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

Integrating Cost into Shared Decision-Making for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (POCKET-COST-HF): A Trial Providing Out-of-Pocket Costs for Heart Failure Medications during Clinical Encounters

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) often entails substantial out-of-pocket costs that can vary appreciably between patients. This has raised concerns regarding financial toxicity, equity, and adherence to medical therapy. In spite of these concerns, cost discussions in the HFrEF population appear to be rare, partly because out-of-pocket costs are generally unavailable during clinical encounters. In this trial, out-of-pocket cost information is given to patients and clinicians during outpatient encounters with the aim to assess the impact of providing this information on medication discussions and decisions.

HYPOTHESIS

Cost-informed decision-making will be facilitated by providing access to patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates at the time of clinical encounter.

DESIGN

Integrating Cost into Shared Decision-Making for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (POCKET-COST-HF) is a multicenter trial based at Emory Healthcare and University of Colorado Health. Adapting an existing patient activation tool from the EPIC-HF trial, patients and clinicians are presented a checklist with medications approved for treatment of HFrEF with or without patient-specific out-of-pocket costs (obtained from a financial navigation firm). Clinical encounters are audio-recorded, and patients are surveyed about their experience. The trial utilizes a stepped-wedge cluster randomized design, allowing for each site to enroll control and intervention group patients while minimizing contamination of the control arm.

DISCUSSION

This trial will elucidate the potential impact of robust cost disclosure efforts and key information regarding patient and clinician perspectives related to cost and cost communication. It also will reveal important challenges associated with providing out-of-pocket costs for medications during clinical encounters. Acquiring medication costs for this trial requires an involved process and outsourcing of work. In addition, costs may change throughout the year, raising questions regarding what specific information is most valuable. These data will represent an important step towards understanding the role of integrating cost discussions into heart failure care.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT04793880.

Costs of care and financial hardship among patients with heart failure

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

Heart Failure Management in 2023: A Pharmacotherapy- and Lifestyle-Focused Comparison of Current International Guidelines

This review examines the pharmacotherapy and lifestyle recommendations of the most recent iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) / Canadian Heart Failure Society (CHFS), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the American Heart Association (AHA) / American College of Cardiology (ACC) / Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) heart failure (HF) guidelines, which all have been updated in response to therapeutic developments across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. Identified areas of unanimity across these guidelines include the following: recommending quadruple therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; although no guideline proposed an ideal sequence of initiation); intravenous iron administration for patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency; and sodium restriction for patients with HF. Recent evidence regarding the harms of HFrEF medication withdrawal in patients with HF with improved ejection fraction has prompted subsequent guidelines to recommend against withdrawal. Due to the lower quality of evidence, there are disagreements regarding management of HF with preserved ejection fraction and uncertainty regarding management of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction. Practical guidance is provided to clinicians navigating these challenging areas. In addition to these clinically focused comparisons, we describe opportunities for guideline improvement and harmonization. Specifically, these include opportunities regarding HFrEF sequencing, the need for timely updates, shared decision-making, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework adoption, and the creation of recommendations where high-quality evidence is lacking. Although these guidelines have broad agreement, key areas of controversy remain that may be addressed by emerging evidence and changes in guideline methodology.

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Relation of Household Income to Access and Adherence to Combination Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure: A Retrospective Analysis of Commercially Insured Patients

Background: Outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are influenced by access and adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy. Our objective was to study the association between annual household income and: (1) the odds of having a claim for sacubitril/valsartan among insured patients with HFrEF and (2) medication adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]). We hypothesized that lower annual household income is associated with decreased odds of having a claim for and adhering to sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Using the Optum de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart, patients with HFrEF and ≥6 months of enrollment for follow up (2016-2020) were included. Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, US region, number of prescribed medications, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Prescription for sacubitril/valsartan was defined by the presence of a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Adherence was defined as PDC≥80%. We fit multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models and hierarchical logistic regression accounting for covariates. Results: Among 322,007 individuals with incident HFrEF, 135,282 had complete data for analysis. Of the patients eligible for sacubitril/valsartan, 4.7% (6,372) had a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Following multivariable adjustment, individuals in the lowest annual income category (<$40,000) were significantly less likely (OR=0.83, 95% CI [0.76, 0.90]) to have a sacubitril/valsartan claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis than those in the highest annual income category (≥$100,000). Annual income <$40,000 was associated with lower odds of PDC≥80% compared with income ≥$100,000 (OR=0.70, 95% CI [0.59, 0.83]). Conclusions: Lower household income is associated with decreased likelihood of a sacubitril/valsartan claim and medication adherence within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis, even after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Future analyses are needed to identify additional social factors associated with delays in sacubitril/valsartan initiation and long-term adherence.

Health informatics interventions to minimize out-of-pocket medication costs for patients: what providers want

Objective

To explore diverse provider perspectives on: strategies for addressing patient medication cost barriers; patient medication cost information gaps; current medication cost-related informatics tools; and design features for future tool development.

Materials and Methods

We conducted 38 semistructured interviews with providers (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and administrators) in a Midwestern health system in the United States. We used 3 rounds of qualitative coding to identify themes.

Results

Providers lacked access to information about: patients’ ability to pay for medications; true costs of full medication regimens; and cost impacts of patient insurance changes. Some providers said that while existing cost-related tools were helpful, they contained unclear insurance information and several questioned the information’s quality. Cost-related information was not available to everyone who needed it and was not always available when needed. Fragmentation of information across sources made cost-alleviation information difficult to access. Providers desired future tools to compare medication costs more directly; provide quick references on costs to facilitate clinical conversations; streamline medication resource referrals; and provide centrally accessible visual summaries of patient affordability challenges.

Discussion

These findings can inform the next generation of informatics tools for minimizing patients’ out-of-pocket costs. Future tools should support the work of a wider range of providers and situations and use cases than current tools do. Such tools would have the potential to improve prescribing decisions and better link patients to resources.

Conclusion

Results identified opportunities to fill multidisciplinary providers’ information gaps and ways in which new tools could better support medication affordability for patients.

Almost a quarter of Americans taking prescription medications have difficulty affording them. We asked 38 healthcare providers what they do to help patients get affordable medications. They try to reduce the number of medications that patients take, choose more affordable medication options, and connect them to free medications or financial help. But it is hard for providers to do these things because they don’t always know which patients have financial challenges, and they may not know how much medications cost patients. Healthcare providers use digital tools like ordering systems to pick medications for patients, but they do not always have clear price information and they do not help outside of healthcare visits with prescribers. It is also hard for healthcare providers to get information about what patients have difficulty affording medications, and about resources to help them. Healthcare providers want new and improved digital tools to help them choose medications, and to be able to compare exact medication price differences. They also want a visual sign for patients with financial challenges, and centralized information about cost reduction resources. Finally, they desire tools to help them talk to patients about mediation prices, and medication price reports for patients themselves.

"It's a mess sometimes": patient perspectives on provider responses to healthcare costs, and how informatics interventions can help support cost-sensitive care decisions

OBJECTIVE

We investigated patient experiences with medication- and test-related cost conversations with healthcare providers to identify their preferences for future informatics tools to facilitate cost-sensitive care decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted 18 semistructured interviews with diverse patients (ages 24-81) in a Midwestern health system in the United States. We identified themes through 2 rounds of qualitative coding.

RESULTS

Patients believed their providers could help reduce medication-related costs but did not see how providers could influence test-related costs. Patients viewed cost conversations about medications as beneficial when providers could adjust medical recommendations or provide resources. However, cost conversations did not always occur when patients felt they were needed. Consequently, patients faced a "cascade of work" to address affordability challenges. To prevent this, collaborative informatics tools could facilitate cost conversations and shared decision-making by providing information about a patient's financial constraints, enabling comparisons of medication/testing options, and addressing transportation logistics to facilitate patient follow-through.

DISCUSSION

Like providers, patients want informatics tools that address patient out-of-pocket costs. They want to discuss healthcare costs to reduce the frequency of unaffordable costs and obtain proactive assistance. Informatics interventions could minimize the cascade of patient work through shared decision-making and preventative actions. Such tools might integrate information about efficacy, costs, and side effects to support decisions, present patient decision aids, facilitate coordination among healthcare units, and eventually improve patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

To prevent a burdensome cascade of work for patients, informatics tools could be designed to support cost conversations and decisions between patients and providers.

Cost and Value in Contemporary Heart Failure Clinical Guidance Documents

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the frequency and nature of cost/value statements in contemporary heart failure (HF) clinical guidance documents (CGDs).

BACKGROUND

In an era of rising health care costs and expanding therapeutic options, there is an increasing need for formal consideration of cost and value in the development of HF CGDs.

METHODS

HF CGDs published by major professional cardiovascular organizations between January 2010 and February 2021 were reviewed for the inclusion of cost/value statements.

RESULTS

Overall, 33 documents were identified, including 5 (15%) appropriate use criteria, 7 (21%) clinical practice guidelines, and 21 (64%) expert consensus documents. Most CGDs (27 of 33; 82%) included at least 1 cost/value statement, and 20 (61%) CGDs included at least 1 cost/value-related citation. Most of these statements were found in expert consensus documents (77.7%). Three (9%) documents reported estimated costs of recommended interventions, but only 1 estimated out-of-pocket cost. Of 179 cost/value-related statements observed, 116 (64.8%) highlighted the economic impact of HF or HF-related care, 6 (3.4%) advocated for cost/value issues, 15 (8.4%) reported gaps in cost/value evidence, and 42 (23.5%) supported clinical guidance recommendations. Over time, patterns of inclusion of statements and citations of cost/value have been largely stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most contemporary HF CGDs contain at least 1 cost/value statement, most CGDs focus on the high economic impact of HF and its related care; explicit inclusion of cost/value to support clinical guidance recommendations remains infrequent. These results highlight key opportunities for the integration of formalized cost/value considerations in future HF-focused CGDs.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Sacubitril-Valsartan Compared with Enalapril Treatment in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan is effective in reducing the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure, with a high acquisition cost compared with enalapril treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan compared with enalapril for acute decompensated heart failure treatment.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to project the total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of early initiation, and a 2-month delay of sacubitril-valsartan treatment and enalapril treatment in hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure over a lifetime horizon from a Thai healthcare system perspective. Clinical inputs were mainly derived from the PIONEER-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials, together with Thai epidemiological data. Cost data were based on the Thai population. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan incurred a higher total cost per year (THB 42,994 [US$1367.48] vs THB 19,787 [US$629.37]), and it gained more QALYs (4.969 vs 4.755). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was THB 108,508/QALY (US$3451.26/QALY). Early initiation of sacubitril-valsartan treatment was more cost effective than delayed treatment. Sensitivity analyses revealed that at a level of willingness to pay of THB 160,000/QALY (US$5089/QALY), sacubitril-valsartan was a cost-effective strategy of about 60%.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan is cost effective in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. However, the results are highly dependent on the long-term cardiovascular mortality, and they are applicable only to Thailand or countries with a similarly structured healthcare system. Long-term registries should be pursued to decrease the uncertainty around long-term mortality.

A patient decision aid for mild asthma: Navigating a new asthma treatment paradigm

INTRODUCTION

In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol offers similar protection from severe exacerbations as daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with lower ICS exposure but slightly increased symptoms. We sought to develop an electronic decision aid to guide discussions about the pros and cons of these first-line options, while identifying and integrating user preferences.

METHODS

Following International Patient Decision Aid Standards, we created a mild asthma decision aid prototype comparing convenience, clinical outcomes, cumulative ICS dose exposure, costs, and side-effects of each option. After face validation, the prototype was iteratively adapted through rapid-cycle development. Each cycle consisted of a patient focus group and a primary care physician interview. We made user preference-based improvements after each round, until reaching a pre-set stopping criterion (no new critical issues identified). We then performed a summative qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Over 5 cycles, we recruited 21 asthma patients (12/21 women, 10/21 ≥ 60 years old) and 5 physicians. Serial changes included simplification and reduction of text and reading level, inclusion of an ICS "myths" section and elaboration of patient-friendly infographics for numerical comparisons. User preferences fell within Content, Format, and tool use Process themes. In response to decision-making preferences, we created a complementary one-page conversation aid for patient-provider use at the point-of-care.

CONCLUSIONS

We present preference-based electronic patient decision and conversation aids for treatment of mild asthma. Our user preference analyses offer useful insights for development of such tools in other chronic diseases. These tools now require integration into point-of-care workflows for measurement of real-world uptake and impact.