National Estimates and Physician-Reported Impacts of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread adoption of state prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), it is unclear how often PDMPs are accessed through an electronic health record system (EHR-PDMP integration), or whether efforts to make PDMPs easier to access and use have improved their utility. OBJECTIVE: To produce national-level estimates on the use of PDMPs among office-based physicians and benefits associated with their use. DESIGN: We use nationally representative survey data to produce descriptive statistics on PDMP use and associated benefits among office-based physicians in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: 1398 office-based physicians who prescribe controlled substances. MAIN MEASURES: We examined physician-reported ease and frequency of PDMP use, and how EHR-PDMP integration affects frequency and ease of use. Multivariate models were used to assess whether characteristics of PDMP use were related to physician-reported benefits such as reduced prescribing of controlled substances and perceived improvements in clinical decision-making. KEY RESULTS: In 2019, two-thirds of office-based physicians in the USA reported frequent use of their state PDMP and over three-quarters reported they were easy to use. Both frequency and ease of use were positively correlated with PDMP integration status. Respondents who frequently checked their state's PDMP were 8.7 percentage points (95% CI -.4 to 17.8) more likely to report perceived benefits and reported 2.2 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.83) more benefits. Respondents who indicated their PDMP was easy to use were 12.7 percentage points (95% CI .040 to .214) more likely to report perceived benefits and reported 0.94 (95% CI 0.26 to 1.61) more benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest efforts to make PDMPs easier to access and use aided physicians in making informed clinical decisions that may not be captured by reduced prescribing alone. Efforts to further increase frequency and ease of use-including advancing a standards-based approach to PDMP and EHR data interoperability-may further increase the benefit of PDMPs.

Quality of Medication Cost Conversations and Interest in Future Cost Conversations Among Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Medication cost conversations occur less frequently than patients prefer, and it is unclear whether patients have positive experiences with them when they do occur. OBJECTIVE: To describe patients' experiences discussing their medication costs with their health care team. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Nationally representative survey fielded in the United States in 2022 (response rate = 48.5%). PATIENTS: 1020 adults over age 65. MEASUREMENTS: Primary measures were adapted from Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers Survey visit survey v4.0 and captured patients' experiences of medication cost conversations. Additional measures captured patients' interest in future cost conversations, the type of clinicians with whom they would be comfortable discussing costs, and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1020 respondents who discussed medication prices with their health care team, 39.3% were 75 or older and 78.6% were non-Hispanic White. Forty-three percent of respondents indicated that their prior medication cost conversation was not easy to understand; 3% indicated their health care team was not respectful and 26% indicated their health care team was somewhat respectful during their last conversation; 48% indicated that there was not enough time. Those reporting that their prior discussion was not easy to understand or that their clinician was not definitely respectful were less likely to be interested in future discussions. Only 6% and 10% of respondents indicated being comfortable discussing medication prices with financial counselors or social workers, respectively. Few differences in responses were observed by survey participant characteristics. LIMITATIONS: This cross-sectional survey of prior experiences may be subject to recall bias. CONCLUSION: Among older adults who engaged in prior medication cost conversations, many report that these conversations are not easy to understand and that almost one-third of clinicians were somewhat or not respectful. Efforts to increase the frequency of medication cost conversations should consider parallel interventions to ensure the discussions are effective at informing prescribing decisions and reducing cost-related medication nonadherence.

Electronic Connectivity Among US Hospitals Treating Shared Patients.

BACKGROUND: Increasing electronic health information exchange (HIE) between provider organizations is a top policy priority that has been pursued by establishing varied types of networks. OBJECTIVES: To measure electronic connectivity enabled by these networks, including community, electronic health record vendor, and national HIE networks, across US hospitals weighted by the volume of shared patients and identify characteristics that predict connectivity. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 1721 hospitals comprising 16,344 hospital pairs and 6,492,232 shared patients from 2018 CareSet Labs HOP data and national hospital surveys. SUBJECTS: Pairs of US acute care hospitals that delivered care to 11 or more of the same fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2018. MEASURES: Whether a patient was treated by a pair of hospitals connected through participation in the same HIE network ("connected hospitals") or not connected because the hospitals participated in different networks, only 1 participated, or both did not participate. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of shared patients were treated by connected hospitals. Of the remaining shared patients, 14% were treated by hospital pairs that participated in different HIE networks, 21% by pairs in which only 1 hospital participated in an HIE network, and 2% by pairs in which neither participated. Patients treated by pairs with at least 1 for-profit hospital, and by pairs located in competitive markets, were less likely to be treated by connected hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of shared patients received care from connected hospitals, remaining gaps could be filled by connecting HIE networks to each other and by incentivizing certain types of hospitals that may not participate because of competitive concerns.

Dispersion in the hospital network of shared patients is associated with less efficient care.

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition that health care providers are embedded in networks formed by the movement of patients between providers. However, the structure of such networks and its impact on health care are poorly understood. PURPOSE: We examined the level of dispersion of patient-sharing networks across U.S. hospitals and its association with three measures of care delivered by hospitals that were likely to relate to coordination. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We used data derived from 2016 Medicare Fee-for-Service claims to measure the volume of patients that hospitals treated in common. We then calculated a measure of dispersion for each hospital based on how those patients were concentrated in outside hospitals. Using this measure, we created multivariate regression models to estimate the relationship between network dispersion, Medicare spending per beneficiary, readmission rates, and emergency department (ED) throughput rates. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, we found that hospitals with more dispersed networks (those with many low-volume patient-sharing relationships) had higher spending but not greater readmission rates or slower ED throughput. Among hospitals with fewer resources, greater dispersion related to greater readmission rates and slower ED throughput. Holding an individual hospital's dispersion constant, the level of dispersion of other hospitals in the hospital's network was also related to these outcomes. CONCLUSION: Dispersed interhospital networks pose a challenge to coordination for patients who are treated at multiple hospitals. These findings indicate that the patient-sharing network structure may be an overlooked factor that shapes how health care organizations deliver care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Hospital leaders and hospital-based clinicians should consider how the structure of relationships with other hospitals influences the coordination of patient care. Effective management of this broad network may lead to important strategic partnerships.

Growing Disparities in Patient-Provider Messaging: Trend Analysis Before and After Supportive Policy.

BACKGROUND: Public policy introduced since 2011 has supported provider adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) and patient-provider messaging, primarily through financial incentives. It is unclear how disparities in patients' use of incentivized electronic health (eHealth) tools, like patient-provider messaging, have changed over time relative to disparities in use of eHealth tools that were not directly incentivized. OBJECTIVE: This study examines trends in eHealth disparities before and after the introduction of US federal financial incentives. We compare rates of patient-provider messaging, which was directly incentivized, with rates of looking for health information on the Web, which was not directly incentivized. METHODS: We used nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey data from 2003 to 2018 (N=37,300) to describe disparities in patient-provider messaging and looking for health information on the Web. We first reported the percentage of individuals across education and racial and ethnic groups who reported using these tools in each survey year and compared changes in unadjusted disparities during preincentive (2003-2011) and postincentive (2011-2018) periods. Using multivariable linear probability models, we then examined adjusted effects of education and race and ethnicity in 3 periods-preincentive (2003-2005), early incentive (2011-2013), and postincentive (2017-2018)-controlling for sociodemographic and health factors. In the postincentive period, an additional model tested whether internet adoption, provider access, or providers' use of EMRs explained disparities. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2018, overall rates of provider messaging increased from 4% to 36%. The gap in provider messaging between the highest and lowest education groups increased by 10 percentage points preincentive (P<.001) and 22 additional points postincentive (P<.001). The gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites increased by 3.2 points preincentive (P=.42) and 11 additional points postincentive (P=.01). Trends for blacks resembled those for Hispanics, whereas trends for Asians resembled those for non-Hispanic whites. In contrast, education-based disparities in looking for health information on the Web (which was not directly incentivized) did not significantly change in preincentive or postincentive periods, whereas racial disparities narrowed by 15 percentage points preincentive (P=.008) and did not significantly change postincentive. After adjusting for other sociodemographic and health factors, observed associations were similar to unadjusted associations, though smaller in magnitude. Including internet adoption, provider access, and providers' use of EMRs in the postincentive model attenuated, but did not eliminate, education-based disparities in provider messaging and looking for health information on the Web. Racial and ethnic disparities were no longer statistically significant in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in provider messaging widened over time, particularly following federal financial incentives. Meanwhile, disparities in looking for health information on the Web remained stable or narrowed. Incentives may have disproportionately benefited socioeconomically advantaged groups. Future policy could address disparities by incentivizing providers treating these populations to adopt messaging capabilities and encouraging patients' use of messaging.

eHealth Engagement as a Response to Negative Healthcare Experiences: Cross-Sectional Survey Analysis.

BACKGROUND: eHealth provides individuals with new means of accessing health information and communicating with providers through online channels. Prior evidence suggests that patients use eHealth to find information online when they receive care that is low in patient centeredness. However, it is unclear how other problems with the healthcare-delivery system motivate the use of eHealth, how these problems relate to different kinds of eHealth activities, and which populations are most likely to use eHealth when they receive low-quality care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine how two types of negative care experiences-low patient centeredness and care coordination problems-motivate the use of different eHealth activities, and whether more highly educated individuals, who may find these tools easier to use, are more likely to use eHealth following negative experiences than less highly educated individuals. METHODS: Using nationally representative data from the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey, we used factor analysis to group 25 different eHealth activities into categories based on the correlation between respondents' reports of their usage. Subsequently, we used multivariate negative binomial generalized linear model regressions to determine whether negative healthcare experiences predicted greater use of these resulting categories. Finally, we stratified our sample based on education level to determine whether the associations between healthcare experiences and eHealth use differed across groups. RESULTS: The study included 2612 individuals. Factor analysis classified the eHealth activities into two categories: provider-facing (eg, facilitating communication with providers) and independent (eg, patient-driven information seeking and communication with non-providers). Negative care experiences were not associated with provider-facing eHealth activity in the overall population (care coordination: P=.16; patient centeredness: P=.57) or among more highly educated respondents (care coordination: P=.73; patient centeredness: P=.32), but respondents with lower education levels who experienced problems with care coordination used provider-facing eHealth more often (IRR=1.40, P=.07). Individuals engaged in more independent eHealth activities if they experienced problems with either care coordination (IRR=1.15 P=.01) or patient-centered communication (IRR=1.16, P=.01). Although care coordination problems predicted independent eHealth activity across education levels (higher education: IRR=1.13 P=.01; lower education: IRR=1.19, P=.07), the relationship between low perceived patient centeredness and independent activity was limited to individuals with lower education levels (IRR=1.25, P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals use a greater number of eHealth activities, especially activities that are independent of healthcare providers, when they experience problems with their healthcare. People with lower levels of education seem particularly inclined to use eHealth when they have negative healthcare experiences. To maximize the potential for eHealth to meet the needs of all patients, especially those who are traditionally underserved by the healthcare system, additional work should be performed to ensure that eHealth resources are accessible and usable to all members of the population.

The state of health information organizations and plans to participate in the federal exchange framework.

In late 2023, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology launched the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA) to enable nationwide health information exchange. Regional, local, and state health information organizations (HIOs) will be key components of nationwide exchange, and TEFCA could broaden HIOs' access to information. However, HIOs can choose whether to participate. We conducted a national survey of HIOs in 2023 to assess their plans to participate in TEFCA and broader measures of maturity. We identified 76 operational HIOs, down from 89 in 2019. These HIOs operated in 47 states and contained over 600 million patient records, indicating some duplication. Sixty-three percent of HIOs planned to participate in TEFCA, up 7 percentage points from 2019, and 32% of HIOs indicated that they did not know if they would participate. Health information organizations already engaged in exchange with other networks were more likely to plan to participate. The most common barrier (44%) was having not developed a strategic plan for TEFCA participation. While TEFCA appears to have successfully engaged the majority of HIOs, achieving nationwide exchange will require policy efforts to either attract the remaining HIOs or ensure that nonparticipating HIOs' providers have another option for TEFCA participation.

Primary Care Physicians' Satisfaction With Interoperable Health Information Technology.

Importance: Enabling widespread interoperability-the ability of health information technology systems to exchange information and to use that information without special effort-is a primary focus of public policy on health information technology. More information on clinicians' experience using that technology can serve as one measure of the impact of that policy. Objective: To assess primary care physician perspectives on the state of interoperability. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional survey of family medicine physicians in the US was conducted from December 12, 2021, to October 12, 2022. A sample of family medicine physicians who completed the Continuous Certification Questionnaire (CCQ), a required part of the American Board of Family Medicine certification process, which has a 100% response rate, were invited to participate. Main Outcomes and Measures: Eighteen items on the CCQ assessed experience accessing and using various information from outside organizations, including medications, immunizations, and allergies. Results: A total of 2088 physicians (1053 women [50%]; age reported categorically as either ≥50 years or <50 years) completed the CCQ interoperability questions in 2022. Of these respondents, 35% practiced in hospital or health system-owned practices, while 27% practiced in independently owned practices. Eleven percent were very satisfied with their ability to electronically access all 10 types of information from outside organizations included on the questionnaire, and a mean of 70% were at least somewhat satisfied. A total of 23% of family medicine physicians reported information from outside organizations was very easy to use, and an additional 65% reported that information was somewhat easy to use. Only 8% reported that information from different electronic health record (EHR) developers' products was very easy to use compared with 38% who reported information from the same EHR developer's product was very easy to use. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study of family medicine physicians found modest and uneven improvement in physicians' experience with interoperability. These findings suggest that substantial heterogeneity in satisfaction by information type, source of information, EHR, practice type, ownership, and patient population necessitates diverse policy and strategies to improve interoperability.

Impact of response bias in three surveys on primary care providers' experiences with electronic health records.

OBJECTIVE: To identify impacts of different survey methodologies assessing primary care physicians' (PCPs') experiences with electronic health records (EHRs), we compared three surveys: the 2022 Continuous Certification Questionnaire (CCQ) from the American Board of Family Medicine, the 2022 University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Physician Health IT Survey, and the 2021 National Electronic Health Records Survey (NEHRS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated differences between survey pairs using Rao-Scott corrected chi-square tests, which account for weighting. RESULTS: CCQ received 3991 responses from PCPs (100% response rate), UCSF received 1375 (3.6% response rate), and NEHRS received 858 (18.2% response rate). Substantial, statistically significant differences in demographics were detected across the surveys. CCQ respondents were younger and more likely to work in a health system; NEHRS respondents were more likely to work in private practice; and UCSF respondents disproportionately practiced in larger academic settings. Many EHR experience indicators were similar between CCQ and NEHRS, but CCQ respondents reported higher documentation burden. DISCUSSION: The UCSF approach is unlikely to supply reliable data. Significant demographic differences between CCQ and NEHRS raise response bias concerns, and while there were similarities in some reported EHR experiences, there were important, significant differences. CONCLUSION: Federal EHR policy monitoring and maintenance require reliable data. This test of existing and alternative sources suggest that diversified data sources are necessary to understand physicians' experiences with EHRs and interoperability. Comprehensive surveys administered by specialty boards have the potential to contribute to these efforts, since they are likely to be free of response bias.

Electronic Health Record Usability, Satisfaction, and Burnout for Family Physicians.

Importance: Electronic health record (EHR) work has been associated with decreased physician well-being. Understanding the association between EHR usability and physician satisfaction and burnout, and whether team and technology strategies moderate this association, is critical to informing efforts to address EHR-associated physician burnout. Objectives: To measure family physician satisfaction with their EHR and EHR usability across functions and evaluate the association of EHR usability with satisfaction and burnout, as well as the moderating association of 4 team and technology EHR efficiency strategies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study uses data from a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 12, 2021, to October 17, 2022, of all family physicians seeking American Board of Family Medicine recertification in 2022. Exposure: Physicians perceived EHR usability across 6 domains, as well as adoption of 4 EHR efficiency strategies: scribes, support from other staff, templated text, and voice recognition or transcription. Main Outcomes and Measures: Physician EHR satisfaction and frequency of experiencing burnout measured with a single survey item ("I feel burned out from my work"), with answers ranging from "never" to "every day." Results: Of the 2067 physicians (1246 [60.3%] younger than 50 years; 1051 men [50.9%]; and 1729 [86.0%] practicing in an urban area) who responded to the survey, 562 (27.2%) were very satisfied and 775 (37.5%) were somewhat satisfied, while 346 (16.7%) were somewhat dissatisfied and 198 (9.6%) were very dissatisfied with their EHR. Readability of information had the highest usability, with 543 physicians (26.3%) rating it as excellent, while usefulness of alerts had the lowest usability, with 262 physicians (12.7%) rating it as excellent. In multivariable models, good or excellent usability for entering data (ß = 0.09 [95% CI, 0.05-0.14]; P < .001), alignment with workflow processes (ß = 0.11 [95% CI, 0.06-0.16]; P < .001), ease of finding information (ß = 0.14 [95% CI, 0.09-0.19]; P < .001), and usefulness of alerts (ß = 0.11 [95% CI, 0.06-0.16]; P < .001) were associated with physicians being very satisfied with their EHR. In addition, being very satisfied with the EHR was associated with reduced frequency of burnout (ß = -0.64 [95% CI, -1.06 to -0.22]; P < .001). In moderation analysis, only physicians with highly usable EHRs saw improvements in satisfaction from adopting efficiency strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of physician EHR usability and satisfaction, approximately one-fourth of family physicians reported being very satisfied with their EHR, while another one-fourth reported being somewhat or very dissatisfied, a concerning finding amplified by the inverse association between EHR satisfaction and burnout. Electronic health record-based alerts had the lowest reported usability, suggesting EHR vendors should focus their efforts on improving alerts. Electronic health record efficiency strategies were broadly adopted, but only physicians with highly usable EHRs realized gains in EHR satisfaction from using these strategies, suggesting that EHR burden-reduction interventions are likely to have heterogenous associations across physicians with different EHRs.

Hospitals' electronic access to information needed to treat COVID-19.

Objective: To understand whether hospitals had electronic access to information needed to treat COVID-19 patients and identify factors contributing to differences in information availability. Materials and methods: Using 2021 data from the American Hospital Association IT Supplement, we produced national estimates on the electronic availability of information needed to treat COVID-19 at US non-federal acute care hospitals (N = 1976) and assessed differences in information availability by hospital characteristics and engagement in interoperable exchange. Results: In 2021, 38% of hospitals electronically received information needed to effectively treat COVID-19 patients. Information availability was significantly higher among higher-resourced hospitals and those engaged in interoperable exchange (44%) compared to their counterparts. In adjusted analyses, hospitals engaged in interoperable exchange were 140% more likely to receive needed information electronically compared to those not engaged in exchange (relative risk [RR]=2.40, 95% CI, 1.82-3.17, P<.001). System member hospitals (RR = 1.62, 95% CI, 1.36-1.92, P<.001) and major teaching hospitals (RR = 1.35, 95% CI, 1.10-1.64, P=.004) were more likely to have information available; for-profit hospitals (RR = 0.14, 95% CI, 0.08-0.24, P<.001) and hospitals in high social deprivation areas (RR = 0.83, 95% CI, 0.71-0.98, P = .02) were less likely to have information available. Discussion: Despite high rates of hospitals' engagement in interoperable exchange, hospitals' electronic access to information needed to support the care of COVID-19 patients was limited. Conclusion: Limited electronic access to patient information from outside sources may impede hospitals' ability to effectively treat COVID-19 and support patient care during public health emergencies.

Experiences with information blocking in the United States: a national survey of hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: The 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule's information blocking provisions, which prohibited practices likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage access, exchange, or use of electronic health information (EHI), began to apply to a limited set of data elements in April 2021 and expanded to all EHI in October 2022. We sought to describe hospital leaders' perceptions of the prevalence of practices that may constitute information blocking, by actor and hospital characteristics, following the rule's applicability date. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of a national survey of hospitals fielded in 2021. The analytic sample included 2092 nonfederal acute care hospitals in the United States. We present descriptive statistics on the perception of the prevalence of information blocking and results of multivariate regression models examining the association between hospital, health information technology (IT) developer and market characteristics and the perception of information blocking. RESULTS: Overall, 42% of hospitals reported observing some behavior they perceived to be information blocking. Thirty-six percent of responding hospitals perceived that healthcare providers either sometimes or often engaged in practices that may constitute information blocking, while 17% and 19% perceived that health IT developers (such as EHR developers) and State, regional and/or local health information exchanges did the same, respectively. Prevalence varied by health IT developer market share, hospital for-profit status, and health system market share. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results support the value of efforts to further reduce friction in the exchange of EHI and support the need for continued observation to provide a sense of the prevalence of information blocking practices and for education and awareness of information blocking regulations.

Electronic connectivity between hospital pairs: impact on emergency department-related utilization.

OBJECTIVE: To use more precise measures of which hospitals are electronically connected to determine whether health information exchange (HIE) is associated with lower emergency department (ED)-related utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We combined 2018 Medicare fee-for-service claims to identify beneficiaries with 2 ED encounters within 30 days, and Definitive Healthcare and AHA IT Supplement data to identify hospital participation in HIE networks (HIOs and EHR vendor networks). We determined whether the 2 encounters for the same beneficiary occurred at: the same organization, different organizations connected by HIE, or different organizations not connected by HIE. Outcomes were: (1) whether any repeat imaging occurred during the second ED visit; (2) for beneficiaries with a treat-and-release ED visit followed by a second ED visit, whether they were admitted to the hospital after the second visit; (3) for beneficiaries discharged from the hospital followed by an ED visit, whether they were admitted to the hospital. RESULTS: In adjusted mixed effects models, for all outcomes, beneficiaries returning to the same organization had significantly lower utilization compared to those going to different organizations. Comparing only those going to different organizations, HIE was not associated with lower levels of repeat imaging. HIE was associated with lower likelihood of hospital admission following a treat-and-release ED visit (1.83 percentage points [-3.44 to -0.21]) but higher likelihood of admission following hospital discharge (2.78 percentage points [0.48-5.08]). DISCUSSION: Lower utilization for beneficiaries returning to the same organization could reflect better access to information or other factors such as aligned incentives. CONCLUSION: HIE is not consistently associated with utilization outcomes reflecting more coordinated care in the ED setting.

Interoperability among hospitals treating populations that have been marginalized.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether differences in hospital interoperability are related to the extent to which hospitals treat groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Data on 2393 non-federal acute care hospitals in the United States from the American Hospital Association Information Technology Supplement fielded in 2021, the 2019 Medicare Cost Report, and the 2019 Social Deprivation Index. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified five proxy measures related to marginalization and assessed the relationship between those measures and the likelihood that hospitals engaged in all four domains of interoperable information exchange and participated in national interoperability networks in cross-sectional analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In unadjusted analysis, hospitals that treated patients from zip codes with high social deprivation were 33% less likely to engage in interoperable exchange (Relative Risk = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.58-0.76) and 24% less likely to participate in a national network than all other hospitals (RR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66-0.87). Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) were 24 percent less likely to engage in interoperable exchange (RR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83) but not less likely to participate in a national network (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.88-1.06). No difference was detected for 2 measures (high Disproportionate Share Hospital percentage and Medicaid case mix) while 1 was associated with a greater likelihood to engage (high uncompensated care burden). The association between social deprivation and interoperable exchange persisted in an analysis examining metropolitan and rural areas separately and in adjusted analyses accounting for hospital characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that treat patients from areas with high social deprivation were less likely to engage in interoperable exchange than other hospitals, but other measures were not associated with lower interoperability. The use of area deprivation data may be important to monitor and address hospital clinical data interoperability disparities to avoid related health care disparities.

Demand for and Occurrence of Medication Cost Conversations: A Narrative Review.

High medication prices can create a financial burden for patients and reduce medication initiation. To improve decision making, public policy is supporting development of tools to provide real-time prescription drug prices. We reviewed the literature on medication cost conversations to characterize the context in which these tools may be used. Our review included 42 articles: a median of 84% of patients across four clinical specialties reported a desire for cost conversations (n = 7 articles) but only 23% reported having held a cost conversation across six specialties (n = 16 articles). Non-White and older patients were less likely to report having held a cost conversation than White and younger patients in 9 of 13 and 5 of 9 articles, respectively, examining these associations. Our review indicates that tools providing price information may not result in improved decision making without complementary interventions that increase the frequency of cost conversations with a focus on protected groups.

"Worth it if you could afford it": Patient perspectives on integrating real-time benefit tools into drug cost conversations.

BACKGROUND: Medication costs can lead to financial burdens for patients, creating barriers to effective medication use. Health care provider use of real-time benefit tools (RTBTs) may facilitate cost conversations with patients. We sought to explicate patient views on how RTBTs could be used to improve cost considerations in prescribing decisions. METHODS: We conducted focus groups to characterize patient perspectives on holding cost conversations with their physicians and to identify factors that would influence the value of RTBTs. We focused on adults aged 50+ who reported trouble paying for their prescriptions. Three groups included patients with conditions requiring high-cost treatments and one group included lower-income patients independent of their medical conditions. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, coded, and categorized to salient themes employing inductive and deductive approaches using the Health Equity Implementation Framework. RESULTS: Focus groups were conducted from 09/2020-12/2020 including 18 participants representing cancer (n = 6), diabetes (n = 6), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 3), and lower income (n = 3). Participants were between 50-74, eight self-identified as Black, 10 as White, and eight reported earning <$50,000/year. We identified five themes regarding cost conversations (medication cost importance, past experiences with cost/cost conversations, perception of physician's role and knowledge, knowledge of existing resources, and influence on decision-making) and four RTBT-use-specific themes (advantages/disadvantages, perceived relevance, data quality concerns, and implementation considerations). CONCLUSION: Approaches that envision RTBTs as one-size-fits-all technological interventions may underestimate the complexity of incorporating price information into prescribing decisions. Nevertheless, patients highlighted the potential value of accurate, real-time information on medication costs to inform decision-making.

Cost-Related Medication Nonadherence and Desire for Medication Cost Information Among Adults Aged 65 Years and Older in the US in 2022.

Importance: Rising prescription drug costs and increasing prices for consumer goods may increase cost-related medication nonadherence. Cost-conscious prescribing can be supported by real-time benefit tools, but patient views on real-time benefit tool use and their potential benefits and harms are largely unexplored. Objective: To assess older adults' cost-related medication nonadherence, cost-coping strategies, and views on the use of real-time benefit tools in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: A weighted, nationally representative survey of adults aged 65 years and older administered via the internet and telephone from June 2022 to September 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost-related medication nonadherence; cost coping strategies; desire for cost conversations; potential benefits and harms from real-time benefit tool use. Results: Among 2005 respondents, most were female (54.7%) and partnered (59.7%); 40.4% were 75 years or older. Cost-related medication nonadherence was reported by 20.2% of participants. Some respondents used extreme forms of cost-coping, including foregoing basic needs (8.5%) or going into debt (4.8%) to afford medications. Of respondents, 89.0% reported being comfortable or neutral about being screened before a physician's visit for wanting to have medication cost conversations and 89.5% indicated a desire for their physician to use a real-time benefit tool. Respondents expressed concern if prices were inaccurate, with 49.9% of those with cost-related nonadherence and 39.3% of those without reporting they would be extremely upset if their actual medication price was more than what their physician estimated with a real-time benefit tool. If the actual price was much more than the estimated real-time benefit tool price, nearly 80% of respondents with cost-related nonadherence reported that it would affect their decision to start or keep taking a medication. Furthermore, 54.2% of those with any cost-related nonadherence and 30% of those without reported they would be moderately or extremely upset if their physicians used a medication price tool but chose not to discuss prices with them. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2022, approximately 1 in 5 older adults reported cost-related nonadherence. Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use. However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.

Hospital's adoption of multiple methods of obtaining outside information and use of that information.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitals have multiple methods available to engage in health information exchange (HIE); however, it is not well understood whether these methods are complements or substitutes. We sought to characterize patterns of adoption of HIE methods and examine the association between these methods and increased availability and use of patient information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of 3208 nonfederal acute care hospitals in the 2019 American Hospital Association Information Technology Supplement. RESULTS: The median hospital obtained outside information through 4 methods. Hospitals that obtained data through a regional HIE organization were 2.2 times more likely to also obtain data via Direct using a health information service provider (HISP) than hospitals that did not (P < .001). Hospitals in a single electronic health record (EHR) vendor network were no more or less likely to participate in a HISP or HIE. Six of 7 methods were associated with greater information availability. Only 4 of 7 methods (portals, interfaces, single vendor networks and multi-vendor networks but not access to outside EHR, regional exchange or Direct using a HISP) were associated with more frequent use of information, and single vendor networks were most strongly associated with more frequent use (odds ratio = 4.7, P < .001). DISCUSSION: Adoption of some methods was correlated, indicating complementary use. Few methods were negatively correlated, indicating limited competition. Although information availability was common, low correlation with use indicated that challenges related to integration may be slowing use of information. CONCLUSION: Complementarities between methods, and the role of integration in supporting information use, indicate the potential value of efforts aimed at ensuring exchange methods work well together, such as the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement.