U.S. Internists' Perspectives on Discussing Cost of Care With Patients: Structured Interviews and a Survey

Cost: An Important Question That Must Be Asked

Cost conversations are essential to informed consent because patients have a right to information that they think is relevant, and patients overwhelmingly report that cost information is relevant to their medical decisions. Providers have an ethical responsibility to provide necessary information for informed consent, and therefore must discuss costs. The Shared Decision Making model is ideal for enabling this exchange of information, and decision aids are also helpful. Although barriers exist, many useful tools can help providers fulfill this obligation, and encouraging progress is being made to improve cost transparency from insurers and facilities.

The potential impact of introducing a cost tool to facilitate cost-of-care conversations in routine OB care: Lessons from the CONTINUE pilot study

Objective

The objective of the CONTINUE study is to gather preliminary data on the potential impact of implementing a "Cost Tool" in routine obstetrics (OB) care. It is hypothesized that by providing prenatal patients with an ability to forecast their care plan, they would be better able to anticipate and plan for the costs associated with their prenatal care.

Methods

Pilot data from interviews and surveys were collected from 71 prenatal patients across three clinics throughout Chicago, IL.

Results

As compared to privately insured prenatal patients, prenatal patients with public insurance reported the most benefit in Cost Tool use. Specifically, that the Cost Tool helped to navigate insurance more effectively (OR 4.49, p=0.0254), see the "Big Picture" and link it to the family budget (OR 4.25, p=0.0099), and make the financial tradeoffs needed to get through pregnancy (OR 5.50, p=0.0305).

Conclusion

The CONTINUE study provides preliminary signals of the Cost Tool's potential to help publicly insured prenatal patients better navigate the costs associated with their care plan.

Innovations

The CONTINUE study contributes valuable preliminary data about the utility of a cost tool in routine OB care, especially as it may benefit low-income prenatal patients navigate prenatal care better.

Impact of a Standardized, Pharmacist-Initiated "Test-Claim" Workflow for Anticipating Barriers to Accessing Discharge Antimicrobials

Background: Inability to access and afford discharge oral antimicrobials may delay discharges or result in therapeutic failure. "Test-claims" have the potential to identify such barriers. Objective: This study evaluated discharge antimicrobial access and patient outcomes after implementation of a standardized, inpatient pharmacist-initiated antimicrobial discharge medication cost inquiry (aDMCI) process. Methods: This was an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved, pilot retrospective cohort study that included adults admitted for ≥72 hours from November 1, 2018, to February 28, 2019, and discharged on oral antimicrobials. Patients with a cost inquiry (aDMCI group) were compared with those without (standard-of-care, SOC, group). Primary endpoint was discharge delay. Secondary endpoints included percentage of patients discharged on suboptimal antimicrobials and medication errors from aDMCI. Results: 84 patients were included: 43 in SOC and 41 in aDMCI. Seventy-five antimicrobial cost inquiries were evaluated among 41 patients. There were no discharge delays or medication errors associated with the standardized "test-claim" (aDMCI) workflow. Patients in the SOC group had a greater Charlson Comorbidity Index (4 [2-6] vs 2 [1-4], P =0.004), were more likely to be immunosuppressed (24, 56% vs 12, 29%; P =0.014), and had longer hospitalization (8 [5-15] vs 6 [5-9] days, P =0.026). Primary access barriers were prior-authorization (8, 11%) and associated with linezolid and moxifloxacin cost inquiries. Most aDMCIs results were available in <24 hours (66, 88%). Conclusions: The aDMCI process is safe and offers an actionable transition of care tool that can identify barriers to accessing discharge medications while insulating patients from surprise out-of-pocket cost.

Where Do Real-Time Prescription Benefit Tools Fit in the Landscape of High US Prescription Medication Costs? A Narrative Review

The problem of unaffordable prescription medications in the United States is complex and can result in poor patient adherence to therapy, worse clinical outcomes, and high costs to the healthcare system. While providers are aware of the financial burden of healthcare for patients, there is a lack of actionable price transparency at the point of prescribing. Real-time prescription benefit (RTPB) tools are new electronic clinical decision support tools that retrieve patient- and medication-specific out-of-pocket cost information and display it to clinicians at the point of prescribing. The rise in US healthcare costs has been a major driver for efforts to increase medication price transparency, and mandates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for Medicare Part D sponsors to adopt RTPB tools may spur integration of such tools into electronic health records. Although multiple factors affect the implementation of RTPB tools, there is limited evidence on outcomes. Further research will be needed to understand the impact of RTPB tools on end results such as prescribing behavior, out-of-pocket medication costs for patients, and adherence to pharmacologic treatment. We review the terminology and concepts essential in understanding the landscape of RTPB tools, implementation considerations, barriers to adoption, and directions for future research that will be important to patients, prescribers, health systems, and insurers.

Demand for and Occurrence of Medication Cost Conversations: A Narrative Review

High medication prices can create a financial burden for patients and reduce medication initiation. To improve decision making, public policy is supporting development of tools to provide real-time prescription drug prices. We reviewed the literature on medication cost conversations to characterize the context in which these tools may be used. Our review included 42 articles: a median of 84% of patients across four clinical specialties reported a desire for cost conversations (n = 7 articles) but only 23% reported having held a cost conversation across six specialties (n = 16 articles). Non-White and older patients were less likely to report having held a cost conversation than White and younger patients in 9 of 13 and 5 of 9 articles, respectively, examining these associations. Our review indicates that tools providing price information may not result in improved decision making without complementary interventions that increase the frequency of cost conversations with a focus on protected groups.

A survey of internists' recommendations for aspirin in older adults and barriers to evidence-based use

Recent trials suggest that aspirin for primary prevention may do more harm than good for some, including adults over 70 years of age. We sought to assess how primary care providers (PCPs) use aspirin for the primary prevention in older patients and to identify barriers to use according to recent guidelines, which recommend against routine use in patients over age 70. We surveyed PCPs about whether they would recommend aspirin in clinical vignettes of a 75-year-old patient with a 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk of 25%. We also queried perceived difficulty following guideline recommendations, as well as perceived barriers and facilitators. We obtained responses from 372 PCPs (47.9% response). In the patient vignette, 45.4% of clinicians recommended aspirin use, which did not vary by whether the patient was using aspirin initially (p = 0.21); 41.7% believed aspirin was beneficial. Perceived barriers to guideline-based aspirin use included concern about patients being upset (41.6%), possible malpractice claims (25.0%), and not having a strategy for discussing aspirin use (24.5%). The estimated adjusted probability of rating the guideline as "hard to follow" was higher in clinicians who believed aspirin was beneficial (29.4% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001) and who worried the patient would be upset if told to stop aspirin (26.7% vs. 12.5%; p = 0.001). Internists vary considerably in their recommendations for aspirin use for primary prevention in older patients. A high proportion of PCPs continue to believe aspirin is beneficial in this setting. These results can inform de-implementation efforts to optimize evidence-based aspirin use.

ABLE to support patient financial capacity: A qualitative analysis of cost conversations in clinical encounters

OBJECTIVE

To explore how costs of care are discussed in real clinical encounters and what humanistic elements support them.

METHODS

A qualitative thematic analysis of 41 purposively selected transcripts of video-recorded clinical encounters from trials run between 2007 and 2015. Videos were obtained from a corpus of 220 randomly selected videos from 8 practice-based randomized trials and 1 pre-post prospective study comparing care with and without shared decision making (SDM) tools.

RESULTS

Our qualitative analysis identified two major themes: the first, Space Needed for Cost Conversations, describes patients' needs regarding their financial capacity. The second, Caring Responses, describes humanistic elements that patients and clinicians can bring to clinical encounters to include good quality cost conversations.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that strengthening patient-clinician human connections, focusing on imbalances between patient resources and burdens, and providing space to allow potentially unexpected cost discussions to emerge may best support high quality cost conversations and tailored care plans.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We recommend clinicians consider 4 aspects of communication, represented by the mnemonic ABLE: Ask questions, Be kind and acknowledge emotions, Listen for indirect signals and (discuss with) Every patient. Future research should evaluate the practicality of these recommendations, along with system-level improvements to support implementation of our recommendations.

Understanding the role of financial health literacy in midlife and old age: A scoping review

As global population ageing persists, understanding older adults' capacity to navigate the financial and healthcare system is essential. This scoping review examines how the concept of financial health literacy (FHL) is described and measured in the existing literature, the factors that may affect it, and its potential outcomes in middle-aged and older adults. The review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) extension guidelines to synthesise the available evidence on this topic. We utilised electronic databases and hand searching to identify relevant literature published between 2010 and 2022. A total of 29 articles were included in this review. The results showed that FHL involved accessing, understanding and utilising financial information for planning/management of healthcare expenses and selecting appropriate health services. However, FHL is not particularly depicted as a concept in the current literature, as most studies investigated health literacy, financial literacy and health insurance literacy as separate domains that were interrelated to one another. No validated measurement tool was developed for FHL. We propose five domains to indicate the concept and measurement of FHL in middle-aged/older adults: money management, management of medical bills, understanding health insurance, deciding on appropriate health services, and planning for long-term care needs. Demographic variables, such as sex (females), advanced age, cognitive impairment, low education and income and racial and ethnic minorities, were found to be related to low FHL. The reviewed studies also showed that FHL was related to several outcomes, including healthcare decision-making, physical health and psychological well-being. Hence, future studies to develop and validate assessment tools of FHL, together with the involvement of vulnerable groups, are imperative to understanding the concept of FHL. This could also facilitate the development of appropriate interventions that could enhance this capacity in the ageing population.

2021 National Survey on Prior Authorization Burden and Its Impact on Gastroenterology Practice

INTRODUCTION

Prior authorizations (PAs) are intended to control prescription drug expenditures.

METHODS

One hundred fifty-six physician and advanced practice provider members of the American College of Gastroenterology completed a national survey to assess PA burden and impact.

RESULTS

One-half of PA requests relate to prescription refills. Greater than 50% of the respondents choose inferior treatments at least weekly because of perceived PA burden for preferred agents. One-half of the respondents reported a patient who experienced serious adverse events due to PA-related care delays.

DISCUSSION

PA is an administrative burden that exhausts practice resources and may have a negative impact on patient care.

Development and pilot testing of a conversation aid to support the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules

OBJECTIVE

To support patient-centred care and the collaboration of patients and clinicians, we developed and pilot tested a conversation aid for patients with thyroid nodules.

DESIGN, PATIENT AND MEASUREMENTS

We developed a web-based Thyroid NOdule Conversation aid (TNOC) following a human-centred design. A proof of concept observational pre-post study was conducted (TNOC vs. usual care [UC]) to assess the impact of TNOC on the quality of conversations. Data sources included recordings of clinical visits, post-encounter surveys and review of electronic health records. Summary statistics and group comparisons are reported.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were analysed (32 in the UC and 33 in the TNOC cohort). Most patients were women (89%) with a median age of 57 years and were incidentally found to have a thyroid nodule (62%). Most thyroid nodules were at low risk for thyroid cancer (71%) and the median size was 1.4 cm. At baseline, the groups were similar except for higher numeracy in the TNOC cohort. The use of TNOC was associated with increased involvement of patients in the decision-making process, clinician satisfaction and discussion of relevant topics for decision making. In addition, decreased decisional conflict and fewer thyroid biopsies as the next management step were noted in the TNOC cohort. No differences in terms of knowledge transfer, length of consultation, thyroid cancer risk perception or concern for thyroid cancer diagnosis were found.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot observational study, using TNOC in clinical practice was feasible and seemed to help the collaboration of patients and clinicians.

Oncologists' Attitudes Toward Cancer Care Affordability

This investigator-designed survey study evaluates oncologists’ attitudes about cancer treatment affordability for patients and acceptability of physician-based solutions.

Costs Versus Quality in Imaging Examination Decisions

PURPOSE

Emerging price transparency tools allow consumers to access individualized out-of-pocket cost (OOPC) estimates, but many lack quality metrics. The aim of this study was to evaluate how potential patients weigh imaging OOPC versus measures of quality when selecting an imaging center for a hypothetical health condition (back pain).

METHODS

Surveying 1,310 Amazon Mechanical Turk volunteers, the authors evaluated how potential patients weigh MRI OOPC ($50 vs $400 vs unknown cost at the time of the examination, with billed OOPC responsibility varying between $50 and $3,500) versus service quality surrogates using three different quality indicators (examination results accuracy, physician recommendation of an imaging center on the basis of familiarity, and facility online star ratings) in their decisions when selecting a radiology center for imaging of two hypothetical clinical conditions (mild and severe back pain), using ranking-based conjoint analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 1,025 eligible respondents completed the survey. Respondents expressed higher preference for perceived quality over cost in hypothetical severe back pain scenarios, resulting in a relative importance of 65.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62.2%-69.4%) for improved imaging results accuracy from 87% to 96%, 63.9% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.5%) for provider recommendations of the facility, and 80.1% (95% CI, 74.2%-85.9%) for an increase in online review star ratings from 2.5 to 4.5 (out of 5) compared with an increased cost from $50 to $400. For mild back pain, there was no statistical difference in respondents' preference for perceived quality and cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating quality metrics into price transparency tools is important. Further research is needed to identify metrics that are most comparable and easily obtainable across imaging centers that remain important to patients.

Comparing Costs and Outcomes of Treatments for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea: Cost-Benefit Analysis

BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most expensive gastroenterological conditions and is an ideal target for developing a value-based care model. We assessed the comparative cost-benefit of treatments for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), the most common IBS subtype from insurer and patient perspectives.

METHODS

We constructed a decision analytic model assessing trade-offs among guideline-recommended and recently FDA-approved drugs, supplements, low FODMAP diet, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Outcomes and costs were derived from systematic reviews of clinical trials and national databases. Health-gains were represented using quality-adjusted life years (QALY).

RESULTS

From an insurer perspective, on-label prescription drugs (rifaximin, eluxadoline, alosetron) were significantly more expensive than off-label treatments, low FODMAP, or CBT. Insurer treatment preferences were driven by average wholesale prescription drug prices and were not affected by health gains in sensitivity analysis within standard willingness-to-pay ranges up to $150,000/QALY-gained. From a patient perspective, prescription drug therapies and neuromodulators appeared preferable due to a reduction in lost wages due to IBS with effective therapy, and also considering out-of-pocket costs of low FODMAP food and out-of-pocket costs to attend CBT appointments. Comparative health outcomes exerted influence on treatment preferences from a patient perspective in cost-benefit analysis depending on a patients' willingness-to-pay threshold for additional health-gains, but health outcomes were less important than out-of-pocket costs at lower willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Costs are critical determinants of IBS treatment value to patients and insurers, but different costs drive patient and insurer treatment preferences. Divergent cost drivers appear to explain misalignment between patient and insurer IBS treatment preferences in practice.

Price Is Right: Exploring Prescription Drug Coverage Barriers for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Using Threshold Pricing Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prescription drug costs exert profound effects on commercial insurance coverage and access to effective therapy.

AIMS

We aimed to assess threshold pricing to achieve budget neutrality of FDA-approved drugs treating irritable bowel syndrome from an insurance perspective, based on cost-savings resulting in decreased healthcare utilization through effective disease management.

METHODS

We constructed a decision-analytic model from an insurance perspective to assess the budget impact of IBS prescription drugs under usual insurance coverage levels in practice: (1) unrestricted drug access or (2) step therapy in a primary care population of middle-age, care-seeking IBS patients. Budget-neutral drug prices were then calculated which resulted in $0 budget impact to insurers with a short-term, one-year time horizon.

RESULTS

If used according to FDA labeling, IBS-D drugs cost between $4778 and $16,844 per year and IBS-C drugs cost between $4319 and $4955 per year. These drug costs often exceed insurance expenditures of $6999 for IBS-D and $3929 for IBS-C if left untreated. Therefore, for drugs to have $0 budget impact to insurers, their prices would need to be discounted 36.7-74.2% for IBS-D drugs and 59.3-82.5% for IBS-C. IBS drugs are already priced to support step therapy "failing one of several common, inexpensive IBS treatments with a responder rate > 30-40%," reflecting the subpopulation with more severe disease and greater healthcare costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Broader prescription drug coverage for patients failing common, inexpensive IBS treatments to which at least 30-40% of patients would typically respond appears warranted to enable gastroenterologists to offer personalized approaches targeting specific mechanisms of this heterogeneous disease.

Evaluating the Impact of Cost on the Treatment Algorithm for Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common and burdensome illness. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved CIC drugs to evaluate and quantify treatment preferences compared with usual care from insurer and patient perspectives.

METHODS

We evaluated the subset of patients with CIC and documented failure of over-the-counter (OTC) osmotic or bulk-forming laxatives. A RAND/UCLA consensus panel of 8 neurogastroenterologists informed model design. Treatment outcomes and costs were defined using integrated analyses of registered clinical trials and the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-supported cost databases. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using health utilities derived from clinical trials. A 12-week time horizon was used.

RESULTS

With continued OTC laxatives, CIC-related costs were $569 from an insurer perspective compared with $3,154 from a patient perspective (considering lost wages and out-of-pocket expenses). CIC prescription drugs increased insurer costs by $618-$1,015 but decreased patient costs by $327-$1,117. Effectiveness of CIC drugs was similar (0.02 QALY gained/12 weeks or ∼7 healthy days gained/year). From an insurer perspective, prescription drugs (linaclotide, prucalopride, and plecanatide) seemed less cost-effective than continued OTC laxatives (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$150,000/QALY gained). From a patient perspective, the cost-effective algorithm started with plecanatide, followed by choosing between prucalopride and linaclotide starting at the 145-μg dose (favoring prucalopride among patients whose disease affects their work productivity). The patient perspective was driven by drug tolerability and treatment effects on quality of life.

DISCUSSION

Addressing costs at a policy level has the potential to enable patients and clinicians to move from navigating barriers in treatment access toward truly optimizing treatment choice.

Stakeholder point of view on prescription drug affordability - a systematic literature review and content analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this research were to: 1) understand perspectives on affordability of pharmaceutical drugs from the point of view of stakeholders as reported in published peer-reviewed journals and conferences; 2) evaluate if (and how) perspectives on affordability overlapped across stakeholders.

METHODS

The systematic literature review followed Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Content analysis with iterative and systematic coding of text was conducted, to identify themes.

RESULTS

A total of 7,372 unique citations were eligible, and 126 articles included for final synthesis. For patients, 6 core themes emerged: financial barriers, adherence, access, patient-provider communication, financial distress, and factors that impact affordability. For payers, 5 core themes: financing schemes, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, private vs. public preferences, and ethics. For providers, 3 themes: patient-provider communication, physician prescribing behavior, and finding alternatives to support patient access. For policymakers, 2 themes: measuring affordability and the role of government. Limited articles representing the manufacturer perspective were identified. Perspectives of decision makers (payers, policymakers) did not overlap with those affected by affordability (patients, providers).

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlights the multi-dimensionality of drug "affordability." Multiple factors beyond cost influence patient affordability implying interventions can help alleviate affordability issues for some patients. The lack of overlap highlights potential hazards that decisions related to out-of-pocket spending, insurance coverage, reimbursement, and rationing occur without explicitly considering patient and provider perspectives.

Are Cost-of-Care Conversations Best Practice? A Qualitative Study of Oncologists' Attitudes and Practice

PURPOSE

Patients' desire for cost conversations exceeds the incidence of such conversations, and many oncologists report avoiding cost conversations despite reporting willingness to have them. Our objective was to examine oncologists' attitudes toward cost conversations and how those attitudes affect practice.

METHODS

An experienced investigator conducted individual interviews with oncologists practicing in Kentucky. Participants were asked about their attitude toward and experience with cost conversations and their advice for discussing cost with patients. Interview transcripts were analyzed by a four-member team using qualitative descriptive analysis to identify themes.

RESULTS

Participants were 32 MDs (male = 68.8%) age 31-77 years who were board-certified in medical oncology (53.1%), surgical oncology (25.0%), or radiation oncology (21.9%). We categorized participants into two groups: (1) those who viewed cost conversations as best practice and reported pursuing such conversations (37.5%) and (2) those who viewed cost conversations as not best practice and reported avoiding them (62.5%). Our analysis revealed three parallel themes for each category: Cost conversation attitudes and practice were based on (1) making good treatment decisions, (2) being a good clinician, and (3) having a good relationship with patients.

CONCLUSION

Not all oncologists view cost conversations as best practice. To improve cost conversation attitudes and practice, cost conversations can be framed as a strategic tool that-when used well-fosters optimal decision making, professionalism, and the therapeutic relationship.

Contrasting Clinician and Insurer Perspectives to Managing Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Multilevel Modeling Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Insurance coverage is an important determinant of treatment choice in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), often taking precedence over desired mechanisms of action or patient goals/values. We aimed to determine whether routine and algorithmic coverage restrictions are cost-effective from a commercial insurer perspective.

METHODS

A multilevel microsimulation tracking costs and outcomes among 10 million hypothetical moderate-to-severe patients with IBS was developed to model all possible algorithms including common global IBS treatments (neuromodulators; low fermentable oligo-, di-, and mono-saccharides, and polyols; and cognitive behavioral therapy) and prescription drugs treating diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D) or constipation-predominant IBS (IBS-C) over 1 year.

RESULTS

Routinely using global IBS treatments (central neuromodulator; low fermentable oligo-, di-, and mono-saccharides, and polyols; and cognitive behavioral therapy) before US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug therapies resulted in per-patient cost savings of $9,034.59 for IBS-D and $2,972.83 for IBS-C over 1 year to insurers, compared with patients starting with on-label drug therapy. Health outcomes were similar, regardless of treatment sequence. Costs varied less than $200 per year, regardless of the global IBS treatment order. The most cost-saving and cost-effective IBS-D algorithm was rifaximin, then eluxadoline, followed by alosetron. The most cost-saving and cost-effective IBS-C algorithm was linaclotide, followed by either plecanatide or lubiprostone. In no scenario were prescription drugs routinely more cost-effective than global IBS treatments, despite a stronger level of evidence with prescription drugs. These findings were driven by higher prescription drug prices as compared to lower costs with global IBS treatments.

DISCUSSION

From an insurer perspective, routine and algorithmic prescription drug coverage restrictions requiring failure of low-cost behavioral, dietary, and off-label treatments appear cost-effective. Efforts to address insurance coverage and drug pricing are needed so that healthcare providers can optimally care for patients with this common, heterogenous disorder.

Experiences of health care costs among people with employer-sponsored insurance and bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Cost-sharing disproportionately affects people with chronic illnesses needing more care. Our qualitative study examined lived experiences navigating insurance benefits and treatment for bipolar disorder, which requires ongoing access to behavioral specialists and psychotropic medications.

METHODS

Forty semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals with bipolar disorder and employer-sponsored health insurance, or their family caregivers, explored health care needs, coverage details, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, and perspectives on value. An iterative analytic approach identified salient themes.

RESULTS

Most individuals in our sample faced an annual insurance deductible, from $350-$10,000. OOP costs for specialist visits ranged from $0-$450 and for monthly psychotropic medications from $0-$1650. Acute episodes and care for comorbidities, including medication side effects, added to cost burdens. Medication nonadherence due to OOP costs was rare; respondents frequently pointed to the necessity of medications: "whatever it takes to get those"; "it's a life or death situation." Respondents also prioritized visits to psychiatrist prescribers, though visits were maximally spaced because of cost. Psychotherapy was often deemed unaffordable and forgone, despite perceived need. Interviewees cited limited networks and high out-of-network costs as barriers to specialists. Cost-sharing sometimes led to debt, skimping on nonbehavioral care or other necessities, exacerbated or prolonged mood symptoms, and stress at home.

LIMITATIONS

Volunteer respondents may not fully represent the target population.

CONCLUSIONS

Many people with bipolar disorder in US employer-sponsored plans experience undertreatment, hardship, and adverse health consequences due to high cost-sharing. More nuanced insurance benefit designs should accommodate the needs of individuals with complex conditions.

Pharmacologic, Dietary, and Psychological Treatments for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation: Cost Utility Analysis

Introduction. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the most common gastroenterology referral and one of the most common gastrointestinal complaints in primary care. We performed a cost-utility analysis of the most common treatments available in general practice for IBS with constipation (IBS-C), the most expensive IBS subtype. Methods. We developed a decision analytic model evaluating guideline-recommended and Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs, supplements, and dietary/psychological interventions. Model inputs were derived from "global symptom improvement" outcomes in systematic reviews of clinical trials. Costs were derived from national datasets. Analysis was performed with a 1-year time horizon from patient and payer perspectives. We analyzed a prototypical managed-care health plan with no cost-sharing to the patient. Results. From a payer perspective, global IBS treatments (including low FODMAP, cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT], neuromodulators), which are not specific to the IBS-C bowel subtype were less expensive than on-label prescription drug treatments. From a patient perspective, on-label prescription drug treatment with linaclotide was the least expensive treatment strategy. Drug prices and costs to manage untreated IBS-C were most important determinants of payer treatment preferences. Effects of treatment on missed work-days and need for repeated appointments to complete treatment were the most important determinants of treatment preference to patients. Discussion. Due mostly to prescription drug prices, neuromodulators, low FODMAP, and CBT appear cost-effective compared to on-label drug treatments from a payer perspective in cost-utility analysis. These findings may explain common treatment barriers in clinical practice.

Financial Toxicity in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the United States: Current State and Future Directions

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) has posed an increasing burden on Americans and the United States healthcare system for decades. In addition, ASCVD has had a substantial economic impact, with national expenditures for ASCVD projected to increase by over 2.5‐fold from 2015 to 2035. This rapid increase in costs associated with health care for ASCVD has consequences for payers, healthcare providers, and patients. The issues to patients are particularly relevant in recent years, with a growing trend of shifting costs of treatment expenses to patients in various forms, such as high deductibles, copays, and coinsurance. Therefore, the issue of “financial toxicity” of health care is gaining significant attention. The term encapsulates the deleterious impact of healthcare expenditures for patients. This includes the economic burden posed by healthcare costs, but also the unintended consequences it creates in form of barriers to necessary medical care, quality of life as well tradeoffs related to non‐health–related necessities. While the societal impact of rising costs related to ASCVD management have been actively studied and debated in policy circles, there is lack of a comprehensive assessment of the current literature on the financial impact of cost sharing for ASCVD patients and their families. In this review we systematically describe the scope and domains of financial toxicity, the instruments that measure various facets of healthcare‐related financial toxicity, and accentuating factors and consequences on patient health and well‐being. We further identify avenues and potential solutions for clinicians to apply in medical practice to mitigate the burden and consequences of out‐of‐pocket costs for ASCVD patients and their families.

Talking about the Cost of Care: A Critical Component of Shared Decision Making Patient and Provider Perspectives

Transparency about the costs that patients incur is an increasingly important factor in making decisions throughout the course of diagnosis and treatment. Both patients and providers regard honest, informed discussions about these costs as critical to providing person-centered care, but often encounter a range of barriers to initiating and maintaining these conversations. The Patient Advocate Foundation/National Patient Advocate Foundation with partial funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has conducted both quantitative and qualitative research with patients and providers designed to identify key issues related to cost of care discussions. These include components of financial toxicity for patients, both related to direct costs and to quality of life, as well as questions as to who should initiate these conversations, when they should take place, and what kind of information and training are needed to make these conversations meaningful. This article reports the results of this work with recommendations for providers about how to incorporate cost of care discussions into the normal clinical work flow and patient life flow.