Trust and distrust in low-income Michigan residents during the early COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Trust and distrust have shaped health behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the start of the pandemic, misinformation and polarization eroded trust across the United States. In states like Michigan, pandemic restrictions led to significant unrest. Michiganders also faced disproportionate morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 during this period.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this qualitative study was to understand the individual experiences of trust in low-income Michiganders during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four participants at or below 200% of the federal poverty line who resided in Michigan were recruited for this study.

APPROACH

Interviews were conducted during the winter of 2020 using a formal interview guide that addressed sources of information, perceptions of risk and exposure, protective behaviours and impacts of the pandemic at home, work and in receiving healthcare.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis showed that themes of trust and distrust emerged in multiple facets of our participants' experiences, including in the context of information sources, the behaviours of others, health, financial security, employment and overall safety. Trust and distrust in low-income communities often stemmed from significant financial and economic vulnerabilities and instability in access to healthcare that was exacerbated in the pandemic. Furthermore, participant trust was shaped by internal (e.g., relationships with others) and external (e.g., source of information, social inequity) factors that influenced their perceptions and experiences during the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Trust has played an important role in many aspects of the experiences of low-income communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is important for clinicians to consider as COVID-19 becomes endemic, and trust continues to impact patients' approaches to vaccines, testing and treatment options.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was designed and conducted with the assistance and input of the members of the DECIDERS Steering Committee, a diverse statewide network of community members in Michigan. The DECIDERS team allows community members to have a voice in the design and conduct of health research, and collaborates with researchers to improve health across the state of Michigan.

Betraying, Earning, or Justifying Trust in Health Organizations

Health care and public health programs increasingly rely on, and often even require, organizational action, which is facilitated, if not dependent on, trust. Case examples in this essay highlight trust, trustworthiness, and distrust in public and private organizations, providing insights into how trust in health-related organizations can be betrayed, earned, and justified and into the consequences of organizational trust and trustworthiness for the health of individuals and communities. These examples demonstrate the need for holistic assessments of trust in clinicians and trust in organizations and for organizations, public health, and the medical profession to address questions concerning their own trustworthiness. Normative and empirical assessments of trust and trustworthiness that capture the experiences of those treated within the walls of a health care organization, as well as the care of those outside, will contribute to more trustworthy systems of care.

‘I’m being forced to make decisions I have never had to make before’: Oncologists and the conundrums created by COVID-19

12001

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created conundrums for physicians. This study examines the experiences of oncologists who engage in complex decision-making regarding the use of chemotherapy in seriously ill persons in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Between January 2020 and August 2020, the authors conducted semi-structured, in-depth individual interviews with 22 purposefully sampled oncologists from practices enrolled in the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium. Transcripts were double-coded and reconciled by consensus using qualitative data analysis software for thematic analysis. Results: Among the thematic clusters we identified, one was related to conundrums created by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this presentation, we report the results pertaining to three themes within this cluster: (1) the ethical dilemmas faced by oncologists due to the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) the need for both patients and oncologists to manage uncertainty and emotions, and (3) the importance and complexity of integrating technology and communication for seriously ill persons. Oncologists grappled with several conundrums including resource scarcity, resource allocation, delays in care, a duty to promote equity and non-abandonment, high levels of uncertainty and fear, and the importance of advanced care directives and end-of-life care planning. Non-abandonment featured as a coping mechanism for increased stress, and integration of communication with telemedicine was frequent and necessary. Conclusions: This study offers an in-depth exploration of the conundrums faced by oncologists due to the COVID-19 pandemic and how they navigated them. Optimal decision-making for seriously ill persons with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic must include open acknowledgement of the ethical dilemmas faced, the heightened emotions experienced by both patients and their oncologists, and the urgent need for integrating technology with compassionate communication in determining patient preferences.

Responsibilities, Strategies, and Practice Factors in Clinical Cost Conversations: a US Physician Survey

BACKGROUND

Physicians play a key role in mitigating and managing costs in healthcare which are rising.

OBJECTIVE

Conduct a cross-sectional survey in 2017, comparing results to a 2012 survey to understand US physicians' evolving attitudes and strategies concerning healthcare costs.

PARTICIPANTS

Random sample of 1200 US physicians from the AMA Masterfile.

MEASURES

Physician views on responsibility for costs of care, enthusiasm for cost-saving strategies, cost-consciousness scale, and practice strategies on addressing cost.

KEY RESULTS

Among 1200 physicians surveyed in 2017, 489 responded (41%). In 2017, slightly more physicians reported that physicians have a major responsibility for addressing healthcare costs (32% vs. 27%, p = 0.03). In 2017, more physicians attributed "major responsibility" for addressing healthcare costs to pharmaceutical companies (68% vs. 56%, p < 0.001) and hospital and health systems (63% vs. 56%%, p = 0.008) in contrast to 2012. Fewer respondents in 2017 attributed major responsibility for addressing costs to trial lawyers (53% vs. 59%, p = 0.007) and patients (42% vs. 52%, p < 0.0001) as compared to 2012. Physician enthusiasm for patient-focused cost-containment strategies like high deductible health plans and higher co-pays (62% vs. 42%, p < 0.0001 and 62% vs. 39%, p < 0.0001, not enthusiastic, respectively) declined. Physicians reported that when they discussed cost, it resulted in a change in disease management 56% of the time. Cost-consciousness within surveyed physicians had not changed meaningfully in 2017 since 2012 (31.7 vs. 31.2). Most physicians continued to agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful in their practice (> 70%). After adjusting for specialty, political affiliation, practice setting, age, and gender, only democratic/independent affiliation remained a significant predictor of cost-consciousness.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

US physicians increasingly attribute responsibility for rising healthcare costs to organizations and express less enthusiasm for strategies that increase patient out-of-pocket cost. Interventions that focus on physician knowledge and communication strategies regarding cost of care may be helpful.

Does Group Deliberation Mobilize? The Effect of Public Deliberation on Willingness to Participate in Politics

Proponents of public deliberation suggest that engaging in deliberation increases deliberators' subsequent participation in other forms of politics. We evaluate this "deliberative participation hypothesis" using data drawn from a deliberative field experiment in which members of medically underserved communities in Michigan deliberated in small groups about the design of that state's Medicaid program. Participants were randomly assigned to deliberate about the program in a group or to think about the decision individually, and then completed a post-survey that included measures of willingness to engage in a variety of political acts. We measured willingness to engage in common forms of political participation, as well as willingness to participate in particularistic resistance to adverse decisions by insurance bureaucracies. Contrary to the claims of much of the existing literature, we find no impact of deliberation on willingness to engage in political participation. These results suggest that the ability of public deliberation to increase broader political engagement may be limited or may only occur in particularly intensive, directly empowered forms of public deliberation.

How Would Low-Income Communities Prioritize Medicaid Spending?

CONTEXT

Medicaid plays a critical role in low-income, minority, and medically underserved communities, particularly in states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Yet, the voices of underresourced communities are often unheard in decisions about how to allocate Medicaid's scarce resources, and traditional methods of public engagement are poorly suited to gathering such input. We argue that deliberative public engagement can be a useful tool for involving communities in setting Medicaid priorities.

METHOD

We engaged 209 residents of low-income, medically underserved Michigan communities in discussions about Medicaid spending priorities using an exercise in informed deliberation: CHAT (CHoosing All Together). Participants learned about Medicaid, deliberated in small groups, and set priorities both individually and collectively.

FINDINGS

Participants prioritized broad eligibility consistent with the ACA expansion, accepted some cost sharing, and prioritized spending in areas-including mental health-that are historically underfunded. Participants allocated less funding beyond benefit coverage, such as spending on healthy communities. Participants perceived the deliberative process as fair and informative, and they supported using it in the policy-making process.

CONCLUSION

The choices of participants from low-income, medically underserved communities reflect a unique set of priorities and suggest that engaging low-income communities more deeply in Medicaid policy making might result in different prioritization decisions.

Primary Care, Health Promotion, and Disease Prevention with Michigan Medicaid Expansion

BACKGROUND

Medicaid expansion in Michigan, known as the Healthy Michigan Plan (HMP), emphasizes primary care and preventive services.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the impact of enrollment in HMP on access to and receipt of care, particularly primary care and preventive services.

DESIGN

Telephone survey conducted during January-November 2016 with stratified random sampling by income and geographic region (response rate = 53.7%). Logistic regression analyses accounted for sampling and nonresponse adjustment.

PARTICIPANTS

4090 HMP enrollees aged 19-64 with ≥ 12 months of HMP coverage MAIN MEASURES: Surveys assessed demographic factors, health, access to and use of health care before and after HMP enrollment, health behaviors, receipt of counseling for health risks, and knowledge of preventive services' copayments. Utilization of preventive services was assessed using Medicaid claims.

KEY RESULTS

In the 12 months prior to HMP enrollment, 33.0% of enrollees reported not getting health care they needed. Three quarters (73.8%) of enrollees reported having a regular source of care (RSOC) before enrollment; 65.1% of those reported a doctor's office/clinic, while 16.2% reported the emergency room. After HMP enrollment, 92.2% of enrollees reported having a RSOC; 91.7% had a doctor's office/clinic and 1.7% the emergency room. One fifth (20.6%) of enrollees reported that, before HMP enrollment, it had been over 5 years since their last primary care visit. Enrollees who reported a visit with their primary care provider after HMP enrollment (79.3%) were significantly more likely than those who did not report a visit to receive counseling about health behaviors, improved access to cancer screening, new diagnoses of chronic conditions, and nearly all preventive services. Enrollee knowledge that some services have no copayments was also associated with greater utilization of most preventive services.

CONCLUSIONS

After enrolling in Michigan's Medicaid expansion program, beneficiaries reported less forgone care and improved access to primary care and preventive services.

US Physicians' Reactions To ACA Implementation, 2012-17

Physicians play a key role in implementing health policy, and US physicians were split in their opinions about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) soon after its implementation began. We readministered elements of a prior survey of US physicians to a similar sample to understand how US physicians' opinions of the ACA may have changed over a crucial five-year implementation period (2012-17), and we compared responses across both surveys. Of the 1,200 physicians to whom we sent a survey in the summer of 2017, 489 responded (a response rate of 41 percent). A majority of respondents (60 percent) believed that the ACA had improved access to care and insurance, yet many (43 percent) felt that it had reduced the affordability of coverage. More physicians agreed in 2017 than in 2012 that the ACA "would turn United States health care in the right direction" (53 percent versus 42 percent), despite reporting perceived worsening in several practice conditions over the same time period. After we adjusted for specialty, political party affiliation, practice setting type, perceived social responsibility, age, and sex, we found that only political party affiliation was a significant predictor of support for the ACA in the 2017 results.

Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities

CONTEXT

Engaging underrepresented communities in health research priority setting could make the scientific agenda more equitable and more responsive to their needs.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate democratic deliberations engaging minority and underserved communities in setting health research priorities.

METHODS

Participants from underrepresented communities throughout Michigan (47 groups, n = 519) engaged in structured deliberations about health research priorities in professionally facilitated groups. We evaluated some aspects of the structure, process, and outcomes of deliberations, including representation, equality of participation, participants' views of deliberations, and the impact of group deliberations on individual participants' knowledge, attitudes, and points of view. Follow-up interviews elicited richer descriptions of these and also explored later effects on deliberators.

RESULTS

Deliberators (age 18-88 years) overrepresented minority groups. Participation in discussions was well distributed. Deliberators improved their knowledge about disparities, but not about health research. Participants, on average, supported using their group's decision to inform decision makers and would trust a process like this to inform funding decisions. Views of deliberations were the strongest predictor of these outcomes. Follow-up interviews revealed deliberators were particularly struck by their experience hearing and understanding other points of view, sometimes surprised at the group's ability to reach agreement, and occasionally activated to volunteer or advocate.

CONCLUSIONS

Deliberations using a structured group exercise to engage minority and underserved community members in setting health research priorities met some important criteria for a fair, credible process that could inform policy. Deliberations appeared to change some opinions, improved some knowledge, and were judged by participants worth using to inform policymakers.

Members of Minority and Underserved Communities Set Priorities for Health Research

Policy Points Engaging and involving underrepresented communities when setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. Groups and individuals from minority and underserved communities strongly prioritized child health and mental health research, often choosing to invest at the highest possible level. Groups consisting of predominantly Native American or Arab American participants invested in culture and beliefs research at the highest level, while many groups did not select it at all. The priority given to culture and beliefs research by these groups illustrates the importance of paying special attention to unique preferences, and not just commonly held views, when getting public input on spending priorities for research.

CONTEXT

A major contributor to health disparities is the relative lack of resources-including resources for science-allocated to address the health problems of those with disproportionately greater needs. Engaging and involving underrepresented communities in setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. We engaged minority and underserved communities in informed deliberations and report here their priorities for health research.

METHODS

Academic-community partnerships adapted the simulation exercise CHAT for setting health research priorities. We had participants from minority and medically underserved communities (47 groups, n = 519) throughout Michigan deliberate about health research priorities, and we used surveys and CHAT software to collect the demographic characteristics and priorities selected by individuals and groups.

FINDINGS

The participants ranged in age (18 to 88), included more women than men, and were overrepresented by minority groups. Nearly all the deliberating groups selected child health and mental health research (93.6% and 95.7%), and most invested at the highest level. Aging, access, promote health, healthy environment, and what causes disease were also prioritized by groups. Research on mental health and child health were high priorities for individuals both before and after group deliberations. Access was the only category more likely to be selected by individuals after group deliberation (77.0 vs 84.0%, OR = 1.63, p = .005), while improve research, health policy, and culture and beliefs were less likely to be selected after group deliberations (all, p < .001). However, the level of investment in many categories changed after the group deliberations. Participants identifying as Black/African American were less likely to prioritize mental health research, and those of Other race were more likely to prioritize culture and beliefs research.

CONCLUSIONS

Minority and medically underserved communities overwhelmingly prioritized mental health and child health research in informed deliberations about spending priorities.

Primary Care Clinicians' Views About the Impact of Medicaid Expansion in Michigan: A Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Michigan's approach to Medicaid expansion, the Healthy Michigan Plan (HMP), emphasizes primary care, prevention, and incentives for patients and primary care practitioners (PCPs).

OBJECTIVE

Assess PCPs' perspectives about the impact of HMP on their patients and practices.

DESIGN

In 2014-2015, we conducted semi-structured interviews then a statewide survey of PCPs.

SETTING

Interviewees came from varied types of practices in five Michigan regions selected for racial/ethnic diversity and a mix of rural and urban settings. Surveys were sent via mail.

PARTICIPANTS

Interviewees were physician (n = 16) and non-physician practitioners (n = 3). All Michigan PCPs caring for ≥ 12 HMP enrollees were surveyed (response rate 55.5%, N = 2104).

MEASUREMENTS

PCPs' experiences with HMP patients and recent changes in their practices.

RESULTS

Interviews include examples of the impact of Medicaid expansion on patients and practices. A majority of surveyed PCPs reported recent increases in new patients (52.3%) and patients who had not seen a PCP in many years (56.2%). For previously uninsured patients, PCPs reported positive impact on control of chronic conditions (74.4%), early detection of serious illness (71.1%), medication adherence (69.1%), health behaviors (56.5%), emotional well-being (57.0%), and the ability to work, attend school, or live independently (41.5%). HMP patients reportedly still had more difficulty than privately insured patients accessing some services. Most PCPs reported that their practices had, in the past year, hired clinicians (53.2%) and/or staff (57.5%); 15.4% had colocated mental health care. Few (15.8%) reported established patients' access to urgent appointments worsened.

LIMITATIONS

PCP reports of patient experiences may not be accurate. Results reflect the experiences of PCPs with ≥ 12 Medicaid patients. Differences between respondents and non-respondents present the possibility for response bias.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs reported improved patient access to care, medication adherence, chronic condition management, and detection of serious illness. Established patients' access did not diminish, perhaps due to reported practice changes.

Show me the money! An analysis of underserved stakeholders' funding priorities in Patient Centered Outcomes Research domains

AIM

Develop an accessible exercise to engage underserved populations about research funding priorities; analyze the criteria they use to prioritize research; contrast these criteria to those currently used by Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

MATERIALS & METHODS

Academic and community partners collaborated to develop an Ipad exercise to facilitate group deliberation about PCOR funding priorities. 16 groups (n = 183) of underserved individuals in both urban and rural areas participated. Recordings were qualitatively analyzed for prioritization criteria.

RESULTS

Analysis yielded ten codes, many of which were similar to PCORI criteria, but all of which challenged or illuminated these criteria.

CONCLUSION

Directly involving underserved populations in determining funding criteria is both feasible and important, and can better fulfill PCORI's goal of incorporating patient priorities.

Self-Reported Rationing Behavior Among US Physicians: A National Survey

BACKGROUND

Rationing is a controversial topic among US physicians. Understanding their attitudes and behaviors around rationing may be essential to a more open and sensible professional discourse on this important but controversial topic.

OBJECTIVE

To describe rationing behavior and associated factors among US physicians.

DESIGN

Survey mailed to US physicians in 2012 to evaluate self-reported rationing behavior and variables related to this behavior.

SETTING

US physicians across a full spectrum of practice settings.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2541 respondents, representing 65.6 % of the original mailing list of 3872 US addresses.

INTERVENTIONS

The study was a cross-sectional analysis of physician attitudes and self-reported behaviors, with neutral language representations of the behaviors as well as an embedded experiment to test the influence of the word "ration" on perceived responsibility.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall percentage of respondents reporting rationing behavior in various contexts and assessment of attitudes toward rationing.

KEY RESULTS

In total, 1348 respondents (53.1 %) reported having personally refrained within the past 6 months from using specific clinical services that would have provided the best patient care, because of health system cost. Prescription drugs (n = 1073 [48.3 %]) and magnetic resonance imaging (n = 922 [44.5 %]) were most frequently rationed. Surgical and procedural specialists were less likely to report rationing behavior (adjusted odds ratio [OR] [95 % CI], 0.8 [0.9-0.9] and 0.5 [0.4-0.6], respectively) compared to primary care. Compared with small or solo practices, those in medical school settings reported less rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.4 [0.2-0.7]). Physicians who self-identified as very or somewhat liberal were significantly less likely to report rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.7 [0.6-0.9]) than those self-reporting being very or somewhat conservative. A more positive opinion about rationing tended to align with greater odds of rationing.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-half of respondents engaged in behavior consistent with rationing. Practicing physicians in specific subgroups were more likely to report rationing behavior.

Priorities for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: The Views of Minority and Underserved Communities

OBJECTIVE

To learn how minority and underserved communities would set priorities for patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR).

DATA SOURCES

Sixteen groups (n = 183) from minority and underserved communities in two states deliberated about PCOR priorities using the simulation exercise CHoosing All Together (CHAT). Most participants were minority, one-third reported income <$10,000, and one-fourth reported fair/poor health.

DESIGN

Academic-community partnerships adapted CHAT for PCOR priority setting using existing research agendas and interviews with community leaders, clinicians, and key informants.

DATA COLLECTION

Tablet-based CHAT collected demographic information, individual priorities before and after group deliberation, and groups' priorities.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Individuals and groups prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient-Doctor, Access, Special Needs, and (by total resources spent) Compare Approaches. Those with less than a high school education were less likely to prioritize New Approaches, Patient-Doctor, Quality of Life, and Families/Caregivers. Blacks were less likely to prioritize research on Causes of Disease, New Approaches, and Compare Approaches than whites. Compare Approaches, Special Needs, Access, and Families/Caregivers were significantly more likely to be selected by individuals after compared to before deliberation.

CONCLUSIONS

Members of underserved communities, in informed deliberations, prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient-Doctor, Special Needs, Access, and Compare Approaches.

Shared decision-making as a cost-containment strategy: US physician reactions from a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess US physicians' attitudes towards using shared decision-making (SDM) to achieve cost containment.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional mailed survey.

SETTING

US medical practice.

PARTICIPANTS

3897 physicians were randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile. Of these, 2556 completed the survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Level of enthusiasm for "Promoting better conversations with patients as a means of lowering healthcare costs"; degree of agreement with "Decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in my practice" and agreement with "should promoting SDM be legislated to control overall healthcare costs".

RESULTS

Of 2556 respondents (response rate (RR) 65%), two-thirds (67%) were 'very enthusiastic' about promoting SDM as a means of reducing healthcare costs. Most (70%) agreed decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in their practice, but only 24% agreed with legislating SDM to control costs. Compared with physicians with billing-only compensation, respondents with salary compensation were more likely to strongly agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7). Primary care physicians (vs surgeons, OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) expressed more enthusiasm for SDM being legislated as a means to address healthcare costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most US physicians express enthusiasm about using SDM to help contain costs. They believe decision support tools that show costs would be useful. Few agree that SDM should be legislated as a means to control healthcare costs.

Focus groups highlight that many patients object to clinicians' focusing on costs

Having patients weigh costs when making medical decisions has been proposed as a way to rein in health care spending. We convened twenty-two focus groups of people with insurance to examine their willingness to discuss health care costs with clinicians and consider costs when deciding among nearly comparable clinical options. We identified the following four barriers to patients' taking cost into account: a preference for what they perceive as the best care, regardless of expense; inexperience with making trade-offs between health and money; a lack of interest in costs borne by insurers and society as a whole; and noncooperative behavior characteristic of a "commons dilemma," in which people act in their own self-interest although they recognize that by doing so, they are depleting limited resources. Surmounting these barriers will require new research in patient education, comprehensive efforts to shift public attitudes about health care costs, and training to prepare clinicians to discuss costs with their patients.

Views of US physicians about controlling health care costs

IMPORTANCE

Physicians' views about health care costs are germane to pending policy reforms.

OBJECTIVE

To assess physicians' attitudes toward and perceived role in addressing health care costs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional survey mailed in 2012 to 3897 US physicians randomly selected from the AMA Masterfile.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Enthusiasm for 17 cost-containment strategies and agreement with an 11-measure cost-consciousness scale.

RESULTS

A total of 2556 physicians responded (response rate = 65%). Most believed that trial lawyers (60%), health insurance companies (59%), hospitals and health systems (56%), pharmaceutical and device manufacturers (56%), and patients (52%) have a "major responsibility" for reducing health care costs, whereas only 36% reported that practicing physicians have "major responsibility." Most were "very enthusiastic" for "promoting continuity of care" (75%), "expanding access to quality and safety data" (51%), and "limiting access to expensive treatments with little net benefit" (51%) as a means of reducing health care costs. Few expressed enthusiasm for "eliminating fee-for-service payment models" (7%). Most physicians reported being "aware of the costs of the tests/treatments [they] recommend" (76%), agreed they should adhere to clinical guidelines that discourage the use of marginally beneficial care (79%), and agreed that they "should be solely devoted to individual patients' best interests, even if that is expensive" (78%) and that "doctors need to take a more prominent role in limiting use of unnecessary tests" (89%). Most (85%) disagreed that they "should sometimes deny beneficial but costly services to certain patients because resources should go to other patients that need them more." In multivariable logistic regression models testing associations with enthusiasm for key cost-containment strategies, having a salary plus bonus or salary-only compensation type was independently associated with enthusiasm for "eliminating fee for service" (salary plus bonus: odds ratio [OR], 3.3, 99% CI, 1.8-6.1; salary only: OR, 4.3, 99% CI, 2.2-8.5). In multivariable linear regression models, group or government practice setting (β = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.45, P = .004; and β = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.79, P = .01, respectively) and having a salary plus bonus compensation type (β = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.33; P = .002) were positively associated with cost-consciousness. Finding the "uncertainty involved in patient care disconcerting" was negatively associated with cost-consciousness (β = -1.95; 95% CI, -2.71 to -1.18; P < .001).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In this survey about health care cost containment, US physicians reported having some responsibility to address health care costs in their practice and expressed general agreement about several quality initiatives to reduce cost but reported less enthusiasm for cost containment involving changes in payment models.

Specialty, Political Affiliation, and Perceived Social Responsibility Are Associated with U.S. Physician Reactions to Health Care Reform Legislation

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how U.S. physicians' political affiliations, specialties, or sense of social responsibility relate to their reactions to health care reform legislation.

OBJECTIVE

To assess U.S. physicians' impressions about the direction of U.S. health care under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), whether that legislation will make reimbursement more or less fair, and examine how those judgments relate to political affiliation and perceived social responsibility.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional, mailed, self-reported survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Simple random sample of 3,897 U.S. physicians.

MAIN MEASURES

Views on the ACA in general, reimbursement under the ACA in particular, and perceived social responsibility.

KEY RESULTS

Among 2,556 physicians who responded (RR2: 65 %), approximately two out of five (41 %) believed that the ACA will turn U.S. health care in the right direction and make physician reimbursement less fair (44 %). Seventy-two percent of physicians endorsed a general professional obligation to address societal health policy issues, 65 % agreed that every physician is professionally obligated to care for the uninsured or underinsured, and half (55 %) were willing to accept limits on coverage for expensive drugs and procedures for the sake of expanding access to basic health care. In multivariable analyses, liberals and independents were both substantially more likely to endorse the ACA (OR 33.0 [95 % CI, 23.6-46.2]; OR 5.0 [95 % CI, 3.7-6.8], respectively), as were physicians reporting a salary (OR 1.7 [95 % CI, 1.2-2.5]) or salary plus bonus (OR 1.4 [95 % CI, 1.1-1.9) compensation type. In the same multivariate models, those who agreed that addressing societal health policy issues are within the scope of their professional obligations (OR 1.5 [95 % CI, 1.0-2.0]), who believe physicians are professionally obligated to care for the uninsured / under-insured (OR 1.7 [95 % CI, 1.3-2.4]), and who agreed with limiting coverage for expensive drugs and procedures to expand insurance coverage (OR 2.3 [95 % CI, 1.8-3.0]), were all significantly more likely to endorse the ACA. Surgeons and procedural specialists were less likely to endorse it (OR 0.5 [95 % CI, 0.4-0.7], OR 0.6 [95 % CI, 0.5-0.9], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant subsets of U.S. physicians express concerns about the direction of U.S. health care under recent health care reform legislation. Those opinions appear intertwined with political affiliation, type of medical specialty, as well as perceived social responsibility.

Bacterial pneumonias during an influenza pandemic: how will we allocate antibiotics?

We are currently in the midst of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and a second wave of flu in the fall and winter could lead to more hospitalizations for pneumonia. Recent pathologic and historic data from the 1918 influenza pandemic confirms that many, if not most, of the deaths in that pandemic were a result of secondary bacterial pneumonias. This means that a second wave of 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza could result in a widespread shortage of antibiotics, making these medications a scarce resource. Recently, our University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) Scarce Resource Allocation Committee (SRAC) added antibiotics to a list of resources (including ventilators, antivirals, vaccines) that might become scarce during an influenza pandemic. In this article, we summarize the data on bacterial pneumonias during the 1918 influenza pandemic, discuss the possible impact of a pandemic on the University of Michigan Health System, and summarize our committee's guiding principles for allocating antibiotics during a pandemic.

Subjects' views of obligations to ensure post-trial access to drugs, care and information: qualitative results from the Experiences of Participants in Clinical Trials (EPIC) study

OBJECTIVES

To report the attitudes and opinions of subjects in US clinical trials about whether or not, and why, they should receive post-trial access (PTA) to the trial drug, care and information.

DESIGN

Focus groups, short self-administered questionnaires.

SETTING

Boston, Dallas, Detroit, Oklahoma City.

PARTICIPANTS

Current and recent subjects in clinical trials, primarily for chronic diseases.

RESULTS

93 individuals participated in 10 focus groups. Many thought researchers, sponsors, health insurers and others share obligations to facilitate PTA to the trial drug, if it benefited the subject, or to a therapeutic equivalent. Some thought PTA obligations include providing transition care (referrals to non-trial physicians or other trials, limited follow-up, short-term drug supply) or care for long-term adverse events. Others held, in contrast, that there are no PTA obligations regarding drugs or care. However, there was agreement that former subjects should receive information (drug name, dosage received, market approval date, long-term adverse effects, trial results). Participants frequently appealed to health need, cost, relationships, reciprocity, free choice and sponsor self-interest to support their views. Many of their reasons overlapped with those commonly discussed by bioethicists.

CONCLUSION

Many participants in US trials for chronic conditions thought there are obligations to facilitate PTA to the trial drug at a "fair" price; these views were less demanding than those of non-US subjects in other studies. However, our participants' views about informational obligations were broader than those of other subjects and many bioethicists. Our results suggest that the PTA debate should expand beyond the trial drug and aggregate results.

Do we practice what we preach? A qualitative assessment of resident-preceptor interactions for adherence to evidence-based practice

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is important in training doctors for high-quality care. Yet little is known about whether ambulatory precepting incorporates the concepts and principles of EBM.

METHODS

The authors observed and audiotaped 95 internal medicine residency precepting interactions and rated interactions using a qualitative analytic template consisting of three criteria: (1) presence of clinical questions; (2) presence of an evidence-based process; and (3) resident ability to articulate a clinical question.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven of 95 audio tapes (71%) were of acceptable quality to allow template analysis. Thirty (45%) contained explicit clinical questions; 11 (16%) included an evidence-based process. Resident ability to articulate a clinical question when prompted was rated as at least 'fair' in 59 of 67 interactions (88%).

CONCLUSIONS

EBM was not optimally implemented in these clinics. Future research could explore more systematically what factors facilitate or impair the use of EBM in the real-time ambulatory training context.

Responses of medical schools to institutional conflicts of interest

CONTEXT

Institutional financial conflicts of interest may affect research results. No national data exist on the extent to which US medical schools have formally responded to challenges associated with institutional conflicts of interest (ICOI).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the current state of ICOI policies and practices in US medical schools using the recommendations issued by 2 national higher education and research organizations as the standard.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

National survey of deans of all 125 accredited allopathic medical schools in the United States, administered between February 2006 and December 2006.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The extent to which medical schools have adopted ICOI policies applicable to their institution and to their institutional officials; the scope of these policies in terms of those covered entities, offices, and financial relationships; the existence of recommended organizational structures as means to address ICOI; and the institutions' linkages between ICOI and their institutional review boards (IRBs).

RESULTS

Responses were received from a total of 86 (69%) of 125 US medical schools. Although only 30 (38%) respondents (not all overall respondents answered all questions) have adopted an ICOI policy applicable to financial interests held by the institutions, a much higher number have adopted ICOI policies applicable to the financial interests of the officials: 55 (71%) for senior officials, 55 (69%) for midlevel officials, 62 (81%) for IRB members, and 51 (66%) for governing board members. Most institutions treat as potential ICOI the financial interests held by an institutional research official for a research sponsor (43 [78%]) or for a product that is the subject of research (43 [78%]). The majority of institutions have adopted organizational structures that separate research responsibility from investment management and from technology transfer responsibility. Gaps exist in institutions informing their IRBs of potential ICOI in research projects under review.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the first national data on the existence and nature of policies and practices of US medical schools for addressing potential ICOI. The gaps identified suggest the need for continuing attention by the academic medical community to address the challenges presented by ICOI more consistently and comprehensively.

Institutional academic industry relationships

CONTEXT

Institutional academic-industry relationships have the potential of creating institutional conflicts of interest. To date there are no empirical data to support the establishment and evaluation of institutional policies and practices related to managing these relationships.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a national survey of department chairs about the nature, extent, and consequences of institutional-academic industry relationships for medical schools and teaching hospitals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

National survey of department chairs in the 125 accredited allopathic medical schools and the 15 largest independent teaching hospitals in the United States, administered between February 2006 and October 2006.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Types of relationships with industry.

RESULTS

A total of 459 of 688 eligible department chairs completed the survey, yielding an overall response rate of 67%. Almost two-thirds (60%) of department chairs had some form of personal relationship with industry, including serving as a consultant (27%), a member of a scientific advisory board (27%), a paid speaker (14%), an officer (7%), a founder (9%), or a member of the board of directors (11%). Two-thirds (67%) of departments as administrative units had relationships with industry. Clinical departments were more likely than nonclinical departments to receive research equipment (17% vs 10%, P = .04), unrestricted funds (19% vs 3%, P < .001), residency or fellowship training support (37% vs 2%, P < .001), and continuing medial education support (65% vs 3%, P < .001). However, nonclinical departments were more likely to receive funding from intellectual property licensing (27% vs 16%, P = .01). More than two-thirds of chairs perceived that having a relationship with industry had no effect on their professional activities, 72% viewed a chair's engaging in more than 1 industry-related activity (substantial role in a start-up company, consulting, or serving on a company's board) as having a negative impact on a department's ability to conduct independent unbiased research.

CONCLUSION

Overall, institutional academic-industry relationships are highly prevalent and underscore the need for their active disclosure and management.

Enhancing employee capacity to prioritize health insurance benefits

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate that employees can gain understanding of the financial constraints involved in designing health insurance benefits.

BACKGROUND

While employees who receive their health insurance through the workplace have much at stake as the cost of health insurance rises, they are not necessarily prepared to constructively participate in prioritizing their health insurance benefits in order to limit cost.

DESIGN

Structured group exercises.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Employees of 41 public and private organizations in Northern California.

INTERVENTION

Administration of the CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together) exercise in which participants engage in deliberation to design health insurance benefits under financial constraints.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in priorities and attitudes about the need to exercise insurance cost constraints.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 744) became significantly more cognizant of the need to limit insurance benefits for the sake of affordability and capable of prioritizing benefit options. Those agreeing that it is reasonable to limit health insurance coverage given the cost increased from 47% to 72%.

CONCLUSION

It is both possible and valuable to involve employees in priority setting regarding health insurance benefits through the use of structured decision tools.

(De)constructing 'basic' benefits: citizens define the limits of coverage

Many initiatives for covering the uninsured call for "basic" health care coverage, yet few define that term. The Just Coverage project used a computer-based simulation exercise to learn how nearly 800 community members in northern California identified the inclusions and exclusions that would constitute basic coverage. Working with a limited budget, participants distinguished essential from nonessential health care needs, resisted high patient cost sharing, and tolerated tight restrictions on provider choice. They also supported practice guidelines and standards of effectiveness, and they excluded high-cost, low-value interventions. These results reinforce the importance of community input to policymakers.

The coverage priorities of disabled adult Medi-Cal beneficiaries

Medi-Cal, like other Medicaid programs around the U.S., has been pressed to cut its budget. We report the results of a project using the CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together) exercise, designed to ascertain the priorities of disabled adult Medi-Cal beneficiaries to inform any decisions regarding Medi-Cal benefits. Participants voiced greatest interest in maintaining a wide spectrum of benefits and access to a large pool of providers and were most willing to restrict pharmacy benefits. The resulting findings may be of value to legislators drafting Medicaid proposals that revise benefits for this vulnerable population.

Ethics and professionalism: what does a resident need to learn?

Training in ethics and professionalism is a fundamental component of residency education, yet there is little empirical information to guide curricula. The objective of this study is to describe empirically derived ethics objectives for ethics and professionalism training for multiple specialties. Study design is a thematic analysis of documents, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups conducted in a setting of an academic medical center, Veterans Administration, and community hospital training more than 1000 residents. Participants were 84 informants in 13 specialties including residents, program directors, faculty, practicing physicians, and ethics committees. Thematic analysis identified commonalities across informants and specialties. Resident and nonresident informants identified consent, interprofessional relationships, family interactions, communication skills, and end-of-life care as essential components of training. Nonresidents also emphasized formal ethics instruction, resource allocation, and self-monitoring, whereas residents emphasized the learning environment and resident-attending interactions. Conclusions are that empirically derived learning needs for ethics and professionalism included many topics, such as informed consent and resource allocation, relevant for most specialties, providing opportunities for shared curricula and resources.

A measure of trust in insurers

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered assessments are increasingly important. Patients repeatedly emphasize the importance of trust in health care institutions and personnel.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Develop a conceptual framework for trust in health care organizations and a comprehensive, reliable measure of trust in health insurers. (2) Examine predictors and correlates of trust in insurers.

STUDY DESIGN

A conceptual framework for trust in health organizations based on theory and empirical studies was used to develop items for a structured telephone survey, which also included measures of health and utilization, doctor-patient trust, and satisfaction with care. Principal components factor analyses identified hypothesized domains of trust in health insurers and identified items for scales. Internal consistency assessment used Cronbach's alpha. Univariate analyses used Pearson's r or Student's t-tests.

SAMPLE

Insured residents of Southeastern Michigan (n=400).

RESULTS

Respondents were diverse in age, gender, ethnicity, health, and socioeconomic status. One dominant factor (eigenvalue>10) included hypothesized domains: administrative competence, clinical competence, advocacy and beneficence, fairness, honesty and openness, and one global item. Multidimensional scales were reliable (long version 13 items, alpha=0.95, short: 9 items, alpha=0.91). Insurer trust correlated strongly with trust in doctors (r=0.49 and 0.46) and satisfaction with care (r=0.70 and 0.66), and with an item assessing overall worry about health insurance (r=-0.37 and -0.35). Those with less trust in their insurer were more likely to say that they would change insurance plans (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This well-grounded, reliable measure of enrollee trust in insurers can be a useful patient-centered assessment tool.

Choosing Healthplans All Together: a deliberative exercise for allocating limited health care resources

CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together) is an exercise in participatory decision making designed to engage the public in health care priority setting. Participants work individually and then in groups to distribute a limited number of pegs on a board as they select from a wide range of insurance options. Randomly distributed health events illustrate the consequences of insurance choices. In 1999-2000, the authors conducted fifty sessions of CHAT involving 592 residents of North Carolina. The exercise was rated highly regarding ease of use, informativeness, and enjoyment. Participants found the information believable and complete, thought the group decision-making process was fair, and were willing to abide by group decisions. CHAT holds promise as a tool to foster group deliberation, generate collective choices, and incorporate the preferences and values of consumers into allocation decisions. It can serve to inform and stimulate public dialogue about limited health care resources.

Futility in evolution

Must health care professionals provide treatments or interventions that they consider futile? Although much of the past and current debate about futility has centered on how to best define futility, it is the application of the concept in clinical decision making that is of central concern. Most physicians feel confident that they know futile treatment when they see it, but despite years of debate in scholarly journals, professional meetings, and popular media, consensus on a precise definition eludes us still. This article reviews numerous definitions of futility to illustrate the general lack of consensus over this concept. It also provides a flexible definition of futility that is patient centered and reliant on goals of care as the morally preferable definition. In short, the concept of futility as a means to resolve disputes over treatment decisions may, itself, be futile.

Do unmet expectations for specific tests, referrals, and new medications reduce patients' satisfaction?

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered care requires clinicians to recognize and act on patients' expectations. However, relatively little is known about the specific expectations patients bring to the primary care visit.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the nature and prevalence of patients' specific expectations for tests, referrals, and new medications, and to examine the relationship between fulfillment of these expectations and patient satisfaction.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

VA general medicine clinic.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred fifty-three adult male outpatients seeing their primary care provider for a scheduled visit.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-six percent of patients reported at least 1 expectation for a test, referral, or new medication. Thirty-one percent had 1 expectation, while 25% had 2 or more expectations. Expectations were evenly distributed among tests, referrals, and new medications (37%, 30%, and 33%, respectively). Half of the patients who expressed an expectation did not receive one or more of the desired tests, referrals, or new medications. Nevertheless, satisfaction was very high (median of 1.5 for visit-specific satisfaction on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 representing "excellent"). Satisfaction was not related to whether expectations were met or unmet, except that patients who did not receive desired medications reported lower satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' expectations are varied and often vague. Clinicians trying to implement the values of patient-centered care must be prepared to elicit, identify, and address many expectations.