Search

Context: Approaches to priority‐setting for scarce resources have shifted to public deliberation as trade‐offs become more difficult. We report results of a qualitative analysis of public deliberation in Switzerland, a country with high health‐care costs, an individual health insurance mandate and a strong tradition of direct democracy with frequent votes related to health care. Methods: We adapted the Choosing Healthplans All Together (CHAT) tool, an exercise developed to transform complex health‐care allocation decisions into easily understandable choices, for use in Switzerland. We conducted focus groups in twelve Swiss cities, recruiting from a range of socio‐economic backgrounds in the three language regions. Findings: Participants developed strategic arguments based on the importance of basic coverage for all, and of cost‐benefit evaluation. They also expressed arguments relying on a principle of solidarity, in particular the importance of protection for vulnerable groups, and on the importance of medical care. They struggled with the place of personal responsibility in coverage decisions. In commenting on the exercise, participants found the degree of consensus despite differing opinions surprising and valuable. Conclusion: The Swiss population is particularly attentive to the costs of health care and means of reducing these costs. Swiss citizens are capable of making trade‐offs and setting priorities for complex health issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Patients' willingness to discuss costs of treatment alternatives with their physicians is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN: Focus group discussions and pre-discussion and post-discussion questionnaires. PARTICIPANTS: 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. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: 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. KEY RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Active and engaged patients seek the understanding, knowledge, and skills to promote their own health. Efforts to promote such patient activation and engagement are ethically justified because they are consonant with the well-established principle of respect for persons and, as the evidence shows, because they are likely to produce better outcomes for patients. Yet patient activation and engagement can also go ethically awry if, for example, nonadherent patients are abandoned or are unduly disadvantaged by punitive policies and practices, or if the conditions for successful activation and engagement are missing. In this article we discuss the ethical issues and responsibilities that pertain to patients, clinicians, health care organizations, delivery systems, insurers, payers, and communities. For example, physicians or payers could hold patients blameworthy for not following recommendations, but we suggest that a better approach would be for providers and payers to empower patients to effectively share responsibility for defining goals and achieving them. An ethical approach to patient activation and engagement should place obligations not only on patients but also on clinicians, health care organizations and delivery systems, insurers, and communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Costs at the end of life disproportionately contribute to health care costs in the United States. Addressing these costs will therefore be an important component in making the U.S. health care system more financially sustainable. In this paper, we explore the moral justifications for having discussions of end-of-life costs in the doctor-patient encounter as part of an effort to control costs. As health care costs are partly shared through pooled resources, such as insurance and taxation, and partly borne by individuals through out-of-pocket expenses, we separate our defense for, and approach to, discussing both pooled and individual aspects of cost. We argue that there needs to be a shift away from formulating the options as a dichotomous choice of paying attention to end-of-life costs versus ignoring such costs. The question should be how personal costs will be managed and how societal expenditures should be allocated. These are issues that we believe patients care about and need to have addressed in a manner with which they are comfortable. Conversations about how money will be spent at the end of life should begin before the end is near. We propose discussing costs from the onset of chronic illness and incorporating financial issues in advance care planning. Through these approaches one can avoid abruptly and insensitively introducing financial issues at the very conclusion of a person's life when one would prefer to address the painful and important issues of spiritual and existential loss that are appropriately the focus when a person is dying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A frequently cited obstacle to universal insurance is the lack of consensus about what benefits to offer in an affordable insurance package. This study was conducted to assess the feasibility of providing uninsured patients the opportunity to define their own benefit package within cost constraints.Design: Structured group exercises.Setting: Community setting.Participants: Uninsured individuals recruited from clinical and community settings in central North Carolina.Measurements: Insurance choices were measured using a simulation exercise, CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together). Participants designed managed care plans, individually and as groups, by selecting from 15 service categories having varied levels of restriction (e.g., formulary, copayments) within the constraints of a fixed monthly premium comparable to the typical per member/per month managed care premium paid by U.S. employers.Main Results: Two hundred thirty-four individuals who were predominantly male (70%), African American (55%), and socioeconomically disadvantaged (53% earned <$15,000 annually) participated in 22 groups and were able to design health benefit packages individually and in groups. All 22 groups chose to cover hospitalization, pharmacy, dental, and specialty care, and 21 groups chose primary care and mental health. Although individuals' choices differed from their groups' selections, 86% of participants were willing to abide by group choices.Conclusions: Groups of low-income uninsured individuals are able to identify acceptable benefit packages that are comparable in cost but differ in benefit design from managed care contracts offered to many U.S. employees today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to the article "Exploring Public Attitudes Towards Approaches to Discussing Costs in the Clinical Encounter" that was published in the 2013 issue is presented.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethically challenging situations routinely arise in the course of illness and healthcare. However, very few studies have surveyed patients and family members about their experiences with ethically challenging situations. To address this gap in the literature, we surveyed patients and family members at three hospitals. We conducted a content analysis of their responses to open-ended questions about their most memorable experience with an ethical concern for them or their family member. Participants (N = 196) described 219 unique ethical experiences that spanned many of the prevailing themes of bioethics, including the patient-physician relationship, end-of-life care, decision-making capacity, healthcare costs, and genetic testing. Participants focused on relational issues in the course of experiencing illness and receiving medical care and concerns regarding the patient-physician encounters. Many concerns arose outside of a healthcare setting. These data indicate areas for improvement for healthcare providers but some concerns may be better addressed outside of the traditional healthcare setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Out-of-pocket health expenditures can pose major financial risks, create access-barriers and drive patients and families into poverty. Little is known about physicians’ role in financial protection of patients and families at the bedside in low-income settings and how they perceive their roles and duties when treating patients in a health care system requiring high out-of-pocket costs. Objective: Assess physicians’ concerns regarding financial welfare of patients and their families and analyze physicians’ experiences in reducing catastrophic health expenditures for patients in Ethiopia. Method: A national survey was conducted among physicians at 49 public hospitals in six regions in Ethiopia. Descriptive statistics were used. Results: Totally 587 physicians responded (response rate 91%) and 565 filled the inclusion criteria. Health care costs driving people into financial crisis and poverty were witnessed by 82% of respondants, and 88% reported that costs for the patient are important when deciding to use or not use an intervention. Several strategies to save costs for patients were used: 37–79% of physicians were doing this daily or weekly through limiting prescription of drugs, limiting radiologic studies, ultrasound and lab tests, providing second best treatments, and avoiding admission or initiating early discharge. Overall, 75% of the physicians reported that ongoing and future costs to patients influenced their decisions to a greater extent than concerns for preserving hospital resources. Conclusion: In Ethiopia, a low-income country aiming to move towards universal health coverage, physicians view themselves as both stewards of public resources, patient advocates and financial protectors of patients and their families. Their high concern for family welfare should be acknowledged and the economic and ethical implications of this practice must be further explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 (P = 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]