Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Providence St. Joseph rolls out new end-of-life initiatives


Dr. Ira Byock would make weeklong trips to his hometown in New Jersey to drive his dad to radiation therapy as he battled pancreatic cancer.
The daily 2½-hour ritual would stir up memories as Byock and his dad took the side roads through familiar neighborhoods. His father would talk about selling the family business, a small cigarette wholesale and vending business built from scratch. He shared what it was like to be dying, striking a similar tone to when he taught Byock the difference between right and wrong decades earlier.
During one appointment, Byock’s dad rested his eyes as they waited in the cancer center, and said, “They give you only six months to live, and then, little by little, they take it back from you.”
These conversations are at the core of Providence St. Joseph’s new end-of-life initiatives.
“We are trying to create a new environment where it’s easier to ask these questions, listen better and document all this in the electronic health record so it’s part of the routine,” said Byock, who is the founder and chief medical officer of Providence St. Joseph Health’s Institute for Human Caring.
The Renton, Wash.-based health system is offering a new advanced directive online toolkit—available in multiple languages and tailored for each of the seven states where the health system operates—that helps patients choose what type of end-of-life care they want, accessible through Providence St. Joseph’s electronic health record. The EHR will alert doctors if treatments contradict a patient’s requests and refer patients to goals-of-care plans and advance directives.
The organization is training its physicians and staff across its 51-hospital network to help them broach these end-of-life conversations and clarify realistic outcomes prior to potentially burdensome treatments.
Providence St. Joseph also sends patients and families videos and other resources to help them understand their medical conditions and options for care near the end of life. Its Institute for Human Caring also created a storytelling project called Hear Me Now, in partnership with StoryCorps, which offers patients, family members and professional caregivers a platform to share personal stories related to “whole-person care.”
“For some clinicians, it’s easier to say we will just do more,” said Dr. Rod Hochman, president and CEO of Providence St. Joseph. “That resonates with my own family.”
When Hochman’s dad had a stroke, he had to battle with a physician who wanted to prescribe hypothermic therapy and other aggressive treatments, even though the scans showed that the extra effort would ultimately be futile, Hochman said.
“It gave me an appreciation for what we put our patients through all the time. And it helps me appreciate what our clinicians need to do,” he said.
More hospitals are implementing end-of-life or palliative-care programs. The proportion of U.S. hospitals with more than 50 beds that had a palliative-care program tripled from 2000 to 2015, from 25% to 75%, according to a studypublished in Health Affairs last year.
Researchers credited the change to the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s educational efforts and leadership training initiative. About two-thirds of the 1,800 hospitals that now have palliative-care programs participated in the center’s program, even though the dominant fee-for-service reimbursement model does not encourage palliative care.
But new payment models are driving more discussions about palliative care. New codes in the 2016 physician fee schedule meant that doctors would get paid for end-of-life planning.
Nearly 23,000 providers billed Medicare for end-of-life planning appointments on behalf of about 575,000 Medicare beneficiaries in 2016, according to the CMS. Utilization picked up in the second half of the year after 220,000 patients used the services through the first six months of 2016. Providers received $43 million in Medicare reimbursement that year.
The economics are not a barrier anymore, but there are still cultural hurdles, Byock said.
“This is still misinterpreted as being about death or only necessary when someone is seriously ill,” Byock said. “People have to understand that excellence in care needs to be highly tailored to them as a person and not just a problem list.”
Palliative care is an important part of the industry’s value-based mantra and one of its aims to reduce unnecessary care, but it requires difficult conversations about quality of life. Families must weigh whether often financially and physically taxing treatment is worthwhile. Physicians may be reluctant to initiate the conversation if they are already feeling overwhelmed.
About 13% of total healthcare spending was devoted to individuals in their last year of life, according to a study published in the American Public Health Association.
“As health systems do end-of-life care better, it’s better for the overall cost of care and the patients, but also for health systems,” Hochman said.
During another ride back from treatment, Byock’s dad declined an offer to join friends for coffee. He told his son that being sick is embarrassing, and it makes other people uncomfortable. Byock tightened his jaw as he blinked back tears.
His dad’s doctor had the best intentions in offering the radiation therapy, but he was holding on to an unlikely reality at his father’s expense, Byock said.
“We have to acknowledge that we are all mortal,” he said. “We should explore the full use of medical therapy, but in the larger context of a full and healthy human life.”

More Treatments for Multiple Myeloma Could Soon be Available


Within the next six years, the multiple myeloma market is projected to be $37.5 billion – an incredible growth of $30 billion since 2015, when the market was valued at about $7.5 billion.
Market drivers are expected to include the “constant introduction of newer and effective therapeutic options and high adoption rates of the same,” according to an analysis conducted by Grand View Research. Celgene’s blockbuster drug Revlimid is one of the biggest drugs in the multiple myeloma space, bringing in about $2 billion in annual revenue for the company. But more medications could soon be available to treat patients with various forms of the disease.
Multiple myeloma is an incurable cancer found in bone marrow. There are more than 118,000 people living with, or in remission from, multiple myeloma in the United States. Approximately 30,280 Americans are diagnosed with multiple myeloma each year and 12,590 patient deaths are reported on an annual basis, according to the American Cancer Society.
In the last three years the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several new therapies aimed at treating multiple myeloma, including Novartis’ Farydak, which was approved in 2015, Janssen’s Darzalex, a CD38-directed antibody that picked up a new indication for multiple myeloma earlier this month; Takeda’s Ninlaro, which was approved by the FDA in 2015; and Empliciti, co-developed by AbbVie and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The new drug approvals have provided some therapeutic benefit to multiple myeloma patients but there are more treatments in development, with some near to seeking FDA approval.
Earlier this month Newton, Mass.-based Karyopharm Therapeutics announced it will seek FDA approval for its investigational drug selinexor following strong top-line results from a Phase IIb trial. Karyopharm said 25.4 percent of refractory multiple myeloma patients on the drug achieved an overall response during the mid-stage trial. Karyopharm said that strong response included two complete responses and 29 partial or very good partial responses. The median duration of response was 4.4 months. With the strong results in hand, as well as the FDA’s Fast-Track designation, the company is aiming to seek approval later this year. Karyopharm said it will request an expedited review in order to potentially make the treatment more readily available for patients. The company also intends to seek regulatory approval in Europe from the European Medicines Agency in early 2019.
Also this month Janssen announced Darzalex in combination with Takeda’s Velcade and prednisone snagged FDA approval for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Approval was granted based on clinical studies that showed the combination treatment reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 50 percent. Andrzej Jakubowiak, a study investigator and director of the Multiple Myeloma Program at University of Chicago Medical Center, hailed the FDA approval. Jakubowiak said the treatment is the first antibody-based regimen for those transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients.
New Jersey-based Celgene is also eying approval for its late-stage multiple myeloma drug. In February the company said its combination treatment of Pomalyst/Imnovid (pomalidomide) plus bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone met its primary endpoint in progression-free survival in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Celgene said at the time that its triple-combination treatment was the only late-stage drug for patients who have previously been treated with Revlimid (lenalidomide) and had their cancer return. In the late-stage trial the triple combination therapy demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, Celgene announced. Paul Richardson, the director of Clinical Research at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and lead investigator of the Celgene trial, said researchers “see the PVd combination as an important step in improving care, and especially for patients previously treated with lenalidomide in this setting.”
Amgen is also banking on securing a new indication for its multiple myeloma drug Kyprolis. In October 2017 the company released late-stage data that a stronger weekly dose of Kyprolis combined with dexamethasone had a greater progression-free survival benefit of 3.6 months than a twice-weekly dose of the drug at the approved dosing level. The median progression-free survival in the once-per-week group was 11.2 months, compared to the 7.6 months for patients taking the twice-per-week dose combined with dexamethasone.
In addition to the late-stage drugs, there are multiple early and mid-stage drugs that look to be promising. In December 2017 Celgene and bluebird bio released data for an early stage CAR-T therapy for patients with late-stage relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma that yielded promising results. Seattle Genetics, launched a Phase I study in March for SGN-CD48A, an antibody-drug conjugate that has the potential to be used as a monotherapy treatment. The experimental SGN-CD48A targets the CD48 protein, which is highly expressed on multiple myeloma cells. Both of these treatments though are a long way away from becoming a reality for patients. There is a chance that neither one could ever make it to the FDA.

Serena tells of medical reason behind superhero catsuit


serena
A marvel on the tennis court, new mum Serena Williams is now sporting her own superhero outfit as she makes her return to Grand Slam tennis.
“I call it like my Wakanda-inspired catsuit. It’s really fun,” the American laughed, referencing the fictional Sub-Saharan African nation which is home to superhero Black Panther in Marvel Comics.
“I feel like a warrior in it, like a warrior princess kind of, queen from Wakanda maybe,” she said smiling, following her opening round victory over Kristyna Pliskova at the French Open on Tuesday.
“I’m always living in a fantasy world. I always wanted to be a superhero, and it’s kind of my way of being a superhero. I feel like a superhero when I wear it.”
Behind the jokes, there is also a more serious reason for the choice of skin-tight bodysuit outfit for the American who only had her daughter last September.
Serena has spoken about health concerns over blood clots in the days after giving birth, and on Tuesday said: “Yeah, the catsuit, I had a lot of problems with my blood clots, and, God, I don’t know how many I have had in the past 12 months.
“So it is definitely a little functionality to it. I have been wearing pants in general a lot when I play so I can keep, you know, the blood circulation going.
“It’s a fun suit, but it’s also functional so I can be ableto play without any problems.”
Next up for Serena is 17th seed Ashleigh Barty. The Australian would be forgiven for cursing her luck to have landed the most dangerous of floaters — with or without super powers.

Labs ‘Safe Havens’ In Health Services, Morgan Stanley Says In Quest Upgrade


Barely a month-and-a-half after upgrading Quest Diagnostics Inc DGX 0.51% to Equal-weight, Morgan Stanley turned incrementally positive on the shares.

The Analyst

Analyst Ricky Goldwasser upgraded shares of Quest Diagnostics from Equal-weight to Overweight and increased the price target from $103 to $120.

The Thesis

The long-term strategic partnership announced by UnitedHealth Group Inc UNH 1.13% with Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings LH 1.11% — and Aetna Inc AET 0.99%‘s deal with LabCorp — have served to remove contract overhang, signaling a “more disciplined pricing environment” going forward, Goldwasser said in a Tuesday note. (See the analyst’s track record here.)
“… Labs are relative safe havens within the health care services sector,” Goldwasser said.
The removal of contract overhang increases Morgan Stanley’s confidence in Quest’s ability to deliver earnings growth at the high end of its 3-5 percent long-term goal.
The company remains poised to expand its market share from 1.5-3.5 percent to 15 percent as it becomes an in-network provider for UnitedHealth’s members beginning Jan. 1, 2019, Goldwasser said.
“We expect Quest will capitalize the opportunity over a two-to-three-year period, translating to [an] incremental 470bp of volume per year through 2021.”
Citing volume increase from the UnitedHealth contract that was partly offset by lower pricing and lost Aetna volume, Morgan Stanley increased its 2019 revenue and earnings per share estimates for Quest from $7.903 billion and $6.88 to $8.055 billion and $7.02, respectively.
The firm also raised its 2020 estimates, with EPS forecast to come in 6.5 percent higher than Quest’s guidance.

American Diabetes Assn urges improved insulin access


In a new policy statement, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) provides specific short- and long-term recommendations for improving insulin access and affordability.
The average list price of insulin nearly tripled between 2002 and 2013. The rising costs and lack of access for many with diabetes have become a political flashpoint. On May 8, the US Senate Special Committee on Aging held a hearing devoted to the topic. On the same day, the ADA published a white paper that includes advice for clinicians on how to help minimize out-of-pocket costs for patients.
The new statement, published online by the ADA, is a follow-up to the white paper and provides more specific public policy recommendations. It was written by Krista Maier, JD, Vice President of Public Policy and Strategic Alliances, and Meghan Riley, Vice President of Federal Government Affairs at the ADA.
Maier and Riley address four key areas: streamlining the biosimilar approval process, increasing pricing transparency throughout the insulin supply chain, reducing or removing patient cost-sharing for insulin, and increasing access to healthcare coverage for all people with diabetes.
“As the price of insulin continues to rise, so do patient costs. Individuals with diabetes are often forced to choose between purchasing their medications or paying for other necessities, exposing them to serious short-term and long-term consequences,” they write in the introduction.
The reasons for the increased prices are not entirely clear but “are due in part to the complexity of the drug supply chain,” Maier and Riley write.
“In order to solve this escalating problem of insulin affordability, there must be a better understanding of the transactions throughout the insulin supply chain, the impact each entity has on what people with diabetes pay for insulin, and the relative efficacy of therapeutic options.”

Insulin-Specific Recommendations

The statement calls for more insight into the factors involved in setting the list price, the starting point for negotiations throughout the supply chain, and “how changing list prices impact supply chain entities and patients.”
To that end, the ADA recommends “increased transparency throughout the full insulin supply chain,” and outlines specific information regarding insulin pricing that should be provided by each of the respective players: manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), health plans, and pharmacies.
The association also makes recommendations regarding competition and biosimilar insulins. To date three such follow-on biologics have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), of which two are currently available. Unlike generic drugs, which are typically priced at 50% to 80% less than the brand-name counterpart, follow-on insulins are listed at approximately 15% less than the original versions.
According to the authors, increasing available options could further lower costs. Thus, the association recommends “the FDA continue its efforts to encourage additional competition within the insulin landscape, including fostering biosimilar competition.”
The association also calls upon both government and private health plans to make changes to prescription drug benefit plans to cover insulin without patient cost-sharing. “At minimum, we recommend insulins not be subject to a deductible nor co-insurance, since this exposes people with diabetes to high list prices…If cost-sharing is imposed for insulins, it should be a flat dollar amount, which can be more manageable and consistent for consumers.”
In addition, when there are deductibles or co-insurance for insulins, “the ADA recommends all discounts negotiated amongst the various supply chain entities (manufacturers, pharmacies, PBMs) be incorporated into the calculation of patient costs, ensuring patients pay the lowest price available.”

Improving Access and Affordability of All Medications

In more general recommendations covering all medications, ADA advises that both Medicare and commercial health plans be required to impose caps on out-of-pocket spending.
They also say health plans should be prohibited from removing medications from prescription drug formularies or moving medications to a higher tier during plan years, barring an FDA-announced safety issue. Moreover, formularies should be evidence-based and offer “a wide range of options within each therapeutic area.”
In line with the original intent of the Affordable Care Act, the ADA statement calls for every US state to expand Medicaid eligibility to people earning less than 138% of the federal poverty level.
In addition, “states should take steps to maintain or improve upon existing consumer protections that ensure people with diabetes have meaningful access to adequate, affordable health insurance coverage,” and ensure that consumers have easy access to all plan information, including in non-English versions.
In their conclusion, Maier and Riley explain that the transparency goals should help achieve the cost-reduction aims.
“When more is known about the transactions throughout the supply chain, it is likely additional promising public policy proposals will emerge,” they state.
“In the meantime, the ADA recommends policymakers take any steps necessary to ensure all people with diabetes have affordable access to insulin, regardless of where they live, whether they have insurance, and how much money they earn.”
The statement authors are employees of the ADA.
ADA Public Policy Statement. Published online May 24, 2018. Full text

Oxytocin ‘Not Best’ for Postpartum Hemorrhage Prevention


Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), defined as maternal blood loss of 500 mL or more within 24 hours after delivery, is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends treatment with oxytocin to reduce the risk for excessive postpartum bleeding, but a new meta-analysis suggests that other drug regimens may be more effective.
The meta-analysis included data on more than 88,000 women. Ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin monotherapy, or misoprostol plus oxytocin were all associated with a reduced risk for PPH compared with oxytocin alone, Ioannis D. Gallos, MD, from Tommy’s National Center for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, UK, and colleagues report. Their findings were published online April 25 in the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews.
However, the analysis does not include results from two key studies that were ongoing at the time these findings were published, the authors add. “Both trials are expected to report in 2018 and these results will be incorporated when this review is updated.”
Also, most of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low quality, with only one group of studies associated with high-quality evidence. In addition, the authors warn that more information is needed on practical issues identified as priorities for women and their families.

Avoidable Drain on Resources

PPH accounted for up to one third of the 303,000 postpartum maternal deaths that occurred in 2015, mostly in low- and middle-income countries, Gallos and colleagues write. Even when death is avoided, these patients often require hysterectomy, blood transfusions, and additional care that can tax limited resources in these nations.
Seventy-five percent of PPH cases result from uterine atony, or failure of the uterus to contract following childbirth. To prevent this and lower the risk for PPH, uterotonic agents are recommended as part of the active management of the third stage of labor to promote uterine contraction.
Currently, oxytocin is the most widely used of several uterotonic agents and is the one recommended by WHO, but “it is still debatable which drug is best,” the authors explain. Their aim in this review “was to find out which drug is most effective in preventing excessive blood loss at childbirth and has the least side effects. We collected and analyzed all the relevant studies to answer this question.”

Questions About Data Quality

The network meta-analysis included 140 randomized controlled comparisons or cluster trials of effectiveness or side effects of uterotonic agents. Altogether, there were data on 88,947 women.
Most of the trials were conducted in hospital settings on women undergoing vaginal delivery at more than 37 weeks of gestation. The authors caution that the risk of bias was uncertain as a result of poor study design, particularly in the carbetocin trials.
Gallos and colleagues found that about 10.5% of women treated with oxytocin alone experienced PPH associated with blood loss of 500 mL or more, compared with 7.2%, 7.6%, and 7.7% of women treated with ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin alone, or misoprostol plus oxytocin, respectively.
Compared with oxytocin, the risk ratio (RR) for blood loss of 500 mL or more associated with ergometrine plus oxytocin was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 – 0.83). Carbetocin had an RR of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.52 – 1.00), and misoprostol plus oxytocin, of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.60 – 0.90). The evidence underpinning these studies ranged from moderate to very low quality.
In a similar analysis of treatment preventing PPH of 1000 mL or more, ergometrine plus oxytocin was associated with an RR of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.61 – 0.95); carbetocin, of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.38 – 1.28); and misoprostol plus oxytocin, of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.72 – 1.14), compared with oxytocin alone. The evidence for ergometrine plus oxytocin was high quality; for the other studies, it ranged from moderate to low quality.
However, the ergometrine-oxytocin combination also was associated with a higher risk for vomiting compared with oxytocin (RR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.11 – 4.56; high-quality evidence) and hypertension (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.55 – 5.66; low-quality evidence), and misoprostol-oxytocin carried a higher risk for fever (RR, 3.18; 95% CI, 2.22 – 4.55; moderate-quality evidence). “Carbetocin had similar risk for side effects compared with oxytocin although the quality evidence was very low for vomiting and for fever, and was low for hypertension,” the authors report.
Of the two studies slated for publication in 2018, one is a multicenter study comparing the effectiveness of oxytocin to a new carbetocin preparation in women undergoing vaginal delivery. The trial is being conducted in 10 countries, includes approximately 30,000 women, and is being led by WHO.
The second UK-based trial has enrolled more than 6000 women and consists of a three-group comparison among carbetocin, oxytocin, and the ergometrine-oxytocin combination.

More Attention to Patient Concerns Needed

On the basis of the current analysis, “ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination were more effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL than the current standard oxytocin,” the authors conclude. “Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination was more effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL than oxytocin.”
However, they caution that the evidence for misoprostol plus oxytocin was less consistent, perhaps as a result of variations in doses and administration routes used in the various studies.
Carbetocin was associated with the most benign side-effect profile, although most of the relevant trials “were small and at high risk of bias.”
Future studies should address issues that are of concern to patients and their families but rarely covered in current research, such as questions about specific drugs, clinical signs of PPH, any impact on ability to breastfeed, and risk for admission to the neonatal unit, the authors add. “Consumers also considered the side effects of uterotonic drugs to be important and these were often not reported.”
In addition to information on the findings of the two large trials now underway, future updates of this review will include a set of standardized PPH outcomes that are currently being developed. “We would hope that future trials would also consider adopting those outcomes,” the authors write.
Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Novartis have provided carbetocin and oxytocin for trials. WHO/Merck for Mothers is providing support for an ongoing study. The authors have reported financial relationships with WHO, MSD for Mothers, and Amma Life. A complete list of disclosures is included in the review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4:CD011689. Abstract

Healthcare Price Information Availability Worsening


Despite growing support for greater price transparency, US hospitals were worse at providing price estimates for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in 2016 than they were in 2011-2012, a follow-up survey of 120 facilities reports.
“Our results provide sobering evidence that substantial efforts from government and industry to improve pricing transparency have had little tangible effect on availability of prices,” write Safiyyah Mahomed, BSc, a medical student at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and colleagues in a JAMA Internal Medicine research letter published online May 29.
Posing as the granddaughter of a 62-year-old woman needing a THA, the researchers contacted 120 hospitals in 2016 seeking the lowest cash bundled price, an amount that included all hospital and physician costs. If unable to quote a physician’s THA fee, the hospital was asked for the name of an orthopedic surgery practice that could confirm the fee. Contacting each hospital at least five times, the investigators categorized answers as no price information, partial information (hospital or physician price only), complete information (separately obtained hospital plus doctor cost), or bundled hospital-physician price.
Although clear price information is seen as crucial to patients for informed healthcare decision-making, the 2016 survey showed a decline in transparency across almost all measures since a predecessor survey that was conducted in 2011 and analyzed in 2012. The proportion of hospitals providing a bundled-price estimate dropped from 15.8% (19/120) in 2012 to 6.7% (8/120) in 2016, for an odds ratio (OR) of 0.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0 – 0.8; P = .001). Those supplying a complete price declined from 47.5% (57/120) to 20.8% (25/120), for an OR of 0.2 (95% CI, 0.1 – 0.5; < .001). Partial price availability was up slightly to 28.3% (34/120) compared with 22.5% (27/120) in 2012 (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7 – 2.5; = .38).
The proportion unable to supply any pricing information rose steeply from 14.2% (17/120) to 44.2% (53/120) for an OR of 4.6 (95% CI, 2.3 – 10.2; < .001).
“We were quite surprised to see that the availability of price information substantially declined since our last survey,” Mahomed told Medscape Medical News. “We’re not sure why, but the factors are likely complex, and it seems that hospitals have not taken the necessary steps to make it easy for consumers to get this information.”
Because so few hospitals were able to supply details for comparison, the mean bundled or complete price for THA declined slightly from 2012’s $44,306.42 to $37,917.50 in 2016 (P = .11). The mean hospital-only cost was $33,276.78 in 2012 and $35,105.30 in 2016 (P = .72). Mean physician price rose slightly from $6583.62 in 2012 to $6988.05 in 2016.
In an invited commentary, Anna D. Sinaiko, MPP, PhD, an assistant professor of health economics and policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, calls out the small minority of hospitals that dispensed full information and the resulting adverse implications for healthcare consumers. “The inaccessibility of price information in the US health care system prevents patients from anticipating and incorporating their health care costs into care-seeking decisions and from choosing the best-value clinician (physician or facility),” she writes.
Greater price transparency, she argues, could streamline the healthcare market by incentivizing doctors to lower costs or stress better quality of care, making it harder to charge significantly higher prices without quality improvement — prices Sinaiko says help drive up US healthcare spending relative to that of other countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
She notes recent efforts to improve price transparency, including web-based price calculators and legislation in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Ohio mandating the provision of hospital/physician price estimates before treatment. So far, such measures appear to be ineffective. In 2016, Medscape Medical News reported that price transparency and electronic healthcare shopping by consumers did not decrease healthcare spending. Last month it also reported that few consumers were shopping electronically for pretreatment pricing information, suggesting the need for new transparency strategies.
One of these is a new model in which clinicians act as fiduciary healthcare purchasers. An important step toward transparency will be to consider physicians as “‘buyers’ of healthcare services on behalf of their patients when ordering tests and procedures, making referrals, or prescribing drugs,” Sinaiko writes. “[E]fforts should be made to increase physician-patient cost conversations and to improve physician-directed price transparency so that physicians and patients understand tradeoffs and make better decisions about care together.”
To achieve this outcome, Sinaiko says physicians must be rewarded for lower-priced, higher-value care without limiting access, in a carrot-vs-stick approach.
Currently, doctors are not ideal purveyors of pricing information — for reasons including lack of details on patient deductibles and year-to-date out-of-pocket spending. Recasting clinicians as healthcare buyers will be part of the solution to price transparency, she concludes.
This study received no funding. The authors and editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
JAMA Intern Med. Published online May 29, 2018. AbstractEditorial