Public response to cost-quality tradeoffs in clinical decisions.

PURPOSE: To explore public attitudes toward the incorporation of cost-effectiveness analysis into clinical decisions. METHODS: The authors presented 781 jurors with a survey describing 1 of 6 clinical encounters in which a physician has to choose between cancer screening tests. They provided cost-effectiveness data for all tests, and in each scenario, the most effective test was more expensive. They instructed respondents to imagine that he or she was the physician in the scenario and asked them to choose which test to recommend and then explain their choice in an open-ended manner. The authors then qualitatively analyzed the responses by identifying themes and developed a coding scheme. Two authors separately coded the statements with high overall agreement (kappa = 0.76). Categories were not mutually exclusive. RESULTS: Overall, 410 respondents (55%) chose the most expensive option, and 332 respondents (45%) choose a less expensive option. Explanatory comments were given by 82% respondents. Respondents who chose the most expensive test focused on the increased benefit (without directly acknowledging the additional cost) (39%), a general belief that life is more important than money (22%), the significance of cancer risk for the patient in the scenario (20%), the belief that the benefit of the test was worth the additional cost (8%), and personal anecdotes/preferences (6%). Of the respondents who chose the less expensive test, 40% indicated that they did not believe that the patient in the scenario was at significant risk for cancer, 13% indicated that they thought the less expensive test was adequate or not meaningfully different from the more expensive test, 12% thought the cost of the test was not worth the additional benefit, 9% indicated that the test was too expensive (without mention of additional benefit), and 7% responded that resources were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Public response to cost-quality tradeoffs is mixed. Although some respondents justified their decision based on the cost-effectiveness information provided, many focused instead on specific features of the scenario or on general beliefs about whether cost should be incorporated into clinical decisions.

Life insurance and breast cancer risk assessment: adverse selection, genetic testing decisions, and discrimination.

Life insurance industry access to genetic information is controversial. Consumer groups argue that access will increase discrimination in life insurance premiums and discourage individuals from undergoing genetic testing that may provide health benefits. Conversely, life insurers argue that without access to risk information available to individuals, they face substantial financial risk from adverse selection. Given this controversy, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of breast cancer risk information on life insurance purchasing, the impact of concerns about life insurance discrimination on use of BRCA1/2 testing, and the incidence of life insurance discrimination following participation in breast cancer risk assessment and BRCA1/2 testing. Study participants were 636 women who participated in genetic counseling and/or genetic testing at a University based clinic offering breast cancer risk assessment, genetic counseling, and BRCA1/2 testing between January 1995 and May 2000. Twenty-seven women (4%) had increased and six (1%) had decreased their life insurance since participation in breast cancer risk assessment. The decision to increase life insurance coverage was associated with predicted breast cancer risk (adjusted OR 1.03 for each 1% absolute increase in risk, 95% CI 1.01-1.10) and being found to carry a mutation in BRCA1/2 (OR 5.10, 95% CI 1.90-13.66). Concern about life insurance discrimination was inversely associated with the decision to undergo BRCA1/2 testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.85). No respondent reported having life insurance denied or canceled. In this cohort of women, these results indicate that information about increased breast cancer risk is associated with increase in life insurance purchasing, raising the possibility of adverse selection. Although fear of insurance discrimination is associated with the decision not to undergo BRCA1/2 testing, there was no evidence of actual insurance discrimination from BRCA1/2 testing.

When money is saved by reducing healthcare costs, where do US primary care physicians think the money goes?

BACKGROUND: Physician willingness to reduce medical costs is mixed. Some physicians might be unwilling to reduce medical costs because they are concerned about where the savings would go. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary care physicians might be less willing to choose a less expensive, less effective cancer screening alternative if they believe that the money saved goes to insurance companies. DESIGN: Anonymous mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 865 US primary care physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to one of several clinical vignettes presenting a choice between a less expensive, less effective cancer screening option and a more expensive, more effective alternative and responses to where physicians thought the savings might go if they chose the cheaper alternative. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of physicians chose the most expensive screening alternative. In aggregate, physicians responded that more of any money saved would go to the managers or owners of insurance companies than to increased clinical services or reduced insurance premiums. Physicians choosing the more expensive screening test were more likely to believe that money saved from choosing the less expensive test would go to insurance company profits and salaries rather than to increased clinical services or reduced premiums (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although US primary care physicians vary in where they think money saved in healthcare goes, most believe that more of it goes to the salaries of insurance company executives and the profits of insurance company owners than to improved clinical services or reduced premiums. The more physicians believe that this is where the money goes, the less willing they are to reduce healthcare costs.

The influence of cost-effectiveness information on physicians' cancer screening recommendations.

Physicians are increasingly faced with choices in which one screening strategy is both more effective and more expensive than another. One way to make such choices is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the more costly strategy over the less costly one. However, little is known about how cost-effectiveness information influences physicians' screening decisions. We surveyed 900 primary care US physicians, and presented each with a hypothetical cancer-screening scenario. We created three familiar screening scenarios, involving cervical, colon, and breast cancer. We also created three unfamiliar screening scenarios. Physicians were randomized to receive one of nine questionnaires, each containing one screening scenario. Three questionnaires posed one of the familiar screening scenarios without cost-effectiveness information, three posed one of the familiar scenarios with cost-effectiveness information, and three posed one of the unfamiliar scenarios with cost-effectiveness information. The cost-effectiveness information for familiar scenarios was drawn from the medical literature. The cost-effectiveness information for unfamiliar scenarios was fabricated to match that of a corresponding familiar scenario. In all questionnaires, physicians were asked what screening alternative they would recommend. A total of 560 physicians responded (65%). For familiar scenarios, providing cost-effectiveness information had at most a small influence on physicians' screening recommendations; it reduced the proportion of physicians recommending annual Pap smears (p=0.003), but did not significantly alter the aggressiveness of colon cancer and breast cancer screening (both p's<0.1). For all three unfamiliar scenarios, physicians were significantly less likely to recommend expensive screening strategies than in corresponding familiar scenarios (all p's<0.001). Physicians' written explanations revealed a number of factors that moderated the influence of cost-effectiveness information on their screening recommendations. Providing physicians with cost-effectiveness information had only a moderate influence on their screening recommendations for cervical, colon, and breast cancer. Significantly, fewer physicians recommended aggressive screening for unfamiliar cancers than for familiar ones, despite similar cost-effectiveness. Physicians are relatively reluctant to abandon common screening strategies, even when they learn that they are expensive, and are hesitant to adopt unfamiliar screening strategies, even when they learn that they are inexpensive.

Incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios: will physicians make a distinction?

Physicians are increasingly asked to use cost-effectiveness information when evaluating alternative health care interventions. Little is known about how the way such information is presented can influence medical decision making. We presented physicians with hypothetical screening scenarios with multiple options, varying the type of cost-effectiveness ratios provided as well as whether the scenarios described cancer screening settings that were familiar or unfamiliar. Half the scenarios used average cost-effectiveness ratios, as commonly reported, calculating benefits and costs relative to a no-screening option. The other half used the preferred incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with each option's benefits and costs calculated relative to the next best alternative. Relative to average cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-effectiveness information significantly reduced preference for the most expensive screening strategies in two of three unfamiliar scenarios. No such difference was found for familiar scenarios, for which physicians likely have established practice patterns. These results suggest that, in unfamiliar settings, average cost-effectiveness ratios as reported in many analyses reported in the literature can hide the often high price for achieving incremental health care goals, potentially causing physicians to choose interventions with poor cost effectiveness.