Search

Background: Decision makers are increasingly tasked with reducing health care costs, but the public may be mistrustful of these efforts. Public deliberation helps gather input on these types of issues by convening a group of diverse individuals to learn about and discuss values-based dilemmas.Objective: To explore public perceptions of health care costs and how they intersect with medical mistrust.Design and Participants: This mixed-methods study analyzed data from a randomized controlled trial including four public deliberation groups (n = 96) and a control group (n = 348) comprising English-speaking adults aged 18 years and older. Data were collected in 2012 in four U.S. regions.Approach: We used data from four survey items to compare attitude shifts about costs among participants in deliberation groups to participants in the control group. We qualitatively analyzed deliberation transcripts to identify themes related to attitude shifts and to provide context for quantitative results about attitude shifts.Key Results: Deliberation participants were significantly more likely than control group participants to agree that doctors and patients should consider cost when making treatment decisions (β = 0.59; p < 0.01) and that people should consider the effect on group premiums when making treatment decisions (β = 0.48; p < 0.01). Qualitatively, participants mistrusted the health care system's profit motives (e.g., that systems prioritize making money over patient needs); however, after grappling with patient/doctor autonomy and learning about and examining their own views related to costs during the process of deliberation, they largely concluded that payers have the right to set some boundaries to curb costs.Conclusions: Individuals who are informed about costs may be receptive to boundaries that reduce societal health care costs, despite their mistrust of the health care system's profit motives, especially if decision makers communicate their rationale in a transparent manner. Future work should aim to develop transparent policies and practices that earn public trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The healthcare system is ill-equipped to meet the needs of adults on the autism spectrum.Objective: Our goal was to use a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to develop and evaluate tools to facilitate the primary healthcare of autistic adults.Design: Toolkit development included cognitive interviewing and test-retest reliability studies. Evaluation consisted of a mixed-methods, single-arm pre/post-intervention comparison.Participants: A total of 259 autistic adults and 51 primary care providers (PCPs) residing in the United States.Interventions: The AASPIRE Healthcare toolkit includes the Autism Healthcare Accommodations Tool (AHAT)-a tool that allows patients to create a personalized accommodations report for their PCP-and general healthcare- and autism-related information, worksheets, checklists, and resources for patients and healthcare providers.Main Measures: Satisfaction with patient-provider communication, healthcare self-efficacy, barriers to healthcare, and satisfaction with the toolkit's usability and utility; responses to open-ended questions.Key Results: Preliminary testing of the AHAT demonstrated strong content validity and adequate test-retest stability. Almost all patient participants (>94 %) felt that the AHAT and the toolkit were easy to use, important, and useful. In pre/post-intervention comparisons, the mean number of barriers decreased (from 4.07 to 2.82, p < 0.0001), healthcare self-efficacy increased (from 37.9 to 39.4, p = 0.02), and satisfaction with PCP communication improved (from 30.9 to 32.6, p = 0.03). Patients stated that the toolkit helped clarify their needs, enabled them to self-advocate and prepare for visits more effectively, and positively influenced provider behavior. Most of the PCPs surveyed read the AHAT (97 %), rated it as moderately or very useful (82 %), and would recommend it to other patients (87 %).Conclusions: The CBPR process resulted in a reliable healthcare accommodation tool and a highly accessible healthcare toolkit. Patients and providers indicated that the tools positively impacted healthcare interactions. The toolkit has the potential to reduce barriers to healthcare and improve healthcare self-efficacy and patient-provider communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many Veterans treated within the VA Healthcare System (VA) are also enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare and receive treatment outside the VA. Prior research has not accounted for the multiple ways that Veterans receive services across healthcare systems.Objective: We aimed to establish a typology of VA and Medicare utilization among dually enrolled Veterans with type 2 diabetes.Design: This was a retrospective cohort.Participants: 316,775 community-dwelling Veterans age ≥ 65 years with type 2 diabetes who were dually enrolled in the VA and FFS Medicare in 2008-2009.Methods: Using latent class analysis, we identified classes of Veterans based upon their probability of using VA and Medicare diabetes care services, including patient visits, laboratory tests, glucose test strips, and medications. We compared the amount of healthcare use between classes and identified factors associated with class membership using multinomial regression.Key Results: We identified four distinct latent classes: class 1 (53.9%) had high probabilities of VA use and low probabilities of Medicare use; classes 2 (17.2%), 3 (21.8%), and 4 (7.0%) had high probabilities of VA and Medicare use, but differed in their Medicare services used. For example, Veterans in class 3 received test strips exclusively through Medicare, while Veterans in class 4 were reliant on Medicare for medications. Living ≥ 40 miles from a VA predicted membership in classes 3 (OR 1.1, CI 1.06-1.15) and 4 (OR 1.11, CI 1.04-1.18), while Medicaid eligibility predicted membership in class 4 (OR 4.30, CI 4.10-4.51).Conclusions: Veterans with diabetes can be grouped into four distinct classes of dual health system use, representing a novel way to characterize how patients use multiple services across healthcare systems. This classification has applications for identifying patients facing differential risk from care fragmentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Patients are increasingly being given access to their test results, but little is known about how preferences vary with the test under consideration or the results of the test (normal or abnormal).Objective: This study was conducted to examine preferences for test result communication.Design, Setting, and Participants: We surveyed adults to explore their preferences for test result notification for three common diagnostic tests of varying "emotional impact" (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA], genital herpes, and cancer biopsy) when test results were 1) normal and 2) abnormal. We conducted our survey between June and August 2012 on the campus of an academic medical center. For each scenario, subjects were asked to rank seven methods that might be used to communicate test results (letter, unsecured email, secured email, text message, telephone call, secure Web portal, office visit) in order of acceptability.Main Outcome Measures: The main measures were the percentage of respondents who ranked a particular test result notification method favorably and the percentage who ranked it as unacceptable.Results: When test results were normal, subjects' notification preferences were generally similar for DXA, herpes and cancer biopsy, with telephone and letter ranked most favorably for all three tests. Conversely, text message and unsecured email were viewed as unacceptable notification methods for normal results by 45.0-55.0 % of subjects across all three tests. When test results were abnormal, office visits became more popular. A higher proportion of subjects ranked office visits as their most preferred notification method for our test with high "emotional impact" (cancer biopsy) (38.4 %) as compared to DXA (28.2 %) and herpes (27.9 %) (P = 0.02). For most test scenarios, younger subjects appeared to rank electronic communication modalities (secure email or Web portal) higher than older subjects, though this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.29).Conclusions: Preferences for test result notification can differ substantially depending upon the test under consideration and results of the test. Providers and health care systems should consider these factors when deciding how to communicate results to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]