Marie-Anne Durand1, Paul J Barr2, Thom Walsh3, Glyn Elwyn4. 1. The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, 37 Dewey Field Rd, Hanover, NH 03768, USA; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, 35 Centera, Lebanon, NH 03766, USA. Electronic address: durand.marieanne@gmail.com. 2. The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, 37 Dewey Field Rd, Hanover, NH 03768, USA; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, 35 Centera, Lebanon, NH 03766, USA. Electronic address: Paul.J.Barr@dartmouth.edu. 3. The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, 37 Dewey Field Rd, Hanover, NH 03768, USA; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, 35 Centera, Lebanon, NH 03766, USA. Electronic address: thom.walsh9@gmail.com. 4. The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, 37 Dewey Field Rd, Hanover, NH 03768, USA; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, 35 Centera, Lebanon, NH 03766, USA. Electronic address: glyn.elwyn@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act raised significant interest in the process of shared decision making, the role of patient decision aids, and incentivizing their utilization. However, it has not been clear how best to put incentives into practice, and how the implementation of shared decision making and the use of patient decision aids would be measured. Our goal was to review developments and proposals put forward. METHODS: We performed a qualitative document analysis following a pragmatic search of Medline, Google, Google Scholar, Business Source Complete (Ebscohost), and LexisNexis from 2009-2013 using the following key words: "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", "Decision Making", "Affordable Care Act", "Shared Decision Making", "measurement", "incentives", and "payment." RESULTS: We observed a lack of clarity about how to measure shared decision making, about how best to reward the use of patient decisions aids, and therefore how best to incentivize the process. Many documents clearly imply that providing and disseminating patient decision aids might be equivalent to shared decision making. However, there is little evidence that these tools, when used by patients in advance of clinical encounters, lead to significant change in patient-provider communication. The assessment of shared decision making for performance management remains challenging. CONCLUSION: Efforts to incentivize shared decision making are at risk of being limited to the promotion of patient decision aids, passing over the opportunity to influence the communication processes between patients and providers.
BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act raised significant interest in the process of shared decision making, the role of patient decision aids, and incentivizing their utilization. However, it has not been clear how best to put incentives into practice, and how the implementation of shared decision making and the use of patient decision aids would be measured. Our goal was to review developments and proposals put forward. METHODS: We performed a qualitative document analysis following a pragmatic search of Medline, Google, Google Scholar, Business Source Complete (Ebscohost), and LexisNexis from 2009-2013 using the following key words: "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", "Decision Making", "Affordable Care Act", "Shared Decision Making", "measurement", "incentives", and "payment." RESULTS: We observed a lack of clarity about how to measure shared decision making, about how best to reward the use of patient decisions aids, and therefore how best to incentivize the process. Many documents clearly imply that providing and disseminating patient decision aids might be equivalent to shared decision making. However, there is little evidence that these tools, when used by patients in advance of clinical encounters, lead to significant change in patient-provider communication. The assessment of shared decision making for performance management remains challenging. CONCLUSION: Efforts to incentivize shared decision making are at risk of being limited to the promotion of patient decision aids, passing over the opportunity to influence the communication processes between patients and providers.
Authors: Joseph D Shirk; Catherine M Crespi; Josemanuel D Saucedo; Sylvia Lambrechts; Ely Dahan; Robert Kaplan; Christopher Saigal Journal: Patient Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Rachel H DeMeester; Fanny Y Lopez; Jennifer E Moore; Scott C Cook; Marshall H Chin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Wynne Callon; Somnath Saha; Ira B Wilson; Michael Barton Laws; Michele Massa; P Todd Korthuis; Victoria Sharp; Jonathan Cohn; Richard D Moore; Mary Catherine Beach Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-12-16
Authors: Aisha T Langford; Stephen K Williams; Melanie Applegate; Olugbenga Ogedegbe; Ronald S Braithwaite Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Noel Engels; Gretchen N de Graav; Paul van der Nat; Marinus van den Dorpel; Anne M Stiggelbout; Willem Jan Bos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 3.006