Ivy Altomare1, Blair Irwin2, Syed Yousuf Zafar2, Kevin Houck2, Bailey Maloney2, Rachel Greenup2, Jeffrey Peppercorn2. 1. Duke University Medical Center; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham; North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; Massachusetts General Hospital; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA ivy.altomare@duke.edu. 2. Duke University Medical Center; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham; North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; Massachusetts General Hospital; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We surveyed US cancer doctors to examine current attitudes toward cost discussions and how they influence decision making and practice management. METHODS: We conducted a self-administered, anonymous, electronic survey of randomly selected physician ASCO members to evaluate the frequency and nature of cost discussions reported by physicians, attitudes toward discussions of cost in clinics, and potential barriers. RESULTS: A total of 333 of 2,290 physicians responded (response rate [RR], 15%; adjusted RR after omitting nonpracticing physician ASCO members, 25%), Respondent practice settings were 45% academic and 55% community/private practice. Overall, 60% reported addressing costs frequently/always in clinic, whereas 40% addressed costs rarely/never. The largest reported barrier was lack of resources to guide discussions. Those who reported frequent discussions were significantly more likely to prioritize treatments in terms of cost and believed doctors should explain patient and societal costs. A total of 36%did not believe that doctors should discuss costs with patients. Academic practitioners were significantly less likely to discuss costs (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; P = .001) and felt less prepared for such discussions (OR, 0.492; P = .005) but were more likely to consider costs to the patient (OR, 2.68; P = .02) and society (OR, 1.822; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Although the majority of respondents believe it is important to consider out-of-pocket costs to patients, a substantial proportion do not discuss or consider costs of cancer care. Lack of consensus on the importance of such discussions and uncertainty regarding the optimal timing and content appear to be barriers to addressing costs of care with patients.
PURPOSE: We surveyed US cancer doctors to examine current attitudes toward cost discussions and how they influence decision making and practice management. METHODS: We conducted a self-administered, anonymous, electronic survey of randomly selected physician ASCO members to evaluate the frequency and nature of cost discussions reported by physicians, attitudes toward discussions of cost in clinics, and potential barriers. RESULTS: A total of 333 of 2,290 physicians responded (response rate [RR], 15%; adjusted RR after omitting nonpracticing physician ASCO members, 25%), Respondent practice settings were 45% academic and 55% community/private practice. Overall, 60% reported addressing costs frequently/always in clinic, whereas 40% addressed costs rarely/never. The largest reported barrier was lack of resources to guide discussions. Those who reported frequent discussions were significantly more likely to prioritize treatments in terms of cost and believed doctors should explain patient and societal costs. A total of 36%did not believe that doctors should discuss costs with patients. Academic practitioners were significantly less likely to discuss costs (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; P = .001) and felt less prepared for such discussions (OR, 0.492; P = .005) but were more likely to consider costs to the patient (OR, 2.68; P = .02) and society (OR, 1.822; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Although the majority of respondents believe it is important to consider out-of-pocket costs to patients, a substantial proportion do not discuss or consider costs of cancer care. Lack of consensus on the importance of such discussions and uncertainty regarding the optimal timing and content appear to be barriers to addressing costs of care with patients.
Authors: Mark C Hornbrook; Jennifer Malin; Jane C Weeks; Solomon B Makgoeng; Nancy L Keating; Arnold L Potosky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Scott R Berry; Chaim M Bell; Peter A Ubel; William K Evans; Eric Nadler; Elizabeth L Strevel; Peter J Neumann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Yousuf Zafar; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Deborah Schrag; Donald H Taylor; Amy M Goetzinger; Xiaoyin Zhong; Amy P Abernethy Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-02-26
Authors: Susanne J de Kort; Nuala Kenny; Paul van Dijk; Sjef Gevers; Dick J Richel; Dick L Willems Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-07-09 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Lauren M Hamel; Louis A Penner; Susan Eggly; Robert Chapman; Justin F Klamerus; Michael S Simon; Sarah C E Stanton; Terrance L Albrecht Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Rahma Warsame; Lindsay Riordan; Sarah Jenkins; Kandace Lackore; Joel Pacyna; Ryan Antiel; Timothy Beebe; Mark Liebow; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Michael Grover; Matthew Wynia; Susan Dorr Goold; Matthew DeCamp; Marion Danis; Jon Tilburt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Xuesong Han; Jingxuan Zhao; Zhiyuan Zheng; Janet S de Moor; Katherine S Virgo; K Robin Yabroff Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 4.254