I’d argue no, since doctors are trained to provide the best medical care for the patient, without cost being a factor. So, I’d say that this study suggests that physicians are doing pretty well in that regard:
Your doctor may be expert at diagnosing and treating your physical ailments, but if you think he’s going to keep a watchful eye on your wallet as well to prevent financial injury, think again. According to a new study, although doctors are very likely to recommend a generic over a brand-name drug to save patients money, when it comes to more complicated medical decisions, they frequently fail to consider patients’ potential out-of-pocket costs.
Related posts:
- Paying doctors off to use generic medications
- Should docs be paid for switching patients to generics?
- The Angry Pharmacist on the Medicare donut-hole
- Honoraria for doctors
- Does e-prescribing save prescription drug costs?
- How patients can annoy their doctors
- Rising diabetes drug costs
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 8 comments }
I’d argue the opposite, with this stipulation; whether to consider patient costs or not must be explicitly determined with each patient.
Some patients can be quite rational with their expenditures for health care as they are with other expenses. They wish to know that dollars spent have some probability of having some benefit. How much probability and benefit are will determine whether their expenditure is warranted versus other items with cost vs benefit/reward, like a college education, extra airbags in the car, or dish TV.
The patient’s ability to afford options would not change the physician’s advice. The physician would merely lay out the cost vs benefit for the strategies, allowing the patient, after this and other elements of informed consent, to choose what is best for them.
I agree with the first commenter. There should be a cost/benefit analysis done and that should involve the patient.
I went to a physician a few months ago, and when discussing some testing, he said something to the effect of, “Well since you have really good insurance, I say we do X and Y. It’s not like you’ll be paying for it.” I had to point out that I had a high deductible (that wouldn’t likely be met), so I’d be the one paying for it. I made it clear though that I would have no trouble paying for it, if he thought the test was a good idea and not just something he was ordering on a whim because Someone Else was picking up the tab. He responded saying X by itself was probably enough.
So even though I said I’d have no trouble paying it, the idea that it wasn’t some big rich insurance company eating the cost was enough for him to reverse his suggestion. I found that a bit interesting.
The trick, I think, for many doctors, is knowing which patients can be rational about their care and which will not be. But I’m just speculating.
Agree with first two posters. Awareness about cost has a potential to reduce unnecessary testing. A patient that pays a high deductible may be less likely to say “yes” to defensive tests or ask about the latest test he heard about on TV.
Moreover, I’d argue it is unethical to not consider the costs when it comes to tests ordered purely for defensive purposes. In this case, the patient ends up paying more for the doctor’s peace of mind than his or her own health.
Isn’t it often too complicated to know what the costs involved for testing/procedures are? I find that most patients don’t know if they have a deductible, etc., and only copay info is listed on the card.
In an ideal world, I agree wholeheartedly with a cost/benefit analysis of testing.
I think perhaps echocardiograms are the most over-ordered test done, perhaps because the ratio of reimbursement to cost is the highest of any procedure out there.
Any patient I send to a cardiologist’s office for anything gets an echo (and probably stress test, holter, ekg even though i’ve already done it & sent it with patient)
My BC/BS insurer now has costs of the most common procedures, tests, office visits, and surgeries on their website. The data comes from a company called Subimo. For instance, they list costs for spine MRI, mammograms, hip replacement surgery, etc. The costs they show are in-network, and they are the total cost, which is what the insurer pays plus what the patient pays. The patient would still have to know what their dedectible, copay or co-insurance was.
I think this is pretty useful, and at least it gives a patient a rough estimate of what certain things cost.
I imagine this same data is available somewhere for doctors to see.
It doesn’t enter my mind. When a patient is in office they are there for the best care period. There is no waffling if I think a test should be ordered. I order they decide and the answer is always yes if they want to know if I would have the same test done on a family member out of pocket.
To understand why it matters you need to know the difference between efficacy and effectiveness. Efficacy is how well a treatment works under ideal conditions. Effectiveness is how well a treatment works in the real world.
If a patient decides he/she can’t afford a treatment, the effectiveness becomes zero.
For any treatment to work, cost must absolutely be a considered factor (as well as efficacy, risk, convenience, etc.)
Anon at 11:08, does it mean you never order tests for purely defensive reasons? Is your “yes” answer always truthful?
Comments on this entry are closed.