner more attention and support from the public and
the press than other newborn screening tests, because MCADD increasingly has been mentioned as a
potential cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

Sally met with Jamison yesterday for guidance. She warned him that MCADD is just the latest, in what
she believes is becoming a continuing and growing problem for the state health department regarding
genetic screening for newborns. As director of newborn screening for the last five years, she has been
receiving frequent inquiries about the possibility of expanded newborn genetic screening, both for
particular disorders and for predisposing conditions.

Jamison asked Sally to get back to him today with as much relevant material as she can quickly find, so
that they can review the data and discuss the options with the department’s epidemiologist, health
policy analyst, and the Director of the Division of Maternal and Child Health.

At the meeting Sally presents the following information.

The State legislature, with guidance from the health department when appropriate, has the authority to
establish newborn screening policies, including deciding which disorders should be included among the
battery of newborn screening tests.

Currently parental consent is not required for the newborn screening tests in the state. All newborn
screening tests are conducted by the state lab, which reportedly discards newborn blood samples after
the initial testing.

The state newborn screening program provides follow-up notification of positive tests, counseling, and
in some cases, state-provided treatment when newborn conditions are identified. These costs generally
are not covered by health insurance.

Module 8: Public Health Genetics: Screening Programs and Individual Testing/Counseling
222

The annual cost of the newborn screening program in the state is now $2.5 million.

MCADD is a type of fatty oxidation disorder where an enzyme defect in the fatty acid metabolic
pathway inhibits the body’s ability to utilize stored fat. Initial clinical presentation occurs from two
months of age to two years, and has not been found in children post-adolescence. An initial event of
MCADD is usually triggered by prolonged fasting, which can lead to vomiting, lethargy, coma, apnea,
cardiopulmonary arrest, and sudden death. Up to 30 percent of initial events result in death and lead to
a misdiagnosis of SIDS in up to 5 percent of cases. One recent publication suggested that up to 50% of
infants with MCADD died as a result of their first acute episode and in these cases, MCADD was
diagnosed postmortem.

Current data suggest that the incidence of MCADD varies in the U.S. between a homozygous
prevalence (individuals presenting with MCADD) of between 1 in 6,400 to 1 in 20,000 and a
heterozygous prevalence (asymptomatic carriers of MCADD) of 1 in 6,900. The newborn screening data
from three other states that currently test for MCADD show a per year incidence that ranges from
0.0001 in one state to 0.00003 in another state. A routine blood sample drawn at time of birth and
processed via a Tamden Mass Spectrometer (TMS) can reveal MCADD gene involvement. Follow-up
testing can confirm diagnosis. The state laboratory, however, currently does not have equipment to
conduct these tests.

Treatment: Some studies suggest that early detection and follow-up treatment that could be as simple
as eliminating prolonged periods of infant fasting could be life saving. Recent studies suggest that
intravenous infusion with 10% dextrose will generally cause rapid improvement after an acute event.
Other treatment options such as 150 mg per day of L-carnitine or cornstarch mixed with liquid at
bedtime could prevent acute events leading to hospitalization or death. L-carnitine treatment has been
recommended for the first three years of life for MCADD patients with confirmed diagnoses.

Expected Outcome of the Newborn Screening Test: Given current estimates of incidence rates,
screening all infants in the state could result in approximately 8-10 confirmed cases/year. An estimated
30-50% of patients with MCADD die within their first two years; so about 4 lives are projected to be
saved per year in the state.

Approximate Costs of MCADD Screening

Given the state’s annual birth rate of over 100,000, two tandem mass spectrometers will need to be
purchased for the state lab at a total cost of about $700,000. Annual operating costs for the systems
would be about $50,000. Two additional lab specialists would cost about $80,000. Additional nursing
time for assessment of laboratory results, follow-up, and outreach programs would cost between
$75,000, which would not be covered by insurance.

A fee of $4.00/test would be added to the total cost of the current set of newborn screening tests, and
would be billed to insurance carriers (this covers machine use cost, allowing for machine depreciation),
for an additional annual screening cost of about $500,000. (This raises the annual cost of the state
program to $3 million.)

Module 8: Public Health Genetics: Screening Programs and Individual Testing/Counseling
223

Follow up confirmation testing for identified newborns will cost about $6,000 a year. Treatment for
MCADD for the 8-10 patients a year would cost about $2,500 total, much of which would be covered
by insurance.

Without early detection of newborn screening and preventive treatment, approximately four MCADD
patients in the state each year will be expected to experience acute episodes of undiagnosed MCADD
resulting in hospitalization. Based on cost analysis from another state, the average acute episode results
in a seven-day NICU stay and a seven-day pediatric ward stay, with a total cost of about $33,000 per
episode. From a pure dollar outlay, adding this test will cost more to the state than the cost of treating
those children with MCADD when they have acute events. This concludes Sally’s report.

Jamison thanks Sally, and turns to the other three professionals at the meeting for their reactions. The
health policy analyst quickly responds, “Sally’s cautious approach to this question is well-founded
because the issue of newborn genetic screening is potentially explosive. We cannot be in a position to
go against the tide of these powerful advocacy groups, because they could create a media circus and
undermine our position and support in the legislature on a number of important public health
initiatives. This could result in cuts to our budget on critical issues — on teen education for sexually
transmitted diseases, for instance, and other public health programs that operate just below the public
radar screen. As long as the newborn test is valid and preventive treatment is available, the health
department must support the test and I think…”

The Director of the Division of Maternal and Child Health interrupts, “I disagree. My programs are
significantly underfunded, and my staff overworked. I would like to initiate numerous new programs,
some requiring far less money than this screening program. This new test will mean that I will have to
reassign one or two of my staff nurses to run this program, which will require assessing the laboratory
test results and following up with patients and physicians. Better funding of current programs or new
programs we are planning for would result in saving the lives of many more than four newborns a year
and additionally would result in a significant reduction in child and mother morbidity. I believe the
health department should not be pressured into supporting particular programs without careful analysis
of other potential uses of the funds.”

The epidemiologist concurred, “I believe we should do a study about this screening program, including
assessing other uses for health department funds and also our own study of the intervention’s
effectiveness, which is not clear to me. We might undertake a pilot test of the MCADD test and the
preventive interventions. We could randomly screen a group of newborns in the state by sending their
newborn blood samples to outside labs, and then divide positive babies into one of two groups: a
treatment group who are given the L-carnitine for three years and a control group. This seems to me the
only way to justify the program – with good science.” The health policy analysts shakes his head,
“Would you tell the parents of the control group babies that their children might be at increased risk for
a disease that kills? Would you get informed consent from parents in the pilot screening program?”

Jamison holds up his hand. “There seem to be numerous ethical questions arising in our discussion.
Let’s explicitly address them. What are the ethical issues in this case as you see them and what are your
positions?”

Module 8: Public Health Genetics: Screening Programs and Individual Testing/Counseling
224

Considering the Ethical Issues Involved in MCADD Screening

Assessing the Public Health Problem
What is at stake in the current situation? Is public health department missing SIDS cases? How
should the health department make decisions about the use of limited resources to benefit the
public? Are there other concerns?

What role does the public have to play in this issue? Should there be public discussion? How
could that discussion be elicited?

Are commercial interests at stake? Has the company that manufactures the TMS machine been
involved in discussions to date? Should it be?

Who are all the stakeholders in this decision? Do any of the stakeholders have conflicts of
interest? What are these? Do any have conflicts of obligation?

Are there issues of power involved in the ongoing debate? Where is the interface between
public health and politics in this situation?

Is there money available to do the testing? What are the alternative uses to which it might be
put? Are the MCADD advocates aware of those facts?

Advocacy
Do the roles and duties of advocates of MCADD testing differ from the roles of health
department staff? Should they be different?

Ethical Issues
What specific ethical issues are involved in a decision to test (or not test) for MCADD?
Specifically, what harms, risks and benefits may be involved for individual children, parents,
other individuals and for the population at large?

If money is diverted from other possible lifesaving uses to MCADD testing, should the harms,
risks and benefits of the other intervention not selected be taken into account?

What are the moral claims of the various stakeholders?

Are there any other ethical issues that might be involved?

Have any discussion of screening ethics occurred in the other states where MCADD testing is
done? What were the considerations in those settings?

Module 8: Public Health Genetics: Screening Programs and Individual Testing/Counseling
225

Case Study 2: Discussion

Ethical Problems

This case study presents John Jamison, Director of the State Health Department and Sally Scott, who
directs that state’s Newborn Screening program, with several dilemmas about how to respond to
requests to take a position on the inclusion of an additional test in the state’s current newborn
screening program.

Each is aware that three other states currently include MCADD screening for newborns, making the
option of adding it a technically feasible one. They are aware of the test’s potential for saving the lives
of several newborns in the state each year through use of the test. However, both are aware of other
possible policy and ethical dilemmas.

First, although data are available from which to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, available data do not
include any information on false negative or false positive screening tests. What information about false
positive and false negative MCADD screening tests should be included in the direct cost-benefit
figures?

Second, the source of funding for adding any new screening test is not obvious. While the actual costs
of the laboratory tests will be covered by private insurance for those who have coverage, there still
remains the significant costs for the health department to pay a staff nurse to interpret all of the
laboratory results and do the followup, which insurance does not pay for. In addition, the state health
department is responsible for the costs of the laboratory tests for the state’s uninsured population. If
adding a new test required diversion of resources from other current state programs, resulting in fewer
children benefiting from those other programs, should that lost benefit be included in the cost-benefit
analysis?

Third, state employees are being pressed to support legislation to further the goals of one advocacy
group, the MCADD screening lobby. How should Jamison and Scott decide what position to take with
the MCADD test?

Relevant Values and Key Stakeholders in the Decision

In addressing this issue, Jamison must address the concerns of multiple stakeholders. Jamison is aware
that different values lie behind the positions taken by various stakeholders, including his own staff.
Advocates for MCADD screening, including perhaps parents of affected children, would like to totally
eliminate morbidity and mortality related to MCADD. Advocates’ position seems to give priority to
beneficence. In the name of autonomy, some persons would like to limit newborn screening programs to
tests done with parental consent. Manufacturers of testing equipment would like to increase the market
for their product(s).

Jamison is also aware that roles and duties of health department staff differ from the roles of MCADD
advocates. State health department staff must be concerned with values of efficiency, e.g., cost per
MCADD case detected, and utility. Health department staff, including Sally Scott, must also be
concerned with non-maleficence and justice, since they have to balance the value of a new screening
test with the opportunity costs of other programs that might have to be cut to allow inclusion of the
MCADD test. Specifically, health department staff would appear to have a conflict of obligation

Module 8: Public Health Genetics: Screening Programs and Individual Testing/Counseling
226

between children/parents who might benefit from MCADD testing and children/parents who are
beneficiaries of current programs that might have to be cut to allow MCADD screening.

Director Jamison has to include the concept of planning for an orderly decision process for this and
future decisions. Finally, it is not yet clear what values might inform the responses of the state
legislature, which will have to ultimately decide, based on Jamison’s recommendation and on lobbying
pressure, whether the MCADD test should be included (and perhaps whether new funds to pay for it
should be added.)

Necessary Information

In considering his decision, Jamison clearly needs objective information beyond the list of stakeholders
and their values. The costs of MCADD screening (in equipment, staffing, etc.) and the benefits in terms
of cases detected and lives saved are a starting point. In addition to the information already available,
these data should include the frequency of false positive and false negative MCADD screening results.
State health department staff is the best initial source for such information although information from
manufacturers and from the coalition could also be reviewed. Similarly, if funds to pay for MCADD
screening are not currently available, the opportunity costs of other programs to be cut must be
included in the information. Specifically, what are the options for internal redirection of funds are what
would be the program impacts of such redirection? Should the impact on other public health programs
be made public, so that other stakeholders who may be adversely affected can take a position?

Jamison is also interested in knowing the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics (and its state
affiliate chapter) on MCADD screening. He would also like to know more about how MCADD decisions
were made in the states where its use has been discussed. (These states include not only the three
states where MCADD testing was included but also any states where decision were made to not include
MCADD testing.)

Finally, Jamison could consider discussing the MCADD screening issue with members of the legislature
who ultimately would be making the key decisions about the testing program.

Available Options

In considering any recommendation to the legislature, Jamison must consider each of the several
options available:

Do not add MCADD screening at this moment. Cost-benefit analysis may support this position
in that costs for treating children with MCADD may be less than screening costs. (Note: This
does not take into account the deaths.)

Defer a decision while collecting additional information through additional study of MCADD
testing.

Add MCADD screening using current resources (Some other activity or program has to be cut
to cover the health department’s costs of nursing staff assigned to this program.)

Add MCADD screening once new resources can be identified. This approach could perhaps
include a form of partnership with the coalition.

Module 8: Public Health Genetics: Screening Programs and Individual Testing/Counseling
227

Consider a more comprehensive review of the state’s approach to newborn screening: Because
of Sally Scott’s sense that more new screening tests and more advocacy will becoming in the
near future, Jamison and Scott could also consider an option of asking for a review of state
newborn screening policy. Outside experts in various fields could inform both the MCADD
decision as well provide recommendations for how the state should approach the issue of
considering other new newborn screening tests as the come along.

Process for Arriving at a Decision

In addition to discussions with his own staff, Jamison should be sure that he and his staff have heard
from as many of the stakeholders as possible. Specifically, meeting with representative of the advocacy
coalition can help inform his position. That discussion could include the issues and values at stake as
well as options for moving toward consensus on an approach to adding a new test. During this meeting,
in addition to hearing the coalition’s perspective, a process of compromise could be discussed.

Jamison might also consider holding a public hearing on the MCADD issue either through the state
health department or jointly with the state legislature.

Questions about options

What ethical justifications support each of the options, i.e.,
to support MCADD now?
to not support MCADD but use funds elsewhere?
to study the issue further?
to partner with advocacy group to raise external funds for MCADD testing?

What is the appropriate role for the State Health Department in resolution of this issue?

What roles could the State Health Director play in the resolution of this issue?

Would a legal opinion from the department’s legal counsel be helpful in resolving this issue?

Would having the State Health Department proactively bring this issue to the legislature be
helpful?

Would an external ethics consultation be helpful?