Conflicting Perspectives on the Value of Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure Revealed During Development of a Decision Aid Focusing on Patient Costs for Sacubitril/Valsartan

The Economic Burden of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Living Longer but Poorer?

Treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has benefitted from a proliferation of new medications and devices. These treatments carry important clinical benefits, but also come with costs relevant to payers, providers, and patients. Patient out-of-pocket costs have been implicated in the avoidance of medical care, nonadherence to medications, and the exacerbation of health care disparities. In the absence of major health care policy and payment redesign, high-quality HFrEF care delivery requires transparent integration of cost considerations into system design, patient-clinician interactions, and medical decision making.

Costs of care and financial hardship among patients with heart failure

With the implementation of new therapies, more patients are living with heart failure (HF) as a chronic condition. Alongside these advances, out-of-pocket (OOP) medical costs have increased, and patients experience significant financial burden. Despite increasing interest in understanding and mitigating financial burdens, there is a relative paucity of data specific to HF. Here, we explore financial hardship in HF from the patient perspective, including estimated OOP costs for guideline-directed medical therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction, hospitalizations, and total direct medical costs, as well as the consequences of high OOP costs. Studies estimate that high OOP costs are common in HF, and a large proportion are related to prescription drugs. Subsequently, the effects on patients can lead to worsening adherence, delayed care, and poor outcomes, leading to a financial toxicity spiral. Further, we summarize patients' cost preferences and outline future research that is needed to develop evidence-based solutions to reduce costs in HF.

The Economic Burden of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Living Longer but Poorer?

Treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has benefitted from a proliferation of new medications and devices. These treatments carry important clinical benefits, but also come with costs relevant to payers, providers, and patients. Patient out-of-pocket costs have been implicated in the avoidance of medical care, nonadherence to medications, and the exacerbation of health care disparities. In the absence of major health care policy and payment redesign, high-quality HFrEF care delivery requires transparent integration of cost considerations into system design, patient-clinician interactions, and medical decision making.

Using Sacubitril/Valsartan to Decrease Health care Costs in Population Health Patients

Value-based care is the foundation of population health. The Health care Economic Efficiency Ratio (HEERO) scoring system is a promising new tool to measure the cost benefits of care in our Accountable Care Organization. HEERO score compares actual costs spent (utilizing insurance claims) and expected costs spent (estimated using the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services Risk score). Scores <1 suggest economic benefit. Sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to decrease readmissions for patients with heart failure (HF) and decrease health care costs. We explored the utility of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing HEERO scores and decreasing overall health care expenditure in patients with HF. Patients with HF in the population health cohort were enrolled. HEERO score was calculated for patients taking sacubitril/valsartan and other HF medications at 3-month intervals up to a year. We compared the average and total health care expenditure and inpatient days for patients on sacubitril/valsartan, spironolactone, β blocker (BB) along with spironolactone, BB and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker. For patients on sacubitril/valsartan, HEERO scores and inpatient days decreased (decreased health care expenditure) as the number of days of utilization increased (p <0.0001). In total, 270+ days of sacubitril/valsartan decreased health care costs by 22%. This cost reduction was mainly attributed to decreased inpatient days. Additionally, the combination of sacubitril/valsartan, spironolactone, and BB showed decreased HEERO score and inpatient days compared with spironolactone, BB and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker in male patients. Sacubitril/valsartan use beyond 270 days resulted in decreased health care expenditure in a population health cohort compared with other HF medications. This economic benefit is achieved through the reduction in hospitalizations. Sacubitril/valsartan is an integral part of value-based care providing high-value, cost-effective care, and bolstering the economic wellbeing of patient care. Payor sources should consider this in subsidizing the cost of the medicine.

Financial Toxicity of Medical Management of Heart Failure: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Optimal medical management of heart failure (HF) improves quality of life, decreases mortality, and decreases hospitalizations. Cost may contribute to suboptimal adherence to HF medications, especially angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Patients' experiences with HF medication cost include financial burden, financial strain, and financial toxicity. Although there has been research studying financial toxicity in patients with some chronic diseases, there are no validated tools for measuring financial toxicity of HF, and very few data on the subjective experiences of patients with HF and financial toxicity. Strategies to decrease HF-associated financial toxicity include making systemic changes to minimize cost sharing, optimizing shared decision-making, implementing policies to lower drug costs, broadening insurance coverage, and using financial navigation services and discount programs. Clinicians may also improve patient financial wellness through various strategies in routine clinical care. Future research is needed to study financial toxicity and associated patient experiences for HF.

Deciding Whether to Take Sacubitril/Valsartan: How Cardiologists and Patients Discuss Out-of-Pocket Costs

Background Out-of-pocket costs have significant implications for patients with heart failure and should ideally be incorporated into shared decision-making for clinical care. High out-of-pocket cost is one potential reason for the slow uptake of newer guideline-directed medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This study aims to characterize patient-cardiologist discussions involving out-of-pocket costs associated with sacubitril/valsartan during the early postapproval period. Methods and Results We conducted content analysis on 222 deidentified transcripts of audio-recorded outpatient encounters taking place between 2015 and 2018 in which cardiologists (n=16) and their patients discussed whether to initiate, continue, or discontinue sacubitril/valsartan. In the 222 included encounters, 100 (45%) contained discussions about cost. Cost was discussed in a variety of contexts: when sacubitril/valsartan was initiated, not initiated, continued, and discontinued. Of the 97 cost conversations analyzed, the majority involved isolated discussions about insurance coverage (64/97 encounters; 66%) and few addressed specific out-of-pocket costs or affordability (28/97 encounters; 29%). Discussion of free samples of sacubitril/valsartan was common (52/97 encounters; 54%), often with no discussion of a longer-term plan for addressing cost. Conclusions Although cost conversations were somewhat common in patient-cardiologist encounters in which sacubitril/valsartan was discussed, these conversations were generally superficial, rarely addressing affordability or cost-value judgments. Cardiologists frequently provided patients with a course of free sacubitril/valsartan samples without a plan to address the cost after the samples ran out.

Decisional Needs and Patient Treatment Preferences for Heart Failure Medications: A Scoping Review

Background

Pharmacologic management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) involves several medications. Decision aids informed by patient decisional needs and treatment preferences could assist in making HFrEF medication choices; however, these are largely unknown.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), without language restriction, for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies that included patients with HFrEF or clinicians providing HFrEF care, and reported data on decisional needs or treatment preferences applicable to HFrEF medications. We classified decisional needs using a modified version of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF).

Results

From 3996 records, we included 16 reports describing 13 studies (n = 854). No study explicitly assessed ODSF decisional needs; however, 11 studies reported ODSF-classifiable data. Patients commonly reported having inadequate knowledge or information, and difficult decisional roles. No study systematically assessed treatment preferences, but 6 studies reported on attribute preferences. Reducing mortality and improving symptoms frequently were ranked as being important, whereas cost importance rankings varied, and adverse events generally were ranked as being less important.

Conclusion

This scoping review identified key decisional needs regarding HFrEF medications, notably inadequate knowledge or information, and difficult decisional roles, which can readily be addressed by decision aids. Future studies should systematically explore the full scope of ODSF-based decisional needs in patients with HFrEF, along with relative preferences among treatment attributes to further inform development of individualized decision aids.

Discussing Cost and Value in Patient Decision Aids and Shared Decision Making: A Call to Action

Direct and indirect costs of care influence patients' health choices and the ability to implement those choices. Despite the significant impact of care costs on patients' health and daily lives, patient decision aid (PtDA) and shared decision-making (SDM) guidelines almost never mention a discussion of costs of treatment options as part of minimum standards or quality criteria. Given the growing study of the impact of costs in health decisions and the rising costs of care more broadly, in fall 2021 we organized a symposium at the Society for Medical Decision Making's annual meeting. The focus was on the role of cost information in PtDAs and SDM. Panelists gave an overview of work in this space at this virtual meeting, and attendees engaged in rich discussion with the panelists about the state of the problem as well as ideas and challenges in incorporating cost-related issues into routine care. This article summarizes and extends our discussion based on the literature in this area and calls for action. We recommend that PtDA and SDM guidelines routinely include a discussion of direct and indirect care costs and that researchers measure the frequency, quality, and response to this information.

Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network: Summary of Results and Future Directions

Heart failure remains among the most common and morbid health conditions. The Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network (HF SFRN) was funded by the American Heart Association to facilitate collaborative, high-impact research in the field of heart failure across the domains of basic, clinical, and population research. The Network was also charged with developing training opportunities for young investigators. Four centers were funded in 2016: Duke University, University of Colorado, University of Utah, and Massachusetts General Hospital-University of Massachusetts. This report summarizes the aims of each center and major research accomplishments, as well as training outcomes from the HF SFRN.

Subjective Financial Hardship from Medical Bills Among Patients with Heart Failure in the United States: The 2014-2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) poses a substantial economic burden to the United States (US) healthcare system. In contrast, little is known about the financial challenges faced by patients with HF. In this study, we examined the scope and sociodemographic predictors of subjective financial hardship from medical bills in patients with HF.

METHODS

In the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS; years 2014-2018), a US nationally representative database, we identified all patients who reported having HF. Any subjective financial hardship from medical bills was assessed based on patients reporting either themselves or their families 1) having difficulties paying medical bills in the past 12 months, 2) paid bills late, or 3) unable to pay bills at all. Logistic regression was used to evaluate independent predictors of financial hardship among patients with HF. All analyses took into consideration the survey's complex design.

RESULTS

A total of 116,563 MEPS participants were included in the analysis, of whom 858 (0.7%) had a diagnosis of HF, representing 1.8 million (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0) patients annually. Overall, 33% (95% CI 29% to 38%) reported any financial hardship from medical bills with 13.2% not being able to pay bills at all. Age ≤65 years and lower educational attainment were independently associated with higher odds of subjective financial hardship from medical bills.

CONCLUSION

Subjective financial hardship is a prevalent issue among patients with HF in the US, particularly those who are younger and have lower educational attainment. There is a need for policies that reduce out-of-pocket costs in the care of HF, an enhanced identification of this phenomenon in the clinical setting, and approaches to help minimize financial toxicity in patients with HF while ensuring optimal quality of care.

Impact of Financial Considerations on Willingness to Take Sacubitril/Valsartan for Heart Failure

Background Sacubitril/valsartan improves health outcomes for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction relative to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, but it carries higher out-of-pocket costs. Neither the impact of cost nor how to integrate cost into medical decisions is well studied. Methods and Results To evaluate the impact of out-of-pocket costs and a novel cost-priming intervention on willingness to take sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, participants with self-reported heart disease were surveyed using the online Ipsos Knowledge Panel. Participants were presented with a modified decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan and then, in a 3×2 factorial design, randomly assigned to 1 of 3 cost conditions ($10, $50, or $100/month) and to a control group or cost-priming intervention, defined by being asked questions about their financial situation before learning about the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan. Of the 1013 participants included in the analysis, 85% of respondents were willing to take sacubitril/valsartan at $10, 62% at $50, and 33% at $100 (P<0.0001). In a multivariable logistic regression model, participants were more likely to take sacubitril/valsartan at $10 versus $100 (odds ratio [OR], 14.3 [95% CI, 9.4-21.8]) and $50 compared with $100 (OR, 3.6 [95% CI, 2.5-5.1]). Overall, participants in the cost-primed group were more willing to take sacubitril/valsartan than those not primed to consider their financial situation (63% versus 56%, P=0.04). There was no statistically significant interaction between cost conditions and cost priming. Perceived benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers decreased as cost increased but did not vary by cost priming. Conclusions Commonly encountered out-of-pocket costs of sacubitril/valsartan may impact individuals' willingness to take the medication even when recommended by their physicians. Priming individuals to consider personal finances before learning about the drug increased willingness to take sacubitril/valsartan.

Heart Failure Spending Function: An Investment Framework for Sequencing and Intensification of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapies

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is managed with increasing numbers of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT). Benefits tend to be additive. Burdens can also be additive. We propose a heart failure spending function as a conceptual framework for tailored intensification of GDMT that maximizes therapeutic opportunity while limiting adverse events and patient burden. Each patient is conceptualized to have reserve in physiological and psychosocial domains, which can be spent for a future return on investment. Key domains are blood pressure, heart rate, serum creatinine, potassium, and out-of-pocket costs. For each patient, GDMT should be initiated and intensified in a sequence that prioritizes medications with the greatest expected cardiac benefit while drawing on areas where the patient has ample reserves. When reserve is underspent, patients fail to gain the full benefit of GDMT. Conversely, when a reserve is fully spent, addition of new drugs or higher doses that draw upon a domain will lead to patient harm. The benefit of multiple agents drawing upon varied physiological domains should be balanced against cost and complexity. Thresholds for overspending are explored, as are mechanisms for implementing these concepts into routine care, but further health care delivery research is needed to validate and refine clinical use of the spending function. The heart failure spending function also suggests how newer therapies may be considered in terms of relative value, prioritizing agents that draw on different spending domains from existing GDMT.

Framing Benefits in Decision Aids: Effects of Varying Contextualizing Statements on Decisions About Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure

Background. Presenting numeric data alone may result in patients underappreciating clinically significant benefits. Contextualizing statements to counter this may raise concern about absence of neutrality. These issues arose during construction of a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan, a heart failure medication associated with a ∼3% absolute reduction in 2-year mortality that carries high out-of-pocket cost. A contextualizing statement framing this as a “pretty big benefit” was incorporated. The impact of statements like this within decision aids is unknown. Objective. This online Qualtrics survey sought to deepen understanding of benefit framing by testing the impact of varying contextualizing statements within a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan. Design. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of six abbreviated versions of a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan that varied only by contextualizing statement (ranging from strongly neutral to strongly positive and using relative and absolute risk reductions). Participants were asked to answer questions regarding the likelihood of taking the medication at a cost of $50/month and their perception of the drug’s benefits. Results. A total of 1873 participants who were demographically similar to the heart failure population completed the survey. Fifty-four percent were willing to take sacubitril-valsartan at $50/month. Each of the five experimental contextualizing statements was compared with the baseline version; no significant differences were observed in reported likelihood of taking sacubitril-valsartan. After controlling for demographics and covariates, group assignment did not predict likelihood of taking the medication. Higher income, better self-reported health status, and younger age were associated with increased likelihood of taking sacubitril-valsartan. Limitations. This study used a hypothetical scenario and evaluated one method of delivering contextualizing statements. Conclusions. Contextualizing statements as tested within this decision aid did not affect decision making.

Show Me the Money: Patients' Perspectives on a Decision Aid for Sacubitril/Valsartan Addressing Out-of-Pocket Cost

BACKGROUND

Out-of-pocket medication costs for patients who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be an important part of shared decision-making, but cost has generally been excluded from clinical discussions. This study reports patients' perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly addresses out-of-pocket costs.

METHODS

Structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from 2 medical centers to elicit their views on a publicly available decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly incorporates considerations related to out-of-pocket costs. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Key themes identified were general enthusiasm for decision aids for medication decisions, openness on the part of patients to incorporation of cost into decision-making and the decision aid, requests for greater specificity regarding patient-specific cost, and challenges communicating evidence of benefit in a way that allows patients to make cost-benefit analyses for themselves. Patients also raised questions regarding logistical challenges of incorporating a decision aid into the normal clinical and decision-making workflow.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients were receptive to the inclusion of out-of-pocket cost as relevant in a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan. Key challenges to effective integration of cost in these decisions include developing mechanisms for acquiring reliable patient-specific cost estimates and addressing patients' difficulties (and sometimes skepticism) applying trial evidence to their own situation. In addition, implementation strategies are important to develop to facilitate decision aid integration for routine medical decisions into clinic workflow.