Advances in high-throughput genomic technologies coupled with a growing number of genomic results potentially useful in clinical care have led to ground-breaking genomic medicine implementation programs in various nations. Many of these innovative programs capitalize on unique local capabilities arising from the structure of their health care systems or their cultural or political milieu, as well as from unusual burdens of disease or risk alleles. Many such programs are being conducted in relative isolation and might benefit from sharing of approaches and lessons learned in other nations. The National Human Genome Research Institute recently brought together 25 of these groups from around the world to describe and compare projects, examine the current state of implementation and desired near-term capabilities, and identify opportunities for collaboration to promote the responsible implementation of genomic medicine. The wide variety of nascent programs in diverse settings demonstrates that implementation of genomic medicine is expanding globally in varied and highly innovative ways. Opportunities for collaboration abound in the areas of evidence generation, health information technology, education, workforce development, pharmacogenomics, and policy and regulatory issues. Several international organizations that are already facilitating effective research collaborations should engage to ensure implementation proceeds collaboratively without potentially wasteful duplication. Efforts to coalesce these groups around concrete but compelling signature projects, such as global eradication of genetically-mediated drug reactions or developing a truly global genomic variant data resource across a wide number of ethnicities, would accelerate appropriate implementation of genomics to improve clinical care world-wide.

Health systems around the world seek to address patients’ unmet health needs for a range of acute and chronic diseases. Simultaneously, governments strive to keep healthcare spending sustainable, while providing equal access to high-quality care. This has fuelled debate around what constitutes a valuable healthcare intervention in a health system and the corollary consideration of what governments are willing to pay for a certain health intervention. Until recently, the value of information in general, and the value of diagnostic information (VODI) specifically, was not part of the discussion.However, investment in diagnostic information can be a key development as information may guide more effective and efficient healthcare and help maintain an affordable health system. This paper therefore explores ways to best define, evaluate, and reward the value created from diagnostics in healthcare and how to include these value considerations in decision-making processes for diagnostics. The authors ultimately call for a holistic VODI framework that accounts for the full range of potential benefits of diagnostic testing, beyond the traditional clinical and health economic domains, and that is essential to recognise, measure, and fully leverage the benefits of diagnostics for patients, health systems, and society.

Many jurisdictions have processes to consider Individual Funding Requests but, with few exceptions, the decisions made with respect to these are not made public. Drawing upon Daniels and Sabin's account of the requirements of procedural justice, Accountability for Reasonableness, this paper considers several arguments for and against publishing individual funding request decisions. After briefly reviewing the case for publicity as a requirement of procedural justice and canvassing several arguments against publicity, we consider whether patient confidentiality justifies suppressing funding decisions. We claim that, with one possible exception, publication of individual funding request decisions does not raise concerns that are different in kind from those that apply to publication of legal judgments relating to healthcare, and that the protections instituted in that setting should be sufficient to allow publication of funding decisions. The discussion concludes with several cautionary notes.