Interventions supporting cost conversations between patients and clinicians: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Discussing cost during medical encounters may decrease the financial impact of medical care on patients and align their treatment plans with their financial capacities. We aimed to examine which interventions exist and quantify their effectiveness to support cost conversations. METHODS: Several databases were queried (Embase; Ovid MEDLINE(R); Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily; the Cochrane databases; and Scopus) from their inception until January 31, 2020 using terms such as "clinician*", "patient*", "cost*", and "conversation*". Eligibility assessment, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. We extracted study setting, design, intervention characteristics and outcomes related to patients, clinicians and quality metrics. RESULTS: We identified four studies (1327 patients) meeting our inclusion criteria. All studies were non-randomised and conducted in the United States. Three were performed in a primary care setting and the fourth in an oncology. Two studies used decision aids that included cost information; one used a training session for health care staff about cost conversations, and the other directly delivered information regarding cost conversations to patients. All interventions increased cost-conversation frequency. There was no effect on out-of-pocket costs, satisfaction, medication adherence or understanding of costs of care. CONCLUSION: The body of evidence is small and comprised of studies at high risk of bias. However, an increase in the frequency of cost conversations is consistent. Studies with higher quality are needed to ascertain the effects of these interventions on the acceptability, frequency and quality of cost conversations.

The validity of cost-effectiveness analyses of tight glycemic control. A systematic survey of economic evaluations of pharmacological interventions in patients with type 2 diabetes.

PURPOSE: Currently available randomized trial evidence has shown no reductions in type 2 diabetes (T2D) complications important to patients with tight glycemic control. Yet, economic analyses consistently find tight glycemic control to be cost-effective. To understand this apparent paradox, we systematically identified and appraised economic analyses of tight glycemic control for T2D. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from January 2016 to January 2018 for cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of any glucose-lowering treatments for adults with T2D using simulations with long-40 years to lifetime-time horizons. Reviewers selected and appraised each study independently and in duplicate with good reproducibility. RESULTS: We found 30 analyses, most comparing the glycemic impact of glucose-lowering drugs and applying their impact on HbA1c to model (most commonly IMS CORE or Cardiff T2DM) their impact on the incidence of diabetes-related complication. Models drew from observational evidence of the correlation of HbA1c levels and diabetes-related complication rates; none used estimates of the effect of lowering HbA1c on these outcomes from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Sensitivity analyses, when conducted, demonstrate substantial loss of cost-effectiveness as simulations approach the results seen in these trials. CONCLUSIONS: Reliance on the association between glycemic control and diabetes-related complications evident in observational studies but not apparent in randomized trial bias the estimates of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve glycemic control.

Using Shared Decision-Making Tools and Patient-Clinician Conversations About Costs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how shared decision-making (SDM) tools used during clinical encounters that raise cost as an issue impact the incidence of cost conversations between patients and clinicians. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters were analyzed. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized clinical trials and one quasi-randomized clinical trial (pre- and post-) comparing care with and without SDM tools. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials ran between 2007 and 2015. RESULTS: Most patient participants were white (85%), educated (38% completed college), middle-aged (mean age 56 years), and female (61%). There were 105 encounters with and 115 without the SDM tool. Encounters with SDM tools were more likely to include both general cost conversations (62% vs 36%, odds ratio [OR]: 9.6; 95% CI: 4 to 26) as well as conversations on medication costs specifically (89% vs 51%, P=.01). However, clinicians using SDM tools were less likely to address cost issues during the encounter (37% vs 51%, P=.04). Encounters with patients with less than a college degree were also associated with a higher incidence of cost conversations. CONCLUSION: Using SDM tools that raise cost as an issue increased the occurrence of cost conversations but was less likely to address cost issues or offer potential solutions to patients' cost concerns. This result suggests that SDM tools used during the consultation can trigger cost conversations but are insufficient to support them.