Amber E Barnato1, Robert Moore2, Charity G Moore3, Neal D Kohatsu4, Rebecca L Sudore5. 1. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA. 2. Partnership Health Plan of California, Fairfield, California, USA. 3. Dickson Advanced Analytics, Carolinas Healthcare System, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. 4. Department of Health Care Services, State of California, Sacramento, California, USA. 5. San Francisco Veterans Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA; Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Medicaid populations have low rates of advance care planning (ACP). Potential policy interventions include financial incentives. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of patient plus provider financial incentive compared with provider financial incentive alone for increasing ACP discussions among Medicaid patients. METHODS:Between April 2014 and July 2015, we conducted two sequential assessor-blinded pragmatic randomized trials in a health plan that pays primary care providers (PCPs) $100 to discuss ACP: 1) a parallel cluster trial (provider-delivered patient incentive) and 2) an individual-level trial (mail-delivered patient incentive). Control and intervention arms included encouragement to complete ACP, instructions for using an online ACP tool, and (in the intervention arm) $50 for completing the online ACP tool and a small probability of $1000 (i.e., lottery) for discussing ACP with their PCP. The primary outcome was provider-reported ACP discussion within three months. RESULTS: In the provider-delivered patient incentive study, 38 PCPs were randomized to the intervention (n = 18) or control (n = 20) and given 10 patient packets each to distribute. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, there were 27 of 180 ACP discussions (15%) in the intervention group and 5 of 200 (2.5%) in the control group (P = .0391). In the mail-delivered patient incentive study, there were 5 of 187 ACP discussions (2.7%) in the intervention group and 5 of 189 (2.6%) in the control group (P = .99). CONCLUSION:ACP rates were low despite an existing provider financial incentive. Adding a provider-delivered patient financial incentive, but not a mail-delivered patient incentive, modestly increased ACP discussions. PCP encouragement combined with a patient incentive may be more powerful than either encouragement or incentive alone.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Medicaid populations have low rates of advance care planning (ACP). Potential policy interventions include financial incentives. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of patient plus provider financial incentive compared with provider financial incentive alone for increasing ACP discussions among Medicaid patients. METHODS: Between April 2014 and July 2015, we conducted two sequential assessor-blinded pragmatic randomized trials in a health plan that pays primary care providers (PCPs) $100 to discuss ACP: 1) a parallel cluster trial (provider-delivered patient incentive) and 2) an individual-level trial (mail-delivered patient incentive). Control and intervention arms included encouragement to complete ACP, instructions for using an online ACP tool, and (in the intervention arm) $50 for completing the online ACP tool and a small probability of $1000 (i.e., lottery) for discussing ACP with their PCP. The primary outcome was provider-reported ACP discussion within three months. RESULTS: In the provider-delivered patient incentive study, 38 PCPs were randomized to the intervention (n = 18) or control (n = 20) and given 10 patient packets each to distribute. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, there were 27 of 180 ACP discussions (15%) in the intervention group and 5 of 200 (2.5%) in the control group (P = .0391). In the mail-delivered patient incentive study, there were 5 of 187 ACP discussions (2.7%) in the intervention group and 5 of 189 (2.6%) in the control group (P = .99). CONCLUSION: ACP rates were low despite an existing provider financial incentive. Adding a provider-delivered patient financial incentive, but not a mail-delivered patient incentive, modestly increased ACP discussions. PCP encouragement combined with a patient incentive may be more powerful than either encouragement or incentive alone.
Authors: Olivia A Sacks; Kristin E Knutzen; Mark A Rudolph; Deepika Mohan; Amber E Barnato Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Yi-Jhen He; Ming-Hwai Lin; Jo-Lan Hsu; Bo-Ren Cheng; Tzeng-Ji Chen; Shinn-Jang Hwang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lauren J Hunt; Sarah B Garrett; Gabrielle Dressler; Rebecca Sudore; Christine S Ritchie; Krista L Harrison Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Oliver Robak; Sonia Vaida; Mostafa Somri; Luis Gaitini; Lisa Füreder; Michael Frass; Lukasz Szarpak Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Samuel U Takvorian; Justin Bekelman; Rinad S Beidas; Robert Schnoll; Alicia B W Clifton; Tasnim Salam; Peter Gabriel; E Paul Wileyto; Callie A Scott; David A Asch; Alison M Buttenheim; Katharine A Rendle; Krisda Chaiyachati; Rachel C Shelton; Sue Ware; Corey Chivers; Lynn M Schuchter; Pallavi Kumar; Lawrence N Shulman; Nina O'Connor; Adina Lieberman; Kelly Zentgraf; Ravi B Parikh Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-09-25 Impact factor: 7.327