Validated Tools to Measure Costs for Patients: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Increasing healthcare expenditures is a major concern to insurers and governments, but also to patients who must pay a greater proportion of their healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to identify validated tools for measuring the costs of a health condition for patients as well as the different elements to be considered when measuring costs from the patient's perspective. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted from 1984 to December 2020. The search strategy was applied to seven different databases that had been identified prior as pertinent sources. Two authors independently extracted and compiled data. In case of disagreement, arbitration by two other researchers was conducted. The methodological quality of the included articles was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: Among the 679 retrieved articles, nine met the inclusion criteria. The types of costs evaluated in these studies included direct costs for patients as well as for caregivers, indirect costs, and intangible costs. The development and validation processes used in these articles included a literature search, a discussion with the involved stakeholders, the development of an initial questionnaire, the testing of the questionnaire on a sample of patients, and a critical review. Regarding the psychometric properties of the tool, only five studies tested the reliability and validity of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: There are very few validated tools available to measure the different health-related costs from a patient perspective. Further research is needed to develop and validate a versatile and generalizable tool using a rigorous methodological process.

Economic Evaluations of Interventions to Optimize Medication Use in Older Adults with Polypharmacy and Multimorbidity: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of the economic impact of interventions intended at optimizing medication use in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHODS: We searched Ovid-Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Ageline, Cochrane, and Web of Science, for articles published between 2004 and 2020 that studied older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. The intervention studied had to be aimed at optimizing medication use and present results on costs. RESULTS: Out of 3,871 studies identified by the search strategy, eleven studies were included. The interventions involved different provider types, with a majority described as a multidisciplinary team involving a pharmacist and a general practitioner, in the decision-making process. Interventions were generally associated with a reduction in medication expenditure. The benefits of the intervention in terms of clinical outcomes remain limited. Five studies were cost-benefit analyses, which had a net benefit that was either null or positive. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that were generally within the willingness-to-pay thresholds of the countries in which the studies were conducted. However, the quality of the studies was generally low. Omission of key cost elements of economic evaluations, including intervention cost and payer perspective, limited interpretability. CONCLUSION: Interventions to optimize medication use may provide benefits that outweigh their implementation costs, but the evidence remains limited. There is a need to identify and address barriers to the scaling-up of such interventions, starting with the current incentive structures for pharmacists, physicians, and patients.

Promoting access to family medicine in Québec, Canada: Analysis of bill 20, enacted in November 2015.

Primary care can potentially make an important contribution to improving health system performance. However, Canada does not fare as well as other developed countries in terms of timely access to primary health care services. In November 2015, Bill 20 was introduced in the province of Québec. The goal of Bill 20 was to optimize the utilisation of medical and financial resources to improve access to primary care. Bill 20 states the obligations of general practitioners to register a minimum number of patients, ensure the continuity of care of that population, and practice a minimum number of hours in hospitals. Many actors agreed that access to primary care had to be improved in Québec, but disagreed with Bill 20. In particular, family physicians strongly opposed the financial penalties that were introduced for physicians failing to meet the specified targets. In January 2018, 3 years after Bill 20, indicators for patient registration and continuity of care have considerably improved. However, the attractiveness of general practice seems to have decreased among medical graduates, which creates uncertainty regarding the sustainability of the achievements brought on by Bill 20.