Internal Medicine Trainee Understanding and Reaction to Out of Pocket Costs.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Out-of-pocket costs are a serious barrier to care and drive suboptimal medical therapy. Understanding of these costs can lead to care oriented around the limits they generate. Despite this, there is minimal attention paid to these costs in post-graduate education.Objective
To define a potential knowledge gap regarding costs experienced by patients by surveying Internal Medicine residents at our large academic institution.Methods
We surveyed Internal Medicine residents in spring 2019 about knowledge and practices surrounding patient out-of-pocket costs. Participants answered questions considering their most recent inpatient panel and their clinic patient panel. Familiarity was ranked on a 5-point Likert scale, and for the purposes of presentation, was divided into "Poor" and "Moderate or Better." Non-parametric analysis was used to test differences between outpatients and inpatients and by year of training.Results
Of 159 residents, 109 (67%) responded. Familiarity with patient insurance status was moderate or better in 85%. Reported understanding of costs associated with medications, testing, and clinic visits was less common. Respondents had higher familiarity with out-of-pocket costs for clinic patients compared with inpatients. Knowledge of cost of care was not an often-considered factor in decision making. There was no significant difference in response by year of training.Conclusion
Patient out-of-pocket costs are an important dimension of patient care which Internal Medicine Trainees at our institution do not confidently understand or utilize. Improvements in education around this topic may enable more patient-centered care.
SUBMITTER: Chidester J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7897822 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan-Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Internal Medicine Trainee Understanding and Reaction to Out of Pocket Costs.
Chidester Jeffrey J Vigen Rebecca R Das Sandeep R SR
Journal of medical education and curricular development 20210101
<h4>Background</h4>Out-of-pocket costs are a serious barrier to care and drive suboptimal medical therapy. Understanding of these costs can lead to care oriented around the limits they generate. Despite this, there is minimal attention paid to these costs in post-graduate education.<h4>Objective</h4>To define a potential knowledge gap regarding costs experienced by patients by surveying Internal Medicine residents at our large academic institution.<h4>Methods</h4>We surveyed Internal Medicine re ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSitting at the bedside may strengthen physician-patient communication and improve patient experience. Yet despite the potential benefits of sitting, hospital physicians, including resident physicians, may not regularly sit down while speaking with patients.ObjectiveTo examine the frequency of sitting by internal medicine residents (including first post-graduate year [PGY-1] and supervising [PGY-2/3] residents) during inpatient encounters and to assess the association between patient-reported sitting at the bedside and patients' perceptions of other physician communication behaviors. We also assessed residents' attitudes towards sitting.DesignIn-person survey of patients and email survey of internal medicine residents between August 2019 and January 2020.ParticipantsPatients admitted to general medicine teaching services and internal medicine residents at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.Main measuresPatient-reported frequency of sitting at the bedside, patients' perceptions of other communication behaviors (e.g., checking for understanding); residents' attitudes regarding sitting.Key resultsOf 334 eligible patients, 256 (76%) completed a survey. Among these 256 respondents, 198 (77%) and 166 (65%) reported recognizing the PGY-1 and PGY-2/3 on their care team, respectively, for a total of 364 completed surveys. On most surveys (203/364, 56%), patients responded that residents "never" sat. Frequent sitting at the bedside ("every single time" or "most of the time," together 48/364, 13%) was correlated with other positive behaviors, including spending enough time at the bedside, checking for understanding, and not seeming to be in a rush (p < 0.01 for all). Of 151 residents, 77 (51%) completed the resident survey; 28 of the 77 (36%) reported sitting frequently. The most commonly cited barrier to sitting was that chairs were not available (38 respondents, 49%).ConclusionsPatients perceived that residents sit infrequently. However, sitting was associated with other positive communication behaviors; this is compatible with the hypothesis that promoting sitting could improve overall patient perceptions of provider communication.
| S-EPMC8744572 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Adverse childhood experiences are associated with higher risk of common chronic mental and physical illnesses in adulthood, but little evidence exists on whether this influences medical costs or expenses. This study estimated increases in household medical expenses associated with adults' reported adverse childhood experience scores. METHODS:Household out-of-pocket medical cost and adverse childhood experience information was collected in the 2011 and 2013 waves of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and its linked 2014-2015 Panel Study of Income Dynamics Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study supplement and analyzed in 2017. Generalized linear regression models estimated adjusted annual household out-of-pocket medical cost differences by retrospective adverse childhood experience count and compared costs by family type and size. Logistic models estimated odds of out-of-pocket costs that were >10% of household income or >100% of savings, as well as odds of household debt. RESULTS:Adverse childhood experience scores were associated with higher out-of-pocket costs. Annual household total out-of-pocket medical costs were $184 (95% CI=$90, $278) or 1.18-fold higher when respondents reported one to two adverse childhood experiences and $311 (95% CI=$196, $426) or 1.30-fold higher when three or more adverse childhood experiences were reported by an adult in the household. Odds of household medical costs >10% of income, >100% of savings, and the presence of household medical debt were 2.48-fold (95% CI=1.40, 4.38), 2.25-fold (95% CI=1.69, 2.99), and 2.29-fold (95% CI=1.56, 3.34) higher when an adult in the household reported three or more adverse childhood experiences compared with none. CONCLUSIONS:Greater exposure to adverse childhood experiences is associated with higher household out-of-pocket medical costs and financial burden in adulthood.
| S-EPMC6475485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceOne-third of US residents have trouble paying their medical bills. They often turn to their physicians for help navigating health costs and insurance coverage.ObjectiveTo determine whether physicians can accurately estimate out-of-pocket expenses when they are given all of the necessary information about a drug's price and a patient's insurance plan.Design, setting, and participantsThis national mail-in survey used a random sample of US physicians. The survey was sent to 900 outpatient physicians (300 each of primary care, gastroenterology, and rheumatology). Physicians were excluded if they were in training, worked primarily for the Veterans Administration or Indian Health Service, were retired, or reported 0% outpatient clinical effort. Analyses were performed from July to December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresIn a hypothetical vignette, a patient was prescribed a new drug costing $1000/month without insurance. A summary of her private insurance information was provided, including the plan's deductible, coinsurance rates, copays, and out-of-pocket maximum. Physicians were asked to estimate the drug's out-of-pocket cost at 4 time points between January and December, using the plan's 4 types of cost-sharing: (1) deductibles, (2) coinsurance, (3) copays, and (4) out-of-pocket maximums. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess differences in performance by specialty, adjusting for attitudes toward cost conversations, demographics, and clinical characteristics.ResultsThe response rate was 45% (405 of 900) and 371 respondents met inclusion criteria. Among the respondents included in this study, 59% (n = 220) identified as male, 23% (n = 84) as Asian, 3% (n = 12) as Black, 6% (n = 24) as Hispanic, and 58% (n = 216) as White; 30% (n = 112) were primary care physicians, 35% (n = 128) were gastroenterologists, and 35% (n = 131) were rheumatologists; and the mean (SD) age was 49 (10) years. Overall, 52% of physicians (n = 192) accurately estimated costs before the deductible was met, 62% (n = 228) accurately used coinsurance information, 61% (n = 224) accurately used copay information, and 57% (n = 210) accurately estimated costs once the out-of-pocket maximum was met. Only 21% (n = 78) of physicians answered all 4 questions correctly. Ability to estimate out-of-pocket costs was not associated with specialty, attitudes toward cost conversations, or clinic characteristics.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found that many US physicians have difficulty estimating out-of-pocket costs, even when they have access to their patients' insurance plans. The mechanics involved in calculating real-time out-of-pocket costs are complex. These findings suggest that increased price transparency and simpler insurance cost-sharing mechanisms are needed to enable informed cost conversations at the point of prescribing.
| S-EPMC8571653 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRural Indigenous Maya communities in Guatemala have some of the worst obstetrical health outcomes in Latin America, due to widespread discrimination in healthcare and an underfunded public sector. Multiple systems-level efforts to improve facility birth outcomes have been implemented, primarily focusing on early community-based detection of obstetrical complications and on reducing discrimination and improving the quality of facility-level care. However, another important feature of public facility-level care are the out-of-pocket payments that patients are often required to make for care.ObjectiveTo estimate the burden of out-of-pocket costs for public obstetrical care in Indigenous Maya communities in Guatemala.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical record data on obstetrical referrals collected as part of an obstetrical care navigation intervention, which included documentation of out-of-pocket costs by care navigators accompanying patients within public facilities. We compared the median costs for both emergency and routine obstetrical facility care.FindingsCost data on 709 obstetric referrals from 479 patients were analyzed (65% emergency and 35% routine referrals). The median OOP costs were Q100 (IQR 75-150) [$13 USD] and Q50 (IQR 16-120) [$6.50 USD] for emergency and routine referrals. Costs for transport were most common (95% and 55%, respectively). Costs for medication, supply, laboratory, and imaging costs occurred less frequently. Food and lodging costs were minimal.ConclusionOut-of-pocket payments for theoretically free public care are a common and important barrier to care for this rural Guatemalan setting. These data add to the literature in Latin American on the barriers to obstetrical care faced by Indigenous and rural women.
| S-EPMC8344954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Expensive technologies-including robotic surgery-experience rapid adoption without evidence of superior outcomes. Although previous studies have examined perioperative outcomes and costs, differences in out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing robotic surgery are not well understood. Objective:To assess out-of-pocket costs and total payments for 5 types of common oncologic procedures that can be performed using an open or robotic approach. Design, Setting, and Participants:A retrospective, cross-sectional, propensity score-weighted analysis was performed using deidentified insurance claims for 1.9 million enrollees from the MarketScan database from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. The final study sample comprised 15?893 US adults aged 18 to 64 years who were enrolled in an employer-sponsored health plan. Patients underwent either an open or robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, partial colectomy, radical nephrectomy, or partial nephrectomy for a solid-organ malignant neoplasm. Statistical analysis was performed from December 18, 2018, to June 5, 2019. Exposures:Type of surgical procedure-robotic vs open. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome of interest was out-of-pocket costs associated with robotic and open surgery. The secondary outcome of interest was associated total payments. Results:Among 15?893 patients (11?102 men; mean [SD] age, 55.4 [6.6] years), 8260 underwent robotic and 7633 underwent open procedures; patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy were older than those undergoing open hysterectomy (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [6.7] vs 54.6 [7.2] years), and patients undergoing open radical nephrectomy had more comorbidities than those undergoing robotic radical nephrectomy (?2 comorbidities, 658 of 861 [76.4%] vs 244 of 347 [70.3%]). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all procedures: -$137.75 (95% CI, -$240.24 to -$38.63) for radical prostatectomy (P?=?.006); -$640.63 (95% CI, -$933.62 to -$368.79) for hysterectomy (P?<?.001); -$1140.54 (95% CI, -$1397.79 to -$896.54) for partial colectomy (P?<?.001); -$728.32 (95% CI, -$1126.90 to -$366.08) for radical nephrectomy (P?<?.001); and -$302.74 (95% CI, -$523.14 to -$97.10) for partial nephrectomy (P?=?.003). The robotic approach was similarly associated with lower adjusted total payments: -$3872.62 (95% CI, -$5385.49 to -$2399.04) for radical prostatectomy (P?<?.001); -$29?640.69 (95% CI, -$36?243.82 to -$23?465.94) for hysterectomy (P?<?.001); -$38?151.74 (95% CI, -$46?386.16 to -$30?346.22) for partial colectomy; (P?<?.001); -$33?394.15 (95% CI, -$42?603.03 to -$24?955.20) for radical nephrectomy (P?<?.001); and -$9162.52 (95% CI, -$12?728.33 to -$5781.99) for partial nephrectomy (P?<?.001). Conclusions and Relevance:This study found significant variation in perioperative costs according to surgical technique for both patients (out-of-pocket costs) and payers (total payments); the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all studied oncologic procedures.
| S-EPMC6991257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Communicating healthcare costs to patients is an important component of delivering high-quality value-based care, yet cost data are lacking. This is especially relevant for ovarian cancer, where no clinical consensus on optimal first-line treatment exists. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to generate cost estimates of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN:All women who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer from 2006-2015 were identified from the MarketScan database (n=12,761) in this observational cohort study. Total and out-of-pocket costs were calculated with the use of all claims within 8 months from initial treatment and normalized to 2017 US dollars. The generalized linear model method was used to assess cost by strategy. RESULTS:Among patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those who underwent primary debulking, mean adjusted total costs were $113,660 and $107,153 (P<.001) and mean out-of-pocket costs were $2519 and $2977 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for patients who had intravenous standard, intravenous dose-dense, and intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy were $105,047, $115,099, and $121,761 (P<.001); and out-of-pocket costs were $2838, $3405, and $2888 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for regimens that included bevacizumab were higher than those without it ($171,468 vs $104,482; P<.001); out-of-pocket costs were $3127 vs $2898 (P<.001). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, 25% paid ?$3875, and 10% paid ?$6265. For patients who received bevacizumab, 25% paid ?$4480, and 10% paid ?$6635. Among patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, median out-of-pocket costs were $4196, with 25% paying ?$6680 and 10% paying ?$9751. CONCLUSION:Costs vary across different treatment strategies, and patients bear a significant out-of-pocket burden, especially those enrolled in high-deductible health plans.
| S-EPMC7392324 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDespite the importance of cost-related discussions in cancer care, little is known about the prevalence or drivers of these discussions in clinical practice. This study estimates the prevalence and examines the correlates of cancer survivors' discussions about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care with providers.MethodsThe 2016 and 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Surveys were used to identify 1,550 survivors who responded to the question on discussion about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. Multivariable multinomial logistic regression examined the correlates of discussions about out-of-pocket costs. Analyses were performed in 2019.ResultsApproximately one quarter of cancer survivors reported having discussed the out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. In multivariable analyses, respondents in the following categories were less likely to report no cost discussion than any cost discussion: black non-Hispanic/other race (RRR=0.67, 95% CI=0.45, 0.98; white non-Hispanic race as reference), no health insurance at diagnosis (RRR=0.51, 95% CI=0.27, 0.95; private health insurance as reference), and any experience of financial hardship (RRR=0.48, 95% CI=0.35, 0.66; no financial hardship as reference).ConclusionsPatient-reported discussions about out-of-pocket costs for cancer care are infrequent in the U.S. The findings highlight the needs to improve the understanding of the barriers and facilitators for effective discussions about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care.
| S-EPMC9278513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceList prices set by manufacturers for brand-name prescription drugs in the US have been increasing faster than inflation, although confidential manufacturer rebates offset some of these increases. Most commercially insured patients pay at least some out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, and higher patient spending is associated with lower adherence and worse health outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine whether price changes for brand-name drugs are correlated with changes in patient out-of-pocket spending and whether this association varies by insurance benefit design.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study of 79 brand-name drugs with available pricing data from January 2015 to December 2017 was conducted, with data obtained from a national commercial insurance claims database.ExposuresChange in the list prices set by manufacturers and estimated net prices after rebates among non-Medicaid payers.Main outcomes and measuresChange in median out-of-pocket spending among all patients and stratified by insurance pharmacy benefit design, including high-deductible insurance plans and plans with any amount of deductibles or coinsurance.ResultsAmong 79 drugs, median increases were 16.7% (interquartile range [IQR], 13.6%-21.1%) for list prices, 5.4% (IQR, -3.9% to 11.7%) for net prices, and 3.5% (IQR, 1.4%-9.1%) for out-of-pocket spending from 2015 to 2017. Changes in list prices were correlated with changes in net prices (r = 0.34; P = .002). Overall, changes in out-of-pocket spending were not correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.14; P = .22) or net prices (r = 0.04; P = .71). Among 53.7% of patients who paid any drug deductible or coinsurance, median out-of-pocket spending increased by 15.0%, and changes were moderately correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.38; P = .001) but not net prices (r = 0.06; P = .62).Conclusions and relevanceSome commercially insured patients who pay only prescription drug copayments appear to be insulated from increases in drug prices. However, more than half of patients pay deductibles or coinsurance and may experience substantial increases in out-of-pocket spending when drug prices increase. Among these patients, there was no evidence that manufacturer rebates to insurers are associated with patients' out-of-pocket spending. Policies to rein in unregulated annual increases in list prices for brand-name drugs may have important consequences for patient out-of-pocket spending.
| S-EPMC8097497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The most recent cost estimates of cerebral palsy (CP) in Australia did not include out-of-pocket costs for families. This study aimed to: 1) describe and estimate out-of-pocket costs for people with CP and their families by age and gross motor function classification system (GMFCS) level; 2) measure financial distress. A cross-sectional quantitative survey design was used with qualitative approaches to analyse open-ended questions. A CP-specific out-of-pocket costs survey was co-designed with people with lived experience. Adults with CP and carers were recruited from Australian population-based CP Registers and via social media. Sociodemographic variables were analysed descriptively and median (IQR) expenses for health, assistive technology, personal care, housing, occupation, transport, leisure, respite and holidays, by age (0-6; 7-17; 18 years +) and gross motor function [GMFCS level I-II vs III-V] were calculated. The In Charge Financial Distress/Financial Wellbeing Scale measured financial distress. Regression analyses were conducted to investigate costs and financial distress. Additional out-of-pocket costs itemised in open-ended questions were charted. Comments were thematically analysed using the framework approach. 271 surveys were completed for children 0-6 years (n = 47), children/adolescents 7-17 years (n = 124) and adults (n = 100). 94% of participants had out-of-pocket costs associated with CP, with an overall annual median of $4,460 Australian dollars (IQR $11,955). After controlling for income, private insurance and disability funding, the GMFCS III-V group had costs two times higher than the GMFCS I-II group (2.01; 95% CI 1.15-3.51). Age was not significantly associated with costs. 36% of participants had high to overwhelming financial distress; this was not associated with age or GMFCS level after controlling for financial factors. Families had several additional disability costs. Open-ended responses revealed experiences of financial concern were influenced by funding scheme experiences, reduced income, uncertainty, access to support networks and an inability to afford CP-related costs. Cost estimates and financial distress indicators should inform policy, funding and clinical decisions when planning interventions to support people with CP and their families.
| S-EPMC10358956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over 1.7 billion children lack access to surgical care, mostly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with substantial risks of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and impoverishment. Increasing interest in reducing out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures as a tool to reduce the rate of poverty is growing. However, the impact of reducing OOP expenditures on CHE remains poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to estimate the global impact of reducing OOP expenditures for pediatric surgical care on the risk of CHE within and between countries. Our goal was to estimate the impact of reducing OOP expenditures for surgical care in children for 149 countries by modeling the risk of CHE under various scale-up scenarios using publicly available World Bank data. Scenarios included reducing OOP expenditures from baseline levels to paying 70%, 50%, 30%, and 10% of OOP expenditures. We also compared the impact of these reductions across income quintiles (poorest, poor, middle, rich, richest) and differences by country income level (low-income, lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries).Reducing OOP expenditures benefited people from all countries and income quintiles, although the benefits were not equal. The risk of CHE due to a surgical procedure for children was highest in low-income countries. An unexpected observation was that upper-middle income countries were at higher risk for CHE than LMICs. The most vulnerable regions were Africa and Latin America. Across all countries, the poorest quintile had the greatest risk for CHE. Increasing interest in financial protection programs to reduce OOP expenditures is growing in many areas of global health. Reducing OOP expenditures benefited people from all countries and income quintiles, although the benefits were not equal across countries, wealth groups, or even by wealth groups within countries. Understanding these complexities is critical to develop appropriate policies to minimize the risks of poverty.
| S-EPMC10817198 | biostudies-literature