Communication with Physicians about Health Care Costs: Survey of an Insured Population

Cost: An Important Question That Must Be Asked

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

The impact of adding cost information to a conversation aid to support shared decision making about low-risk prostate cancer treatment: Results of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Decision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs.

METHODS

We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period.

RESULTS

Between April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (β = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (β = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (β = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (β = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (β = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (β = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (β = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (β = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Despite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.

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.

The Cost and Financial Burden of Thyroid Cancer on Patients in the US: A Review and Directions for Future Research

Importance

In the US, thyroid cancer has been identified as a cancer type with a high degree of associated financial burden on patients, and survivors of thyroid cancer report higher rates of bankruptcy than those of other cancer types. However, the available literature on the financial burden of thyroid cancer has not yet been described.

Observations

Estimates of the out-of-pocket costs of initial thyroid cancer diagnosis and treatment range widely ($1425-$17 000) and are influenced by age, surgical treatment type, and health insurance coverage. The rates of patient-reported financial burden are heterogeneous (16%-50%) and are rarely compared with those of other cancer types. Independent risk factors of financial burden have included younger age, lack of health insurance, and annual household income of less than $49 000. Two studies measured medical debt associated with thyroid cancer diagnosis and treatment at notably different rates (2.1% vs 18.7%). The bankruptcy incidence at 1 year after cancer diagnosis is highest for thyroid cancer (9.3 per 1000 person-years) than other studied cancer types (ie, lung, uterine, leukemia/lymphoma, colorectal, melanoma, breast, prostate) and 4.39-fold higher than control individuals among those aged 35 to 49 years.

Conclusions and Relevance

Current estimates of the financial burden of thyroid cancer are methodologically limited and are based on cross-sectional analyses of patient-reported data. We propose novel frameworks for new research by improvements in (1) data sourcing and utilization, (2) study design, and (3) pilot interventions. To understand how out-of-pocket thyroid cancer-related expenditures transition to various forms of debt, how households finance ongoing costs of care, and rates at which debts are sent to collection agencies, future research should focus on integrating underutilized sources of primary data, including credit reports, public records, and mortgage-backed securities loan-level data. Improvements in study design, such as the development of prospective cohorts, can allow for more objectively measured estimates of out-of-pocket costs, and robust covariate analysis can further reveal the influence of demographic factors, including age, sex, race, income, and health insurance coverage. Finally, new pilot interventions on cost controls can both enable further study and alleviate financial burden.

Accuracy of Physician Estimates of Out-of-Pocket Costs for Medication Filling

IMPORTANCE

One-third of US residents have trouble paying their medical bills. They often turn to their physicians for help navigating health costs and insurance coverage.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether physicians can accurately estimate out-of-pocket expenses when they are given all of the necessary information about a drug's price and a patient's insurance plan.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This national mail-in survey used a random sample of US physicians. The survey was sent to 900 outpatient physicians (300 each of primary care, gastroenterology, and rheumatology). Physicians were excluded if they were in training, worked primarily for the Veterans Administration or Indian Health Service, were retired, or reported 0% outpatient clinical effort. Analyses were performed from July to December 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

In a hypothetical vignette, a patient was prescribed a new drug costing $1000/month without insurance. A summary of her private insurance information was provided, including the plan's deductible, coinsurance rates, copays, and out-of-pocket maximum. Physicians were asked to estimate the drug's out-of-pocket cost at 4 time points between January and December, using the plan's 4 types of cost-sharing: (1) deductibles, (2) coinsurance, (3) copays, and (4) out-of-pocket maximums. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess differences in performance by specialty, adjusting for attitudes toward cost conversations, demographics, and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

The response rate was 45% (405 of 900) and 371 respondents met inclusion criteria. Among the respondents included in this study, 59% (n = 220) identified as male, 23% (n = 84) as Asian, 3% (n = 12) as Black, 6% (n = 24) as Hispanic, and 58% (n = 216) as White; 30% (n = 112) were primary care physicians, 35% (n = 128) were gastroenterologists, and 35% (n = 131) were rheumatologists; and the mean (SD) age was 49 (10) years. Overall, 52% of physicians (n = 192) accurately estimated costs before the deductible was met, 62% (n = 228) accurately used coinsurance information, 61% (n = 224) accurately used copay information, and 57% (n = 210) accurately estimated costs once the out-of-pocket maximum was met. Only 21% (n = 78) of physicians answered all 4 questions correctly. Ability to estimate out-of-pocket costs was not associated with specialty, attitudes toward cost conversations, or clinic characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This survey study found that many US physicians have difficulty estimating out-of-pocket costs, even when they have access to their patients' insurance plans. The mechanics involved in calculating real-time out-of-pocket costs are complex. These findings suggest that increased price transparency and simpler insurance cost-sharing mechanisms are needed to enable informed cost conversations at the point of prescribing.

Parent Preferences for Transparency of Their Child's Hospitalization Costs

Importance

Health care in the US is often expensive for families; however, there is little transparency in the cost of medical services. The extent to which parents want cost transparency in their children's care is not well characterized.

Objective

To explore the preferences and experiences of parents of hospitalized children regarding the discussion and consideration of health care costs in the inpatient care of their children.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional multicenter survey study included 6 geographically diverse university-affiliated US children's hospitals from November 3, 2017, to November 8, 2018. Participants included a convenience sample of English- and Spanish-speaking parents of hospitalized children nearing hospital discharge. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2020, to June 25, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Parents' preferences and experiences regarding transparency of their child's health care costs. Multivariable linear regression examined associations between clinical and sociodemographic variables with parents' preferences for knowing, discussing, and considering costs in the clinical setting. Factors included family financial difficulties, child's level of chronic disease, insurance payer, deductible, family poverty level, race, ethnicity, parental educational level, and study site.

Results

Of 644 invited participants, 526 (82%) were enrolled (290 [55%] male), of whom 362 (69%) were White individuals, 400 (76%) were non-Hispanic/Latino individuals, and 274 (52%) had children with private insurance. Overall, 397 families (75%) wanted to discuss their child's medical costs, but only 36 (7%) reported having a cost conversation. If cost discussions were to occur, 294 families (56%) would prefer to speak to a financial counselor. Ninety-eight families (19%) worried discussing costs would hurt the quality of their child's care. Families with a medical financial burden unrelated to their hospitalized child had higher mean agreement that their child's physician should consider the family's costs in medical decision-making than families without a medical financial burden (effect size, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.18-0.92]). No variables were consistently associated with cost transparency preferences.

Conclusions and Relevance

Most parents want to discuss their child's costs during an acute hospitalization. Discussions of health care costs may be an important, relatively unexplored component of family-centered care. However, these discussions rarely occur, indicating a tremendous opportunity to engage and support families in this issue.

Cost talk: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of an intervention helping patients and urologic surgeons discuss costs of care for slow-growing prostate cancer during shared decision-making

BACKGROUND

Costs of care are important to patients making cancer treatment decisions, but clinicians often do not feel prepared to discuss treatment costs. We aim to (1) assess the impact of a conversation-based decision aid (Option Grid) containing cost information about slow-growing prostate cancer management options, combined with urologic surgeon training, on the frequency and quality of patient-urologic surgeon cost conversations, and (2) examine the impact of the decision aid and surgeon training on decision quality.

METHODS

We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in outpatient urology practices affiliated with a large academic medical center in the USA. We will randomize five urologic surgeons to four intervention sequences and enroll their patients with a first-time diagnosis of slow-growing prostate cancer independently at each period. Primary outcomes include frequency of cost conversations, initiator of cost conversations, and whether or not a referral is made to address costs. These outcomes will be collected by patient report (post-visit survey) and by observation (audio-recorded clinic visits) with consent. Other outcomes include the following: patient-reported decisional conflict post-visit and at 3-month follow-up, decision regret at 3-month follow-up, shared decision-making post-visit, communication post-visit, and financial toxicity post-visit and at 3-month follow-up; clinician-reported attitudes about shared decision-making before and after the study, and feasibility of sustained intervention use. We will use hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient-level outcomes, including urologic surgeon as a random effect to account for clustering of patient participants.

DISCUSSION

This study evaluates a two-part intervention to improve cost discussions between urologic surgeons and patients when deciding how to manage slow-growing prostate cancer. Establishing the effectiveness of the strategy under study will allow for its replication in other clinical decision contexts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397016 . Registered on 21 May 2020.

Impact of Cost Conversation on Decision-Making Outcomes

Objective

To understand the impact of cost conversations on the following decision-making outcomes: patients’ knowledge about their conditions and treatment options, decisional conflict, and patient involvement.

Patients and Methods

In 2020 we performed a secondary analysis of a randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters from trials run between 2007 and 2015. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized trials and one pre–post-prospective study comparing care with and without shared decision-making (SDM) tools.

Results

The majority of trial participants were female (61%) and White (86%), with a mean age of 56, some college education (68%), and an income greater than or equal to $40,000 per year (75%), and who did not participate in an encounter aided by an SDM tool (52%). Cost conversations occurred in 106 encounters (48%). In encounters with SDM tools, having a cost conversation lead to lower uncertainty scores (2.1 vs 2.6, P=.02), and higher knowledge (0.7 vs 0.6, P=.04) and patient involvement scores (20 vs 15.7, P=.009) than in encounters using SDM tools where cost conversations did not occur. In a multivariate model, we found slightly worse decisional conflict scores when patients started cost conversations as opposed to when the clinicians started cost conversations. Furthermore, we found higher levels of knowledge when conversations included indirect versus direct cost issues.

Conclusion

Cost conversations have a minimal but favorable impact on decision-making outcomes in clinical encounters, particularly when they occurred in encounters aided by an SDM tool that raises cost as an issue.

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

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

Evaluation of a Novel Financial Navigator Pilot to Address Patient Concerns about Medical Care Costs

CONTEXT

Interventions are required that address patients' medically related financial needs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a Financial Navigator pilot addressing patients' concerns/needs regarding medical care costs in an integrated health care system.

METHODS

Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) enrolled at Kaiser Permanente Northwest, who had a concern/need about medical care costs and received care in 1 of 3 clinical departments at the intervention or comparison clinic were recruited between August 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016. Baseline and 30-day follow-up participant surveys were administered to assess medical and nonmedical socioeconomic needs, satisfaction with medical care, and satisfaction with assistance with cost concerns. Physicians at both clinics were invited to complete a survey on medical care costs. We assessed participant characteristics and survey responses using descriptive statistics and 30-day change in satisfaction measures using multivariable linear regression models.

RESULTS

Eighty-five intervention and 51 comparison participants completed the baseline survey. At baseline, intervention participants reported transportation (52.9%), housing (38.2%), and social isolation (32.4%) needs; comparison participants identified employment (33.3%), food (33.3%), and housing (33.3%) needs. Intervention participants reported higher satisfaction with care (p = 0.01) and higher satisfaction with cost concerns assistance (p = 0.01) vs comparison participants at 30-day follow-up, controlling for baseline responses. Although most physicians (80%) reported discussing medical care costs with their patients, only 18% reported knowing about their patients' financial well-being.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated the promise of a novel Financial Navigator pilot intervention to address medical care cost concerns and needs, and underscored the prevalence of nonmedical social needs in an economically vulnerable population.

Costs of cancer along the care continuum: What we can expect based on recent literature

BACKGROUND

Cancer costs should be discussed by patients and providers, but information is not readily available. Results from recently published studies (in the last 5 years) on direct and indirect cancer costs may help guide these discussions.

METHODS

The authors reviewed studies published between 2013 and 2017 that reported direct health care costs and indirect (productivity losses) costs. The annual mean total and net costs of cancer were summarized for all payers and for survivors only by age (ages 18-64 and ≥65 years), by phase of care (initial [ie, 12 months from diagnosis], continuing, and end-of-life [ie, 12 months before death]), or for recently diagnosed (within 1-2 years of diagnosis) and longer term survivors.

RESULTS

For all payers combined, costs for cancers like breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers were $20,000 to $100,000 in the initial phase, $1000 to $30,000 annually in the continuing phase, and ≥$60,000 in the end-of-life phase. Annual out-of-pocket costs to recently diagnosed survivors were >$1000 for medical care and time costs, approximately $2000 for productivity losses, and from $2500 to >$4000 for employment disability, depending on age. For longer term survivors, the cost of medical care was approximately $1500 for older survivors and $747 for younger survivors, time costs were $831 to $955 for older survivors and $459 to $630 for younger survivors, and productivity losses were approximately $800. Disability among long-term survivors was similar to that among short-term survivors. Limitations of the reviewed studies included older data and under-representation of higher cost cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequently updated cost information for all cancer types is needed to guide discussions of anticipated short-term and long-term cancer-related costs with survivors. Cancer 2018;000:000-000. © 2018 American Cancer Society.