Costs matter: The impact of disclosing treatment costs and provider profit on patients’ decisions

Health informatics interventions to minimize out-of-pocket medication costs for patients: what providers want

Objective

To explore diverse provider perspectives on: strategies for addressing patient medication cost barriers; patient medication cost information gaps; current medication cost-related informatics tools; and design features for future tool development.

Materials and Methods

We conducted 38 semistructured interviews with providers (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and administrators) in a Midwestern health system in the United States. We used 3 rounds of qualitative coding to identify themes.

Results

Providers lacked access to information about: patients’ ability to pay for medications; true costs of full medication regimens; and cost impacts of patient insurance changes. Some providers said that while existing cost-related tools were helpful, they contained unclear insurance information and several questioned the information’s quality. Cost-related information was not available to everyone who needed it and was not always available when needed. Fragmentation of information across sources made cost-alleviation information difficult to access. Providers desired future tools to compare medication costs more directly; provide quick references on costs to facilitate clinical conversations; streamline medication resource referrals; and provide centrally accessible visual summaries of patient affordability challenges.

Discussion

These findings can inform the next generation of informatics tools for minimizing patients’ out-of-pocket costs. Future tools should support the work of a wider range of providers and situations and use cases than current tools do. Such tools would have the potential to improve prescribing decisions and better link patients to resources.

Conclusion

Results identified opportunities to fill multidisciplinary providers’ information gaps and ways in which new tools could better support medication affordability for patients.

Almost a quarter of Americans taking prescription medications have difficulty affording them. We asked 38 healthcare providers what they do to help patients get affordable medications. They try to reduce the number of medications that patients take, choose more affordable medication options, and connect them to free medications or financial help. But it is hard for providers to do these things because they don’t always know which patients have financial challenges, and they may not know how much medications cost patients. Healthcare providers use digital tools like ordering systems to pick medications for patients, but they do not always have clear price information and they do not help outside of healthcare visits with prescribers. It is also hard for healthcare providers to get information about what patients have difficulty affording medications, and about resources to help them. Healthcare providers want new and improved digital tools to help them choose medications, and to be able to compare exact medication price differences. They also want a visual sign for patients with financial challenges, and centralized information about cost reduction resources. Finally, they desire tools to help them talk to patients about mediation prices, and medication price reports for patients themselves.

"It's a mess sometimes": patient perspectives on provider responses to healthcare costs, and how informatics interventions can help support cost-sensitive care decisions

OBJECTIVE

We investigated patient experiences with medication- and test-related cost conversations with healthcare providers to identify their preferences for future informatics tools to facilitate cost-sensitive care decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted 18 semistructured interviews with diverse patients (ages 24-81) in a Midwestern health system in the United States. We identified themes through 2 rounds of qualitative coding.

RESULTS

Patients believed their providers could help reduce medication-related costs but did not see how providers could influence test-related costs. Patients viewed cost conversations about medications as beneficial when providers could adjust medical recommendations or provide resources. However, cost conversations did not always occur when patients felt they were needed. Consequently, patients faced a "cascade of work" to address affordability challenges. To prevent this, collaborative informatics tools could facilitate cost conversations and shared decision-making by providing information about a patient's financial constraints, enabling comparisons of medication/testing options, and addressing transportation logistics to facilitate patient follow-through.

DISCUSSION

Like providers, patients want informatics tools that address patient out-of-pocket costs. They want to discuss healthcare costs to reduce the frequency of unaffordable costs and obtain proactive assistance. Informatics interventions could minimize the cascade of patient work through shared decision-making and preventative actions. Such tools might integrate information about efficacy, costs, and side effects to support decisions, present patient decision aids, facilitate coordination among healthcare units, and eventually improve patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

To prevent a burdensome cascade of work for patients, informatics tools could be designed to support cost conversations and decisions between patients and providers.

Does Societal Cost Information Affect Patient Decision-Making in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome? A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Despite studies demonstrating the effects of out-of-pocket costs on decision-making, the effect of societal cost information on patient decision-making is unknown. Given the considerable societal impact of cost of care for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), providing societal cost data to patients with CTS could affect decision-making and provide a strategy for reducing national health care costs. Therefore, we assessed the following hypotheses: (1) there is no difference in treatment choice (surgery vs no surgery) in a hypothetical case of mild CTS between patients randomized to receive societal cost information compared with those who did not receive this information; (2) there are no factors (eg, sex, experience with a previous diagnosis of CTS, or receiving societal cost information) independently associated with the choice for surgery; and (3) there is no difference in attitudes toward health care costs between patients choosing surgery and those who did not. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial using a hypothetical scenario, we prospectively enrolled 184 new and return patients with a nontraumatic upper extremity diagnosis. We recorded patient demographics, treatment choice in the hypothetical case of mild CTS, and their attitudes toward health care costs. Results: Treatment choice was not affected by receiving societal cost information. None of the demographic or illness factors assessed were independently associated with the choice for surgery. Patients declining surgery felt more strongly that doctors should consider their out-of-pocket costs when making recommendations. Conclusions: Providing societal cost information does not seem to affect decision-making and may not reduce the overall health care costs. For patients with CTS, health policy could nudge toward better resource utilization and finding the best care pathways for nonoperative and invasive treatments.

Current Orthopaedic Health Economic Literature: Quality Is High but Ethical and Societal Perspectives Are Lacking

PURPOSE

To evaluate the quality of orthopaedic cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in accordance with the 2016 recommendations by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

METHODS

A systematic review of all CEAs from September 2017 to September 2019 in the 10 highest impact orthopaedic surgery journals was performed. Quality scoring used the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument and the Second Panel checklist. QHES scores ≥80 were considered high quality and <50 poor quality. Mann-Whitney U and independent samples Kruskal-Wallis tests compared individual and multiple groups, respectively. Linear regression analysis was performed to correlate QHES score, checklist item fulfillment, and impact factor.

RESULTS

The 10 highest impact orthopaedic journals published 6,323 articles with 35 (0.55%) meeting inclusion criteria. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and sports medicine articles comprised 65.7% of included studies. Overall mean QHES score was 89.0 ± 7.6, with 82.8% considered high quality. Mean proportion of Second Panel checklist items fulfilled was 82.1% ± 13.3%, but no studies performed an impact inventory accounting for consequences within and outside the health care sector or discussed ethical implications. Mean QHES score and satisfied checklist items were significantly different by journal (P = .025 and P = .01, respectively). In addition, there was a moderate positive correlation between QHES score and impact factor (r = 0.446, P = .007). TJA CEAs satisfied a higher number of checklist items compared with spine surgery CEAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent orthopaedic CEAs have generally been high quality according to updated Second Panel guidelines but consistently miss checklist items relating to societal impact and ethics. TJA and sports medicine continue to be the most frequently studied orthopaedic subspecialties in health economics, and the breadth of orthopaedic procedures analyzed by CEAs has improved.

STUDY DESIGN

Level IV, systematic review.

The Influence of Cost Information on Treatment Choice: A Mixed-Methods Study

PURPOSE

To test the null hypothesis that exposure to societal cost information does not affect choice of treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

METHODS

We enrolled 304 participants using the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform to complete a survey in which participants were given the choice between carpal tunnel release (CTR) or a less-expensive option (orthosis wear) in a hypothetical mild CTS scenario. Patients were randomized to receive information about the societal cost of CTR (cost cohort) or no cost information (control). The primary outcome was the probability of choosing CTR measured on a 6-point ordinal scale. We employed qualitative content analysis to evaluate participants' rationale for their choice. We also explored agreement with various attitudes toward health care costs on an ordinal scale.

RESULTS

Participants in the cost cohort exhibited a greater probability of choosing surgery than those in the control cohort. The relative risk of choosing surgery after exposure to societal cost information was 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.85). Among participants who had not previously been diagnosed with CTS (n = 232), the relative risk of choosing surgery after exposure to societal cost information was 1.55 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.06). Lack of personal monetary responsibility frequently emerged as a theme in those in the cost cohort who chose surgery. The majority (94%) of participants expressed at least some agreement that health care cost is a major problem whereas only 58% indicated that they consider the country's health care costs when making treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants who received societal cost information were more likely to choose the more expensive treatment option (CTR) for mild CTS.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Exposure to societal cost information may influence patient decision making in elective hand surgery. A complete understanding of this influence is required prior to implementing processes toward greater cost transparency for diagnostic/treatment options. Sharing out-of-pocket costs with patients may be a beneficial approach because discussing societal cost information alone will likely not improve value of care.

Patients' preferences for coronary bypass grafting or staged percutaneous coronary intervention in multi-vessel coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The decision for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (mCAD) is currently made by a heart-team approach. Patients' preference is less well investigated.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with prior CABG and at least 2 PCI procedures were interviewed whether they would elect bypass surgery or staged PCI in case of a hypothetical scenario in which they had mCAD and CABG or PCI will equally improve symptoms and survival.

RESULTS

A total 213 patients were surveyed. About 21 (10%) patients had multiple CABG, and mean number of PCI per patient was 4.0 ± 2.7. Complications during CABG were reported in 19.7% and in 14% after PCI, respectively. About 15% experienced complications after both CABG and PCI, and 51% had no complications at all. Mean symptom-free period was 5.2 (following CABG) vs 1.8 years (following PCI); P<.001. Duration of recovery was significant shorter after PCI (mean 9.2 ± 1.2 vs 136.4 ± 57.9 days; P<.01). Based on their personal experience with both procedures, 15% of the participants elected CABG in the hypothetical scenario and 67% choose staged PCI, 18% were equally happy with either. More participants preferred PCI when age was ≥70, complications following CABG occurred, and when undergoing CABG first. Gender, number of CABG or PCI procedures per patient, and complications following PCI did not affect participants' preference.

CONCLUSIONS

In our hypothetical scenario, the majority of participants preferred staged PCI over CABG. Preferences were related to age, complications following CABG, and whether CABG was performed first.