Shared Decision-making Lowers Medical Expenditures and the Effect Is Amplified in Racially-Ethnically Concordant Relationships.

BACKGROUND: Racial-ethnic disparities are pervasive in health care. One mechanism that may underlie disparities is variation in shared decision-making (SDM), which encompasses high-quality clinician-patient communication, including deliberative discussions about treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether SDM has causal effects on outcomes and whether these effects are stronger within racial-ethnic concordant clinician-patient relationships. RESEARCH DESIGN: We use instrumental variables to estimate the causal effect of SDM on outcomes. SUBJECTS: A total of 60,584 patients from the 2003-2017 Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Years 2018 and 2019 were excluded due to changes in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey that omitted essential parts of the SDM index. MEASURES: Our key variable of interest is the SDM index. Outcomes included total, outpatient, and drug expenditures; physical and mental health; and the utilization of inpatient and emergency services. RESULTS: SDM lowers annual total health expenditures for all racial-ethnic groups, but this effect is only moderated among Black patients seen by Black clinicians, more than doubling in size relative to Whites. A similar SDM moderation effect also occurs for both Black patients seen by Black clinicians and Hispanic patients seen by Hispanic clinicians with regard to annual outpatient expenditures. There was no significant effect of SDM on self-reported physical or mental health. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality SDM can reduce health expenditures without negatively impacting overall physical or mental health, supporting a business case for health care organizations and systems to improve racial-ethnic clinician-patient concordance for Black and Hispanic patients.

The role of accountable care organization affiliation and ownership in promoting physician practice participation in quality improvement collaboratives.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) have emerged as an important strategy to improve processes and outcomes of clinical care through interorganizational learning. Little is known about the organizational factors that support or deter physician practice participation in QICs. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine organizational influences on physician practices' propensity to participate in QICs. We hypothesized that practice affiliation with an accountable care organization (ACO) and practice ownership by a system or community health center (CHC) would increase the propensity of physician practices to participate in a QIC. METHODOLOGY: Data from the third wave of the National Study of Physician Organizations, a nationally representative sample of medical practices (n = 1,359), were analyzed. Weighted multivariate regression analyses were estimated to examine the association of ACO affiliation, ownership, and QIC participation, controlling for practice size, health information technology capacity, public reporting participation, and practice revenue from Medicaid and uninsured patients. The Sobel-Goodman Test was used to explore the extent to which practice use of quality improvement (QI) methods such as Lean, Six Sigma, and use of plan-do-study-act cycles mediates the relationship between ACO affiliation and QIC participation. FINDINGS: Only 13.6% of practices surveyed in 2012-2013 participated in a QIC. In adjusted analyses, ACO affiliation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, p < .01), CHC ownership (OR = 6.57, p < .001), larger practice size (OR = 14.72, p < .001), and health information technology functionality (OR = 1.15, p < .001) were positively associated with QIC participation. Practice use of QI methods partially mediated (13.1%-46.7%) the association of ACO affiliation with QIC participation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: ACO-affiliated practices are more likely than non-ACO practices to participate in QICs. Practice size rather than system ownership appears to influence QIC participation. QI methods often promoted and used by health care systems such as CHCs and ACOs may promote QIC participation.

Understanding the Information Needs of Pharmacy Staff Using CancelRx: A Qualitative Study of the Use of Prescription E-cancellation.

Background: Although electronic prescription cancellation such as via CancelRx can facilitate critical communication between prescribers and pharmacy staff about discontinued medications, there is little work that explores whether CancelRx meets the needs of pharmacy staff users. Objective: This study leverages qualitative interviews with pharmacy staff to address the following question: When medication changes are made by a prescriber using CancelRx, what information is needed by pharmacy staff to make correct and effective decisions in their roles in medication management? Methods: We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of interviews with 11 pharmacy staff members (pharmacists and pharmacy technicians) across three outpatient community pharmacy sites within an academic health care system. Results: Three information needs themes were consistently identified by both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians: prescriber intent when initiating the CancelRx, clinical rationale for the medication change, and intended medication regimen. Notably, both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians often reported seeking multiple information needs not fully addressed by CancelRx in the electronic health record (EHR) to achieve the shared goals of correct dispensing of medications and supporting patient self-management. Conclusions: Our qualitative analysis reveals that outpatient community pharmacy staff in an academic health care system often seek additional information from the (EHR) following medication changes communicated by CancelRx to meet their information needs. Ideally, the prescriber would provide sufficient information through CancelRx to automatically identify all discontinued prescriptions. These limitations highlight the need for design features that support routine communication of needed information at the time of a medication change, such as structured data elements.

Are patients really getting what they want? The routine implementation of decision aids for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis in the high value healthcare collaborative and alignment between patient treatment choice and receipt.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Alignment between patients' treatment choices and treatments received is acknowledged as an important outcome of shared decision-making (SDM), yet recent research suggests that patients' choices do not always align with their actual treatment trajectories. This paper explores the alignment of patient-expressed treatment choices (for surgery or medical management) after exposure to decision aids and treatments received among patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis within High Value Healthcare Collaborative (HVHC) systems as the collaborative integrated decision aids intended to support SDM into routine clinical practice. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study examines data from adult (≥18 years) patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis who received decision aids as part of orthopaedic consultations within HVHC systems between 2012 and 2015. Multivariable logistic regression explored the association between patient-level characteristics with the odds of treatment choice-receipt alignment. RESULTS: The majority of patients with knee osteoarthritis (68.3%) and hip osteoarthritis (71.9%) received treatments aligned with their choices following exposure to decision aids, but analyses reveal important differences in the odds of such alignment across patient characteristics. In adjusted models, African American patients with knee osteoarthritis had 50% lower odds of receiving treatment aligned with their choices compared with Caucasian patients (OR = 0.52, P < .05). Medicare- or Medicaid-insured knee patients had 49% and 59% lower odds (respectively) of receiving choice-aligned treatments relative to privately insured patients. Patients with knee (OR = 0.40, P < .01) or hip (OR = 0.75, P < .05) osteoarthritis at earlier decision-making stages had lower odds of receiving treatments congruent with their choices. CONCLUSION: This work elucidates the odds of treatment choice-aligned care for patients within health care systems attempting to routinely integrate decision aids to support SDM into clinical practice and underscores the gaps in achieving this alignment among African American patients, those with public insurance and those at early decision-making stages.

Association of patient engagement strategies with utilisation and spending for musculoskeletal problems in the USA: a cross-sectional analysis of Medicare patients and physician practices.

OBJECTIVE: Musculoskeletal problems like hip and knee osteoarthritis and low-back pain are preference sensitive conditions. Patient engagement strategies (PES), such as shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, can help align patients' preferences with treatment options and potentially reduce spending. We assess the association of physician practice-level adoption of PES with utilisation and spending. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study in which patients were matched across low, moderate and high levels of PES via coarsened exact matching. SETTING: Primary and secondary care in 2190 physician practices. PARTICIPANTS: 39 336 hip, 48 362 knee and 67 940 low-back patients who were Medicare beneficiaries were matched to the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Total hip replacement (THR), total knee replacement (TKR), 1-2 level posterior lumbar fusion (LF), total annual spending, components of total annual spending. RESULTS: Total annual spending for patients with musculoskeletal problems did not differ for practices with low versus moderate PES, low versus high PES or moderate versus high PES, but spending was significantly lower in some categories for practices with relatively higher PES adoption. For hospital-owned and health system-owned practices, the ORs of receiving LF were 0.632 (95% CI 0.396 to 1.009) for patients attributed to practices with high PES compared with patients attributed to practices with moderate PES. For independent practices, the odds of receiving THR were 1.403 (95% CI 1.035 to 1.902) for patients attributed to practices with moderate PES compared with patients attributed to practices with low PES. CONCLUSIONS: Practice-level adoption of PES for patients with musculoskeletal problems was generally not associated with total spending. PES, however, may steer patients toward evidence-based treatments. Opportunities for overall spending reduction exist as indicated by the variation in the subcomponents of total spending by PES adoption.

The Impact Of Decision Aids On Adults Considering Hip Or Knee Surgery.

Trials of decision aids developed for use in shared decision making find that patients engaged in that process tend to choose more conservative treatment for preference-sensitive conditions. Shared decision making is a collaborative process in which clinicians and patients discuss trade-offs and benefits of specific treatment options in light of patients' values and preferences. Decision aids are paper, video, or web-based tools intended to help patients match personal preferences with available treatment options. We analyzed data for 2012-15 about patients within the ten High Value Healthcare Collaborative member systems who were exposed to condition-specific decision aids in the context of consultations for hip and knee osteoarthritis, with the intention that the aids be used to support shared decision making. Compared to matched patients not exposed to the decision aids, those exposed had two-and-a-half times the odds of undergoing hip replacement surgery and nearly twice the odds of undergoing knee replacement surgery within six months of the consultation. These findings suggest that health care systems adopting decision aids developed for use in shared decision making, and used in conjunction with hip and knee osteoarthritis consultations, should not expect reduced surgical utilization.

Decision Aid Implementation and Patients' Preferences for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment: Insights from the High Value Healthcare Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) research has emphasized the role of decision aids (DAs) for helping patients make treatment decisions reflective of their preferences, yet there have been few collaborative multi-institutional efforts to integrate DAs in orthopedic consultations and primary care encounters. OBJECTIVE: In the context of routine DA implementation for SDM, we investigate which patient-level characteristics are associated with patient preferences for surgery versus medical management before and after exposure to DAs. We explored whether DA implementation in primary care encounters was associated with greater shifts in patients' treatment preferences after exposure to DAs compared to DA implementation in orthopedic consultations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 10 High Value Healthcare Collaborative (HVHC) health systems. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: A total of 495 hip and 1343 adult knee osteoarthritis patients who were exposed to DAs within HVHC systems between July 2012 to June 2015. RESULTS: Nearly 20% of knee patients and 17% of hip patients remained uncertain about their treatment preferences after viewing DAs. Older patients and patients with high pain levels had an increased preference for surgery. Older patients receiving DAs from three HVHC systems that transitioned DA implementation from orthopedics into primary care had lower odds of preferring surgery after DA exposure compared to older patients in seven HVHC systems that only implemented DAs for orthopedic consultations. CONCLUSION: Patients' treatment preferences were largely stable over time, highlighting that DAs for SDM largely do not necessarily shift preferences. DAs and SDM processes should be targeted at older adults and patients reporting high pain levels. Initiating treatment conversations in primary versus specialty care settings may also have important implications for engagement of patients in SDM via DAs.