Deciding Whether to Take Sacubitril/Valsartan: How Cardiologists and Patients Discuss Out-of-Pocket Costs.

Background Out-of-pocket costs have significant implications for patients with heart failure and should ideally be incorporated into shared decision-making for clinical care. High out-of-pocket cost is one potential reason for the slow uptake of newer guideline-directed medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This study aims to characterize patient-cardiologist discussions involving out-of-pocket costs associated with sacubitril/valsartan during the early postapproval period. Methods and Results We conducted content analysis on 222 deidentified transcripts of audio-recorded outpatient encounters taking place between 2015 and 2018 in which cardiologists (n=16) and their patients discussed whether to initiate, continue, or discontinue sacubitril/valsartan. In the 222 included encounters, 100 (45%) contained discussions about cost. Cost was discussed in a variety of contexts: when sacubitril/valsartan was initiated, not initiated, continued, and discontinued. Of the 97 cost conversations analyzed, the majority involved isolated discussions about insurance coverage (64/97 encounters; 66%) and few addressed specific out-of-pocket costs or affordability (28/97 encounters; 29%). Discussion of free samples of sacubitril/valsartan was common (52/97 encounters; 54%), often with no discussion of a longer-term plan for addressing cost. Conclusions Although cost conversations were somewhat common in patient-cardiologist encounters in which sacubitril/valsartan was discussed, these conversations were generally superficial, rarely addressing affordability or cost-value judgments. Cardiologists frequently provided patients with a course of free sacubitril/valsartan samples without a plan to address the cost after the samples ran out.

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.

Patient, Caregiver, and Taxpayer Knowledge of Palliative Care and Views on a Model of Community-Based Palliative Care.

CONTEXT: Palliative care (PC) model delivered by two large hospices and PC providers. OBJECTIVES: To understand study participants' knowledge of PC and acceptability of a new community-based PC model. METHODS: Semistructured interview with patients and caregivers; focus groups with taxpayers. Descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach. RESULTS: Across 10 interviews and four focus groups (n = 4-10 per group), there was varying knowledge of PC. Gaps in interview and focus group participants' knowledge related to knowing the services available in PC, how PC is paid for, how to initiate PC, and how PC affects the patient's relationship with existing providers. Regarding the model, negative feedback from interview participants included not having PC explained adequately and PC providers seen as consultants and not as full-time providers. Focus group participants indicated that the model sounded promising but noted the likely difficulty in enacting it in our current health care system. Positive feedback from interview participants included the perception that clinicians spent more time and provided more support for patients and families and the developing ability of PC services to provide care more broadly than at the very end of life. Focus group participants had similar observations related to perceived attention to care and broader application of PC. Perceptions of time-constrained care delivery and suboptimal provider-patient communication persist for some patients getting PC services. CONCLUSION: Education for patients, caregivers, and community members about the roles and benefits of PC will be needed to successfully expand community-based PC.

Discussing Health Care Expenses in the Oncology Clinic: Analysis of Cost Conversations in Outpatient Encounters.

PURPOSE: ASCO identified oncologist-patient conversations about cancer costs as an important component of high-quality care. However, limited data exist characterizing the content of these conversations. We sought to provide novel insight into oncologist-patient cost conversations by determining the content of cost conversations in breast cancer clinic visits. METHODS: We performed content analysis of transcribed dialogue from 677 outpatient appointments for breast cancer management. Encounters featured 677 patients with breast cancer visiting 56 oncologists nationwide from 2010 to 2013. RESULTS: Cost conversations were identified in 22% of visits (95% CI, 19 to 25) and had a median duration of 33 seconds (interquartile range, 19 to 62). Fifty-nine percent of cost conversations were initiated by oncologists (95% CI, 51 to 67), who most commonly brought up costs for antineoplastic agents. By contrast, patients most frequently brought up costs for diagnostic tests. Thirty-eight percent of cost conversations mentioned cost-reducing strategies (95% CI, 30 to 46), which most commonly sought to lower patient costs for endocrine therapies and symptom-alleviating treatments. The three most commonly discussed cost-reducing strategies were: switching to a lower-cost therapy/diagnostic, changing logistics of the intervention, and facilitating copay assistance. CONCLUSION: We identified cost conversations in approximately one in five breast cancer visits. Cost conversations were mostly oncologist initiated, lasted < 1 minute, and dealt with a wide range of health care expenses. Cost-reducing strategies were mentioned in more than one third of cost conversations and often involved switching antineoplastic agents for lower-cost alternatives or altering logistics of diagnostic tests.

Discussing Out-of-Pocket Expenses During Clinical Appointments: An Observational Study of Patient-Psychiatrist Interactions.

OBJECTIVE: High out-of-pocket expenses for medical treatment have been associated with worse quality of life, decreased treatment adherence, and increased risk of adverse health outcomes. Treatment of depression potentially has high out-of-pocket expenses. Limited data characterize psychiatrist-patient conversations about health care costs. METHODS: The authors conducted content analysis from 422 outpatient psychiatrist-patient visits for medication management of major depressive disorder in community-based private practices nationwide from 2010 to 2014. RESULTS: Patients' health care expenses were discussed in 38% of clinic visits (95% confidence interval [CI]= 33%-43%). Uninsured patients were significantly more likely to discuss expenses than were patients enrolled in private or public plans (64%, 44%, and 30%, respectively; p<.001). Sixty-nine percent of cost conversations lasted less than one minute (median=36 seconds; interquartile range [IQR]=16-81 seconds). Cost conversations most frequently addressed psychotropic medications (51%). Physicians initiated 50% of cost conversations and brought up costs for psychotropic medications more often than did patients (62% versus 38%, p=.009). Conversely, a greater percentage of patient-initiated cost conversations addressed provider visit costs (27% versus 10%, p=.008). Overall, 45% of cost conversations mentioned cost-reducing strategies (CI=37%-53%). The most frequently discussed cost-reducing strategies were lowering cost by changing the source or timing of an intervention (for example, changing pharmacies), providing free samples, and switching to a lower-cost therapy or diagnostic test. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatrists and patients regularly discuss patients' health care costs in visits for depression. These discussions cover a variety of clinical topics and frequently include strategies to lower patients' costs.

Patient-physician discussions about costs: definitions and impact on cost conversation incidence estimates.

BACKGROUND: Nearly one in three Americans are financially burdened by their medical expenses. To mitigate financial distress, experts recommend routine physician-patient cost conversations. However, the content and incidence of these conversations are unclear, and rigorous definitions are lacking. We sought to develop a novel set of cost conversation definitions, and determine the impact of definitional variation on cost conversation incidence in three clinical settings. METHODS: Retrospective, mixed-methods analysis of transcribed dialogue from 1,755 outpatient encounters for routine clinical management of breast cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and depression, occurring between 2010-2014. We developed cost conversation definitions using summative content analysis. Transcripts were evaluated independently by at least two members of our multi-disciplinary team to determine cost conversation incidence using each definition. Incidence estimates were compared using Pearson's Chi-Square Tests. RESULTS: Three cost conversation definitions emerged from our analysis: (a) Out-of-Pocket (OoP) Cost--discussion of the patient's OoP costs for a healthcare service; (b) Cost/Coverage--discussion of the patient's OoP costs or insurance coverage; (c) Cost of Illness- discussion of financial costs or insurance coverage related to health or healthcare. These definitions were hierarchical; OoP Cost was a subset of Cost/Coverage, which was a subset of Cost of Illness. In each clinical setting, we observed significant variation in the incidence of cost conversations when using different definitions; breast oncology: 16, 22, 24% of clinic visits contained cost conversation (OOP Cost, Cost/Coverage, Cost of Illness, respectively; P < 0.001); depression: 30, 38, 43%, (P < 0.001); and rheumatoid arthritis, 26, 33, 35%, (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The estimated incidence of physician-patient cost conversation varied significantly depending on the definition used. Our findings and proposed definitions may assist in retrospective interpretation and prospective design of investigations on this topic.

Study Of Physician And Patient Communication Identifies Missed Opportunities To Help Reduce Patients' Out-Of-Pocket Spending.

Some experts contend that requiring patients to pay out of pocket for a portion of their care will bring consumer discipline to health care markets. But are physicians prepared to help patients factor out-of-pocket expenses into medical decisions? In this qualitative study of audiorecorded clinical encounters, we identified physician behaviors that stand in the way of helping patients navigate out-of-pocket spending. Some behaviors reflected a failure to fully engage with patients' financial concerns, from never acknowledging such concerns to dismissing them too quickly. Other behaviors reflected a failure to resolve uncertainty about out-of-pocket expenses or reliance on temporary solutions without making long-term plans to reduce spending. Many of these failures resulted from systemic barriers to health care spending conversations, such as a lack of price transparency. For consumer health care markets to work as intended, physicians need to be prepared to help patients navigate out-of-pocket expenses when financial concerns arise during clinical encounters.

What Strategies Do Physicians and Patients Discuss to Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs? Analysis of Cost-Saving Strategies in 1,755 Outpatient Clinic Visits.

BACKGROUND: More than 1 in 4 Americans report difficulty paying medical bills. Cost-reducing strategies discussed during outpatient physician visits remain poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine how often patients and physicians discuss health care costs during outpatient visits and what strategies, if any, they discussed to lower patient out-of-pocket costs. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of dialogue from 1,755 outpatient visits in community-based practices nationwide from 2010 to 2014. The study population included 677 patients with breast cancer, 422 with depression, and 656 with rheumatoid arthritis visiting 56 oncologists, 36 psychiatrists, and 26 rheumatologists, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty percent of visits contained cost conversations (95% confidence interval [CI], 28 to 32). Forty-four percent of cost conversations involved discussion of cost-saving strategies (95% CI, 40 to 48; median duration, 68 s). We identified 4 strategies to lower costs without changing the care plan. They were, in order of overall frequency: 1) changing logistics of care, 2) facilitating co-pay assistance, 3) providing free samples, and 4) changing/adding insurance plans. We also identified 4 strategies to reduce costs by changing the care plan: 1) switching to lower-cost alternative therapy/diagnostic, 2) switching from brand name to generic, 3) changing dosage/frequency, and 4) stopping/withholding interventions. Strategies were relatively consistent across health conditions, except for switching to a lower-cost alternative (more common in breast oncology) and providing free samples (more common in depression). LIMITATION: Focus on 3 conditions with potentially high out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite price opacity, physicians and patients discuss a variety of out-of-pocket cost reduction strategies during clinic visits. Almost half of cost discussions mention 1 or more cost-saving strategies, with more frequent mention of those not requiring care-plan changes.