Cost Conversations Between Primary Care Providers and Patients with Expanded Medicaid Coverage

Factors associated with cost conversations in oral health care settings

BACKGROUND

Patient-provider cost conversations can minimize cost-related barriers to health, while improving treatment adherence and patient satisfaction. The authors sought to identify factors associated with the occurrence of cost conversations in dentistry.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study using data from an online, self-administered survey of US adults who had seen a dentist within the past 24 months at the time of the survey. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression analysis was used to identify patient and provider characteristics associated with the occurrence of cost conversations.

RESULTS

Of the 370 respondents, approximately two-thirds (68%) reported having a cost conversation with their dental provider during their last dental visit. Cost conversations were more likely for patients aged 25 through 34 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.84; 95% CI, 1.54 to 5.24), 35 through 44 years (OR, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.50 to 7.51), and 55 through 64 years (OR, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.38 to 8.28) than patients aged 18 through 24 years. Cost conversations were less likely to occur during visits with dental hygienists than during visits with general or family dentists (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.58). In addition, respondents from the South (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.48) and those screened for financial hardship were more likely to report having cost conversations with their dental providers (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 2.69 to 16.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the study sample, cost conversations were common and were facilitated via financial hardship screening.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Modifying oral health care delivery processes to incorporate financial hardship screening may be an effective way to facilitate cost conversations and provision of patient-centered care.

How can healthcare organizations improve cost-of-care conversations? A qualitative exploration of clinicians' perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Clinicians increasingly believe they should discuss costs with their patients. We aimed to learn what strategies clinicians, clinic leaders, and health systems can use to facilitate vital cost-of-care conversations.

METHODS

We conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with outpatient clinicians at two US academic medical centers. Clinicians recalled previous cost conversations and described strategies that they, their clinic, or their health system could use to facilitate cost conversations. Independent coders recorded, transcribed, and coded focus groups and interviews.

RESULTS

Twenty-six clinicians participated between December 2019 and July 2020: general internists (23%), neurologists (27%), oncologists (15%), and rheumatologists (35%). Clinicians proposed the following strategies: teach clinicians to initiate cost conversations; systematically collect financial distress information; partner with patients to identify costs; provide accurate insurance coverage and/or out-of-pocket cost information via the electronic health record; develop local lists of lowest-cost pharmacies, laboratories, and subspecialists; hire financial counselors; and reduce indirect costs (e.g., parking).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite considerable barriers to discussing, identifying, and reducing patient costs, clinicians described a variety of strategies for improving cost communication in the clinic.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Health systems and clinic leadership can and should implement these strategies to improve the financial health of the patients they serve.

Using Shared Decision-Making Tools and Patient-Clinician Conversations About Costs

Objective

To determine how shared decision-making (SDM) tools used during clinical encounters that raise cost as an issue impact the incidence of cost conversations between patients and clinicians.

Patients and Methods

A randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters were analyzed. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized clinical trials and one quasi-randomized clinical trial (pre- and post-) comparing care with and without SDM tools. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials ran between 2007 and 2015.

Results

Most patient participants were white (85%), educated (38% completed college), middle-aged (mean age 56 years), and female (61%). There were 105 encounters with and 115 without the SDM tool. Encounters with SDM tools were more likely to include both general cost conversations (62% vs 36%, odds ratio [OR]: 9.6; 95% CI: 4 to 26) as well as conversations on medication costs specifically (89% vs 51%, P=.01). However, clinicians using SDM tools were less likely to address cost issues during the encounter (37% vs 51%, P=.04). Encounters with patients with less than a college degree were also associated with a higher incidence of cost conversations.

Conclusion

Using SDM tools that raise cost as an issue increased the occurrence of cost conversations but was less likely to address cost issues or offer potential solutions to patients’ cost concerns. This result suggests that SDM tools used during the consultation can trigger cost conversations but are insufficient to support them.

Differences in Rates of High-Value and Low-Value Care Between Community Health Centers and Private Practices

BACKGROUND

Community health centers (CHCs) are an integral part of the health care safety net. As health systems seek to improve value, it is important to understand the quality of care provided by CHCs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of CHCs compared with private practices on a comprehensive set of high-value and low-value care measures.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study used data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2010 through 2012. We compared CHCs with private practices using logistic regression models that adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, number of chronic illnesses, rural versus urban location, region of country, and survey year.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

We included outpatient visits to generalist physicians at either CHCs or private practices by patients 18 years and older.

MAIN MEASURES

We examined 12 measures of high-value care and 7 measures of low-value care.

RESULTS

A total of 29,155 physician visits, representing 584,208,173 weighted visits, from 2010 through 2012 were included. CHCs were more likely to provide high-value care by ordering beta-blockers in CHF (46.9% vs. 36.5%; aOR 2.56; 95%CI 1.18-5.56), statins in diabetes (37.0% vs 35.5%; aOR 1.35; 95%CI 1.02-1.79), and providing treatment for osteoporosis (35.7% vs 23.2%; aOR 1.77; 95%CI 1.05-3.00) compared with private practices. CHCs were more likely to avoid low-value screening EKGs (98.7% vs. 88.0%; aOR 11.03; 95%CI 2.67-45.52), CBCs (75.9% vs. 65.7%; aOR 1.72; 95%CI 1.18-2.53), or urinalyses (86.0% vs. 80.5%; aOR 1.87; 95%CI 1.11-3.14) during a general medical exam. CHCs were also less likely to prescribe antibiotics for a URI (48.3% vs. 63.1%; aOR 0.59; 95%CI 0.40-0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

On a number of high-value and low-value measures of care, CHCs performed similar to or better than private practices. As healthcare delivery reforms continue to progress, CHCs are well positioned to provide high-value healthcare.

Health Care Value: Relationships Between Population Health, Patient Experience, and Costs of Care

Health care delivery in the United States has become complex and inefficient. With national health care gross domestic product and out-of-pocket expenses increasing, the nation has not yet improved the quality of health care compared with similar nations. As a result, the public asks for greater population health, improved patient experience, and reduced expenses. In this article, the author discuss how key stakeholders, including policy makers, health systems, patients, and employers, understand how these components of health care value are defined, interlink, and provide opportunities for improvement. The author also outlines concrete improvement opportunities from across the country.