Regina Kwon1, Larry A Allen2,3, Laura D Scherer4, Jocelyn S Thompson3, Madiha F Abdel-Maksoud5, Colleen K McIlvennan2,3, Daniel D Matlock3,6,7. 1. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 3. Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, USA. 6. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 7. VA Eastern Colorado Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Denver, CO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unrestrained use of expensive, high-risk interventions runs counter to the idea of a limited medical commons. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of displaying the total first-year cost of implanting a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) on a hypothetical treatment decision and whether this effect differs when choosing for oneself versus for another person. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey in February 2016. The survey described the clinical course of end-stage heart failure and the risks and benefits of an LVAD. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 scenarios, which varied by patient identity (oneself versus another person) and description of total cost. MEASUREMENTS: This study measured acceptance of LVAD implantation. Reasoning and attitudes were secondarily explored. RESULTS: We received 1211 valid responses. The mean age was 38.3 y (±12.8); 53.5% were female and 84.4% were white. Participants were more likely to accept an LVAD when shown the total cost (66.2% v. 58.0%, P = 0.003) or when choosing for another (68.0 % v. 56.4%, P < 0.001). Open-ended responses indicated that acceptors wanted to extend survival while decliners feared poor quality of life with LVAD therapy. Acceptors and decliners agreed that consumers can help lower the cost of health care, but decliners were more likely to consider cost when making health care decisions ( P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the use of a hypothetical scenario, the use of paid participants, and differences between the respondents and the typical patient facing an LVAD decision. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, being shown the total cost increased the likelihood of accepting an expensive, high-risk treatment. The results question how well consumers understand the relationship between expensive treatments and the commons.
BACKGROUND: Unrestrained use of expensive, high-risk interventions runs counter to the idea of a limited medical commons. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of displaying the total first-year cost of implanting a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) on a hypothetical treatment decision and whether this effect differs when choosing for oneself versus for another person. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey in February 2016. The survey described the clinical course of end-stage heart failure and the risks and benefits of an LVAD. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 scenarios, which varied by patient identity (oneself versus another person) and description of total cost. MEASUREMENTS: This study measured acceptance of LVAD implantation. Reasoning and attitudes were secondarily explored. RESULTS: We received 1211 valid responses. The mean age was 38.3 y (±12.8); 53.5% were female and 84.4% were white. Participants were more likely to accept an LVAD when shown the total cost (66.2% v. 58.0%, P = 0.003) or when choosing for another (68.0 % v. 56.4%, P < 0.001). Open-ended responses indicated that acceptors wanted to extend survival while decliners feared poor quality of life with LVAD therapy. Acceptors and decliners agreed that consumers can help lower the cost of health care, but decliners were more likely to consider cost when making health care decisions ( P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the use of a hypothetical scenario, the use of paid participants, and differences between the respondents and the typical patient facing an LVAD decision. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, being shown the total cost increased the likelihood of accepting an expensive, high-risk treatment. The results question how well consumers understand the relationship between expensive treatments and the commons.
Entities:
Keywords:
decision aids; end-of-life care; ethics; health care costs; patient decision making; preferences; quality of life
Authors: Joseph G Rogers; Robin R Bostic; Kuo B Tong; Rob Adamson; Mark Russo; Mark S Slaughter Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Candace D McNaughton; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Sunil Kripalani; Russell L Rothman; Kenneth A Wallston Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Mattias Neyt; Ann Van den Bruel; Yolba Smit; Nicolaas De Jonge; Michiel Erasmus; Diederik Van Dijk; Joan Vlayen Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: W Droogne; S Jacobs; K Van den Bossche; J Verhoeven; R R Bostic; J Vanhaecke; J Van Cleemput; F Rega; B Meyns Journal: Acta Clin Belg Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 1.264
Authors: Julianna F Lampropulos; Nancy Kim; Yun Wang; Mayur M Desai; José Augusto S Barreto-Filho; John A Dodson; Daniel L Dries; Abeel A Mangi; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Open Heart Date: 2014-08-05
Authors: Thompson Zhuang; Joost T P Kortlever; Lauren M Shapiro; Laurence Baker; Alex H S Harris; Robin N Kamal Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 2.230