OBJECTIVES: In the European context of falling reimbursement rates for some osteoarthritis (OA) treatments, we performed a study to determine whether the cost covered by patients influenced the decisions of their physicians' prescriptions for medication. METHODS: The study involved 106 general practitioners (GPs) and 82 rheumatologists. Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment. Scenarios were generated including seven treatment attributes with associated different levels: pain relief, improvement in function, retardation of joint degradation, risk of moderate side effects, risk of serious side effects, cost borne by the patient and degree of patient acceptance of the treatment. KEY FINDINGS: OA treatment choices were significantly influenced by pain relief (β = 1.1533, P < 0.0001 for GPs and β = 0.5043, P = 0.0024 for rheumatologists), improvement in function (β = 1.2140 for GPs and β = 0.7192 for rheumatologists, P < 0.0001), annual cost to the patient (β = -0.0054 for GPs and β = -0.0038 for rheumatologists, P < 0.0001) and serious side effects (β = -0.5524 for GPs and β = -0.4268 for rheumatologists, P < 0.0001). The risk of moderate side effects only had an impact on GP decision making (β = 0.0282, P = 0.0028). All physicians were willing to make patients bear an extra annual cost of: (1) €225 among GPs and €189 among rheumatologists so that they could benefit from one unit improvement in function; and (2) €214 among GPs and €133 among rheumatologists so that they could benefit from a one unit improvement in pain relief. CONCLUSION: When making decisions about which treatment to prescribe, physicians take into account the cost to patients. Changes in reimbursement rates for some OA treatments may lead to changes in prescribing practices.
OBJECTIVES: In the European context of falling reimbursement rates for some osteoarthritis (OA) treatments, we performed a study to determine whether the cost covered by patients influenced the decisions of their physicians' prescriptions for medication. METHODS: The study involved 106 general practitioners (GPs) and 82 rheumatologists. Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment. Scenarios were generated including seven treatment attributes with associated different levels: pain relief, improvement in function, retardation of joint degradation, risk of moderate side effects, risk of serious side effects, cost borne by the patient and degree of patient acceptance of the treatment. KEY FINDINGS: OA treatment choices were significantly influenced by pain relief (β = 1.1533, P < 0.0001 for GPs and β = 0.5043, P = 0.0024 for rheumatologists), improvement in function (β = 1.2140 for GPs and β = 0.7192 for rheumatologists, P < 0.0001), annual cost to the patient (β = -0.0054 for GPs and β = -0.0038 for rheumatologists, P < 0.0001) and serious side effects (β = -0.5524 for GPs and β = -0.4268 for rheumatologists, P < 0.0001). The risk of moderate side effects only had an impact on GP decision making (β = 0.0282, P = 0.0028). All physicians were willing to make patients bear an extra annual cost of: (1) €225 among GPs and €189 among rheumatologists so that they could benefit from one unit improvement in function; and (2) €214 among GPs and €133 among rheumatologists so that they could benefit from a one unit improvement in pain relief. CONCLUSION: When making decisions about which treatment to prescribe, physicians take into account the cost to patients. Changes in reimbursement rates for some OA treatments may lead to changes in prescribing practices.