Focus Groups Highlight That Many Patients Object To Clinicians' Focusing On Costs

Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 02/2013; 32(2):338-46. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0686
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To develop a tool for estimating hospital-specific inpatient prices for major payers. DATA SOURCES: AHRQ Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases and complete hospital financial reporting of revenues mandated in 10 states for 2006. STUDY DESIGN: Hospital discharge records and hospital financial information were merged to estimate revenue per stay by payer. Estimated prices were validated against other data sources. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Hospital prices can be reasonably estimated for 10 geographically diverse states. All-payer price-to-charge ratios, an intermediate step in estimating prices, compare favorably to cost-to-charge ratios. Estimated prices also compare well with Medicare, MarketScan private insurance, and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey prices for major payers, given limitations of each dataset. CONCLUSIONS: Public reporting of prices is a consumer resource in making decisions about health care treatment; for self-pay patients, they can provide leverage in negotiating discounts off of charges. Researchers can also use prices to increase understanding of the level and causes of price differentials among geographic areas. Prices by payer expand investigational tools available to study the interaction of inpatient hospital price setting among public and private payers-an important asset as the payer mix changes with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
    Health Services Research 05/2013; DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12065 · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: What's not to like about shared decision-making? These programs employ specially crafted decision aids to educate patients about their treatment options and then merge the newly informed patient preferences, both general and treatment-specific, with guidance from physicians to optimize medical decisions. Sounds great, right? Even better, recent evidence indicates that shared decision-making programs may also help bend the proverbial cost curve by reducing the use of medical interventions that patients, now properly educated about their options, often say they do not want. The notion that programs to inform and elicit patient choice might also help to align health care delivery with patient preferences for less invasive and therefore less costly treatment options seems the rarest of mutual wins in health care, in which what is best for the individual might also benefit the whole. Yet there has been scant attention to how the goals of patient care and cost-containment, and perhaps even profitability, coincide or conflict.
    The Hastings Center Report 07/2013; 43(4):13-16. DOI:10.1002/hast.188 · 1.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients' willingness to discuss costs of treatment alternatives with their physicians is uncertain. To explore public attitudes toward doctor-patient discussions of insurer and out-of-pocket costs and to examine whether several possible communication strategies might enhance patient receptivity to discussing costs with their physicians. Focus group discussions and pre-discussion and post-discussion questionnaires. Two hundred and eleven insured individuals with mean age of 48 years, 51 % female, 34 % African American, 27 % Latino, and 50 % with incomes below 300 % of the federal poverty threshold, participated in 22 focus groups in Santa Monica, CA and in the Washington, DC metro area. Attitudes toward discussing out-of-pocket and insurer costs with physicians, and towards physicians' role in controlling costs; receptivity toward recommended communication strategies regarding costs. Participants expressed more willingness to talk to doctors about personal costs than insurer costs. Older participants and sicker participants were more willing to talk to the doctor about all costs than younger and healthier participants (OR = 1.8, p = 0.004; OR = 1.6, p = 0.027 respectively). Participants who face cost-related barriers to accessing health care were in greater agreement than others that doctors should play a role in reducing out-of-pocket costs (OR = 2.4, p = 0.011). Participants did not endorse recommended communication strategies for discussing costs in the clinical encounter. In contrast, participants stated that trust in one's physician would enhance their willingness to discuss costs. Perceived impediments to discussing costs included rushed, impersonal visits, and clinicians who are insufficiently informed about costs. This study suggests that trusting relationships may be more conducive than any particular discussion strategy to facilitating doctor-patient discussions of health care costs. Better public understanding of how medical decisions affect insurer costs and how such costs ultimately affect patients personally will be necessary if discussions about insurer costs are to occur in the clinical encounter.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 07/2013; 29(1). DOI:10.1007/s11606-013-2543-9 · 3.42 Impact Factor