Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30819156›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Discussing patients' insurance and out-of-pocket expenses during GPs' consultations.

A Victoor, J Noordman, A Potappel, M Meijers, C J J Kloek, J D de Jong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

A VictoorNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), PO Box 1568, 3500, BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands. a.victoor@nivel.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2645-8872
J NoordmanNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), PO Box 1568, 3500, BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A PotappelNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), PO Box 1568, 3500, BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M MeijersNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), PO Box 1568, 3500, BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
C J J KloekNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), PO Box 1568, 3500, BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J D de JongNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), PO Box 1568, 3500, BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Cooperation VGZ Not applicableMinisterie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport Not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenerally, a significant portion of healthcare spending consists of out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses. Patients indicate that, in practice, there are often some OOP expenses, incurred when they receive medical care, which are unexpected for them and should have been taken into account when deciding on a course of action. Patients are often reliant on their GP and may, therefore, expect their GP to provide them with information about the costs of treatment options, taking into consideration their individual insurance plan. This also applies to the Netherlands, where OOP expenses increased rapidly over the years. In the current study, we observed the degree to which matters around patients' insurance and OOP expenses are discussed in the Netherlands, using video recordings of consultations between patients and GPs.

methodsVideo recordings were collected from patient-GP consultations in 2015-2016. In 2015, 20 GPs and 392 patients from the eastern part of the Netherlands participated. In 2016, another eight GPs and 102 patients participated, spread throughout the Netherlands. The consultations were coded by three observers using an observation protocol. We achieved an almost perfect inter-rater agreement (Kappa = .82).

resultsIn total, 475 consultations were analysed. In 9.5% of all the consultations, issues concerning patients' health insurance and OOP expenses were discussed. The reimbursement of the cost of medication was discussed most often and patients' current insurance and co-payments least often. In some consultations, the GP brought up the subject, while in others, the patient initiated the discussion.

conclusionsWhile GPs may often be in the position to provide patients with information about treatment alternatives, few patients discuss the financial effects of their referral or prescription with their GP. This result complies with existing literature. Policy makers, GPs and insurers should think about how GPs and patients can be facilitated when considering the OOP expenses of treatment. There are several factors why this study, analysing video recordings of routine GP consultations in the Netherlands, is particularly relevant: Dutch GPs play a gatekeeper function; OOP expenses have increased relatively swiftly; and patients have both the right to decide on their treatment, and to choose a provider.

Indexed as

Financing, PersonalGeneral PractitionersHealth ExpendituresInsurance, HealthReferral and ConsultationDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPhysician-Patient RelationsVideo RecordingCommunicationDecision-makingGeneral practiceInsuranceObservational studyOut-of-pocket expensesPatient involvementVideo recording

Identifiers

PMID30819156
PMCPMC6394009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.