ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2017
How Primary Care Physicians Integrate Price Information into Clinical Decision-Making.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of a Peer Comparison and Educational Intervention on Medical Test Conversation Quality: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- The effect of medication cost transparency alerts on prescriber behavior.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Trial
- A Randomized Trial of Displaying Paid Price Information on Imaging Study and Procedure Ordering Rates.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Trial
- Price transparency in Iranian healthcare market.Health policy OPEN · 2024Review
- Helping Patients With Chronic Conditions Overcome Challenges of High-Deductible Health Plans: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Impact of implementing electronic prior authorization on medication filling in an electronic health record system in a large healthcare system.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Capsule Commentary on Schiavoni et al., How Primary Care Physicians Integrate Price Information into Clinical Decision Making.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Article
- Price Transparency for Primary Care Office Visits and Routine Tests: Results From a 2016 Audit Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about how primary care physicians (PCPs) in routine outpatient practice use paid price information (i.e., the amount that insurers finally pay providers) in daily clinical practice.
objectiveTo describe the experiences of PCPs who have had paid price information on tests and procedures for at least 1 year.
designCross-sectional study using semi-structured interviews and the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.
participantsForty-six PCPs within an accountable care organization.
interventionVia the ordering screen of their electronic health record, PCPs were presented with the median paid price for commonly ordered tests and procedures (e.g., blood tests, x-rays, CTs, MRIs). APPROACH: We asked PCPs for (a) their "gut reaction" to having paid price information, (b) the situations in which they used price information in clinical decision-making separate from or jointly with patients, (c) their thoughts on who bore the chief responsibility for discussing price information with patients, and (d) suggestions for improving physician-targeted price information interventions. KEY
resultsAmong "gut reactions" that ranged from positive to negative, all PCPs were more interested in having patient-specific price information than paid prices from the practice perspective. PCPs described that when patients' out-of-pocket spending concerns were revealed, price information helped them engage patients in conversations about how to alter treatment plans to make them more affordable. PCPs stated that having price information only slightly altered their test-ordering patterns and that they avoided mentioning prices when advising patients against unnecessary testing. Most PCPs asserted that physicians bear the chief responsibility for discussing prices with patients because of their clinical knowledge and relationships with patients. They wished for help from patients, practices, health plans, and society in order to support price transparency in healthcare.
conclusionsPhysician-targeted price transparency efforts may provide PCPs with the information they need to respond to patients' concerns regarding out-of-pocket affordability rather than that needed to change test-ordering habits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.