U.S. Internists' Perspectives on Discussing Cost of Care With Patients: Structured Interviews and a Survey.

Background: Rising out-of-pocket costs are creating a need for cost conversations between patients and physicians. Objective: To understand the factors that influence physicians to discuss and consider cost during a patient encounter. Design: Mixed-methods study using semistructured interviews and a survey. Setting: United States. Participants: 20 internal medicine physicians were interviewed; 621 internal medicine physician members of the American College of Physicians completed the survey. Measurements: Interviews were analyzed by using thematic analysis, and surveys were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. Results: From the interviews, 4 themes were identified: Physicians are 1) aware that patients are struggling to afford medical care; 2) relying on clues from patients that hint at their cost sensitivity; 3) relying on experience to anticipate potentially high-cost treatments; and 4) aware that patients are making financial trade-offs to afford their care. Three quarters (n = 466) of survey respondents stated that they consider out-of-pocket costs when making most clinical decisions. For 31% (n = 191) of participants, there were times in the past year that they wanted to discuss out-of-pocket prescription drug costs with patients but did not. The most influential factors for ordering a test are the desire to be as thorough as possible (71% [n = 422]) and insurance coverage for the test (68% [n = 422]). Limitation: Findings are self-reported, the sample is limited to a single specialty, the survey response rate was low, information on the patient population was limited, and the survey instrument is not validated. Conclusion: Physicians are attuned to the burden of health care costs and are willing to consider alternative options based on a patient's cost sensitivity. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Assessment of the Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network to Reduce Medical Imaging Overutilization: A Multipractice Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether participation in Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) results in a reduction of inappropriate imaging in a wide range of real-world clinical environments. METHODS: This quality improvement study used imaging data from 27 US academic and private practices that completed R-SCAN projects between January 25, 2015, and August 8, 2018. Each project consisted of baseline, educational (intervention), and posteducational phases. Baseline and posteducational imaging cases were rated as high, medium, or low value on the basis of validated ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Four cohorts were generated: a comprehensive cohort that included all eligible practices and three topic-specific cohorts that included practices that completed projects of specific Choosing Wisely topics (pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain). Changes in the proportion of high-value cases after R-SCAN intervention were assessed for each cohort using generalized estimating equation logistic regression, and changes in the number of low-value cases were analyzed using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Use of R-SCAN in the comprehensive cohort resulted in a greater proportion of high-value imaging cases (from 57% to 79%; odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-4.86; P = .001) and 345 fewer low-value cases after intervention (incidence rate ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.70; P < .001). Similar changes in proportion of high-value cases and number of low-value cases were found for the pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: R-SCAN participation was associated with a reduced likelihood of inappropriate imaging and is thus a promising tool to enhance the quality of patient care and promote wise use of health care resources.

Challenges and strategies in patients' health priorities-aligned decision-making for older adults with multiple chronic conditions.

OBJECTIVES: While patients' health priorities should inform healthcare, strategies for doing so are lacking for patients with multiple conditions. We describe challenges to, and strategies that support, patients' priorities-aligned decision-making. DESIGN: Participant observation qualitative study. SETTING: Primary care and cardiology practices in Connecticut. PARTICIPANTS: Ten primary care clinicians, five cardiologists, and the Patient Priorities implementation team (four geriatricians, physician expert in clinician training, behavioral medicine expert). The patients discussed were ≥ 66 years with >3 chronic conditions and ≥10 medications or saw ≥ two specialists. EXPOSURE: Following initial training and experience in providing Patient Priorities Care, the clinicians and Patient Priorities implementation team participated in 21 case-based, group discussions (10 face-to-face;11 telephonic). Using emergent learning (i.e. learning which arises from interactions among the participants), participants discussed challenges, posed solutions, and worked together to determine how to align care options with the health priorities of 35 patients participating in the Patient Priorities Care pilot. MAIN OUTCOMES: Challenges to, and strategies for, aligning decision-making with patient's health priorities. RESULTS: Categories of challenges discussed among participants included uncertainty, complexity, and multiplicity of problems and treatments; difficulty switching to patients' priorities as the focus of decision-making; and differing perspectives between patients and clinicians, and among clinicians. Strategies identified to support patient priorities-aligned decision-making included starting with one thing that matters most to each patient; conducting serial trials of starting, stopping, or continuing interventions; focusing on function (i.e. achieving patient's desired activities) rather than eliminating symptoms; basing communications, decision-making, and effectiveness on patients' priorities not solely on diseases; and negotiating shared decisions when there are differences in perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: The discrete set of challenges encountered and the implementable strategies identified suggest that patient priorities-aligned decision-making in the care of patients with multiple chronic conditions is feasible, albeit complicated. Findings require replication in additional settings and determination of their effect on patient outcomes.

Association of Patient Priorities-Aligned Decision-Making With Patient Outcomes and Ambulatory Health Care Burden Among Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Health care may be burdensome and of uncertain benefit for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Aligning health care with an individual's health priorities may improve outcomes and reduce burden. Objective: To evaluate whether patient priorities care (PPC) is associated with a perception of more goal-directed and less burdensome care compared with usual care (UC). Design, Setting, and Participants: Nonrandomized clinical trial with propensity adjustment conducted at 1 PPC and 1 UC site of a Connecticut multisite primary care practice that provides care to almost 15% of the state's residents. Participants included 163 adults aged 65 years or older who had 3 or more chronic conditions cared for by 10 primary care practitioners (PCPs) trained in PPC and 203 similar patients who received UC from 7 PCPs not trained in PPC. Participant enrollment occurred between February 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018; follow-up extended for up to 9 months (ended September 30, 2018). Interventions: Patient priorities care, an approach to decision-making that includes patients' identifying their health priorities (ie, specific health outcome goals and health care preferences) and clinicians aligning their decision-making to achieve these health priorities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included change in patients' Older Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (O-PACIC), CollaboRATE, and Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) scores; electronic health record documentation of decision-making based on patients' health priorities; medications and self-management tasks added or stopped; and diagnostic tests, referrals, and procedures ordered or avoided. Results: Of the 366 patients, 235 (64.2%) were female and 350 (95.6%) were white. Compared with the UC group, the PPC group was older (mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.6] vs 77.6 [7.6] years) and had lower physical and mental health scores. At follow-up, PPC participants reported a 5-point greater decrease in TBQ score than those who received UC (ß [SE], -5.0 [2.04]; P = .01) using a weighted regression model with inverse probability of PCP assignment weights; no differences were seen in O-PACIC or CollaboRATE scores. Health priorities-based decisions were mentioned in clinical visit notes for 108 of 163 (66.3%) PPC vs 0 of 203 (0%) UC participants. Compared with UC patients, PPC patients were more likely to have medications stopped (weighted comparison, 52.0% vs 33.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.05; 95% CI, 1.43-2.95) and less likely to have self-management tasks (57.5% vs 62.1%; AOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84) and diagnostic tests (80.8% vs 86.4%; AOR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40) ordered. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that patient priorities care may be associated with reduced treatment burden and unwanted health care. Care aligned with patients' priorities may be feasible and effective for older adults with MCCs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03600389.

Decision Making for Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Executive Summary for the American Geriatrics Society Guiding Principles on the Care of Older Adults With Multimorbidity.

Caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) is challenging. The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) previously developed The AGS Guiding Principles for the Care of Older Adults With Multimorbidity using a systematic review of the literature and consensus. The objective of the current work was to translate these principles into a framework of Actions and accompanying Action Steps for decision making for clinicians who provide both primary and specialty care to older people with MCCs. A work group of geriatricians, cardiologists, and generalists: (1) articulated the core MCC Actions and the Action Steps needed to carry out the Actions; (2) provided decisional tips and communication scripts for implementing the Actions and Action Steps, using commonly encountered situations: (3) performed a scoping review to identify evidence-based, validated tools for carrying out the MCC Actions and Action Steps; and (4) identified potential barriers to, and mitigating factors for, implementing the MCC Actions. The recommended MCC Actions include: (1) identify and communicate patients' health priorities and health trajectory; (2) stop, start, or continue care based on health priorities, potential benefit vs harm and burden, and health trajectory; and (3) align decisions and care among patients, caregivers, and other clinicians with patients' health priorities and health trajectory. The tips and scripts for carrying out these Actions are included in the full MCC Action Framework available in the supplement (www.GeriatricsCareOnline.org). J Am Geriatr Soc 67:665-673, 2019.