Physician Perspectives on Implementation of Real-Time Benefit Tools: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Objectives Congress and Medicare have required real-time benefit tools (RTBT) to provide patient-specific medication price information during prescribing to decrease the cost of medications. We sought physicians' perspectives on how these tools might most effectively improve their selection of low-cost medication.

Methods We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews of physicians (6 oncologists, 1 endocrinologist, 4 rheumatologists, and 4 from internal medicine) and identified key themes across interviews during coding and analysis.

Results Although physicians saw value in real-time medication price information, they were wary of the complexity of obtaining specific information and the potential for inaccuracies. Physicians described how medication price information would be used in various prescribing scenarios including from simple substitutions (different drug formulations) to more complex decisions (different drug classes). In more complex situations, physicians were concerned that price information might only be available after discussing options with the patient, which would be too late to inform decisions. Concern about adding more information to the electronic health record was common.

Conclusion While most physicians saw value in implementation of RTBTs, they also expressed concerns related to the accuracy of information, the availability of information at the right time in the clinical workflow, and the most effective format for information. Many concerns raised paralleled the “Five Rights of Clinical Decision Support” framework and indicate the need for additional design work to achieve benefit from RTBTs. Beyond the public policy that has supported the availability of RTBTs, substantial development will be required to ensure that information is used to improve prescribing decisions.

Keywords

costs - clinical decision support - qualitative - providers

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, and was reviewed by the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Institutional Review Board.

Publication History

Received: 23 May 2022

Accepted: 05 September 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
19 September 2022

Article published online:
09 November 2022

• References

• 1 Zolnierek KBH, Dimatteo MR. Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Med Care 2009; 47 (08) 826-834
• 2 Simpson SH, Eurich DT, Majumdar SR. et al. A meta-analysis of the association between adherence to drug therapy and mortality. BMJ 2006; 333 (7557): 15
• 3 Harrold LR, Briesacher BA, Peterson D. et al. Cost-related medication nonadherence in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2013; 40 (02) 137-143
• 4 Sloan CE, Millo L, Gutterman S, Ubel PA. Accuracy of physician estimates of out-of-pocket costs for medication filling. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4 (11) e2133188-e2133188
• 5 Sinaiko AD, Mehrotra A, Sood N. Cost-sharing obligations, high-deductible health plan growth, and shopping for health care: enrollees with skin in the game. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176 (03) 395-397
• 6 Abaluck J, Gruber J. Evolving choice inconsistencies in choice of prescription drug insurance. Am Econ Rev 2016; 106 (08) 2145-2184
• 7 42 USC §1395w-104(o) - Beneficiary protections for qualified prescription drug coverage
• 8 CMS. Medicare Advantage and Part D Drug Pricing Final Rule (CMS-4180-F). Accessed December 6, 2021 at: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicare-advantage-and-part-d-drug-pricing-final-rule-cms-4180-f
• 9 Federal Register. Medicare Program; Contract Year 2021 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage Program, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program, and Medicare Cost Plan Program. Published June 2, 2020. Accessed December 6, 2021 at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/02/2020-11342/medicare-program-contract-year-2021-policy-and-technical-changes-to-the-medicare-advantage-program
• 10 42 U.S. Code § 300jj - Definitions
• 11 Bhat S, Derington CG, Trinkley KE. Clinicians' values and preferences for medication adherence and cost clinical decision support in primary care: a qualitative study. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (03) 405-414
• 12 Mummadi SR, Mishra R. Effectiveness of provider price display in computerized physician order entry (CPOE) on healthcare quality: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (09) 1228-1239
• 13 Ancker JS, Edwards A, Nosal S, Hauser D, Mauer E, Kaushal R. with the HITEC Investigators. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17 (01) 36
• 14 Page N, Baysari MT, Westbrook JI. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interruptive medication prescribing alerts in hospital CPOE systems to change prescriber behavior and improve patient safety. Int J Med Inform 2017; 105: 22-30
• 15 Menachemi N, Rahurkar S, Harle CA, Vest JR. The benefits of health information exchange: an updated systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (09) 1259-1265
• 16 Sirajuddin AM, Osheroff JA, Sittig DF, Chuo J, Velasco F, Collins DA. Implementation pearls from a new guidebook on improving medication use and outcomes with clinical decision support. Effective CDS is essential for addressing healthcare performance improvement imperatives. J Healthc Inf Manag 2009; 23 (04) 38-45
• 17 Hunter WG, Hesson A, Davis JK. et al. Patient-physician discussions about costs: definitions and impact on cost conversation incidence estimates. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16 (01) 108
• 18 Alexander GC, Casalino LP, Meltzer DO. Patient-physician communication about out-of-pocket costs. JAMA 2003; 290 (07) 953-958
• 19 Davison A, Merrey J. NCPDP Foundation RTPB Grant: Final Report. Accessed September 30, 2022 at: http://ncpdpfoundation.org/pdf/NCPDPFoundationRTPBGrant_FinalReport.pdf
• 20 Patel MR, Wheeler JR. Physician-patient communication on cost and affordability in asthma care. Who wants to talk about it and who is actually doing it. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014; 11 (10) 1538-1544
• 21 Perez SL, Weissman A, Read S. et al. US internists' perspectives on discussing cost of care with patients: structured interviews and a survey. Ann Intern Med 2019; 170 (9_Suppl): S39-S45
• 22 Tarn DM, Paterniti DA, Heritage J, Hays RD, Kravitz RL, Wenger NS. Physician communication about the cost and acquisition of newly prescribed medications. Am J Manag Care 2006; 12 (11) 657-664
• 23 Carroll JK, Farah S, Fortuna RJ. et al. Addressing medication costs during primary care visits: a before–after study of team-based training. Ann Intern Med 2019; 170 (9_Suppl): S46-S53
• 24 Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T. et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 2018; 52 (04) 1893-1907
• 25 Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19 (06) 349-357
• 26 Campbell R. The five “rights” of clinical decision support. J AHIMA 2013; 84 (10) 42-47 , quiz 48
• 27 Digital Healthcare Research. Section 2 - Overview of CDS Five Rights. Accessed December 6, 2021 at: https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/current-health-it-priorities/clinical-decision-support-cds/chapter-1-approaching-clinical-decision/section-2-overview-cds-five-rights
• 28 Everson J, Henderson SC, Cheng A, Senft N, Whitmore C, Dusetzina SB. Demand for and occurrence of medication cost conversations: a narrative review. Med Care Res Rev 2022; DOI: 10.1177/10775587221108042.