Show simple item record

The Effect of Financial Incentives on Patient Decisions to Undergo Low‐value Head Computed Tomography Scans

dc.contributor.authorIyengar, Rahul
dc.contributor.authorWinkels, Jessica L.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Chelsea Morrow
dc.contributor.authorMeka, Arjun P.
dc.contributor.authorPorath, Jonathan D.
dc.contributor.authorMeurer, William J.
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-30T15:30:20Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHS
dc.date.available2019-10-30T15:30:20Z
dc.date.issued2019-10
dc.identifier.citationIyengar, Rahul; Winkels, Jessica L.; Smith, Chelsea Morrow; Meka, Arjun P.; Porath, Jonathan D.; Meurer, William J. (2019). "The Effect of Financial Incentives on Patient Decisions to Undergo Low‐value Head Computed Tomography Scans." Academic Emergency Medicine 26(10): 1117-1124.
dc.identifier.issn1069-6563
dc.identifier.issn1553-2712
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/151851
dc.description.abstractBackgroundExcessive diagnostic testing and defensive medicine contribute to billions of dollars in avoidable costs in the United States annually. Our objective was to determine the influence of financial incentives, accompanied with information regarding test risk and benefit, on patient preference for diagnostic testing.MethodsWe conducted a cross‐sectional survey of patients at the University of Michigan emergency department (ED). Each participant was presented with a hypothetical scenario involving an ED visit following minor traumatic brain injury. Participants were given information regarding potential benefit (detecting brain hemorrhage) and risk (developing cancer) of head computed tomography scan, as well as an incentive of $0 or $100 to forego testing. We used 0.1 and 1% for test benefit and risk, and values for risk, benefit, and financial incentive varied across participants. Our primary outcome was patient preference to undergo testing. We also collected demographic and numeracy information. We then used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs), which were adjusted for multiple potential confounders. Our sample size was designed to find at least 300 events (preference for testing) to allow for inclusion of up to 30 covariates in fully adjusted models. We had 85% to 90% power to detect a 10% absolute difference in testing rate across groups, assuming a 95% significance level.ResultsWe surveyed 913 patients. Increasing test benefit from 0.1% to 1% significantly increased test acceptance (adjusted OR [AOR] = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 2.1) and increasing test risk from 0.1% to 1% significantly decreased test acceptance (AOR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.52 to 0.93). Finally, a $100 incentive to forego low‐value testing significantly reduced test acceptance (AOR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4 to 0.8).ConclusionsProviding financial incentives to forego testing significantly decreased patient preference for testing, even when accounting for test benefit and risk. This work is preliminary and hypothetical and requires confirmation in larger patient cohorts facing these actual decisions.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.titleThe Effect of Financial Incentives on Patient Decisions to Undergo Low‐value Head Computed Tomography Scans
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151851/1/acem13823_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151851/2/acem13823-sup-0001-DataSupplementS1.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151851/3/acem13823.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/acem.13823
dc.identifier.sourceAcademic Emergency Medicine
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMello MM, Chandra A, Gawande AA, Studdert DM. National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010; 29: 1569 – 77.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSharp AL, Nagaraj G, Rippberger EJ, et al. Computed tomography use for adults with head injury: describing likely avoidable emergency department imaging based on the Canadian CT Head Rule. Acad Emerg Med 2017; 24: 22 – 30.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerrington de González A. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 2071.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePolaris JJ, Katz JN. “Appropriate” diagnostic testing: supporting diagnostics with evidence‐based medicine and shared decision making. BMC Res Notes 2014; 7: 922.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKressin NR, Atz JM. Mind the outcomes. JAMA 2013; 309: 39.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeka AP, Porath JD, Iyengar R, Morrow C, Fagerlin A, Meurer WJ. Risk, benefit, and cost thresholds for emergency department testing: a cross‐sectional, scenario‐based study. Acad Emerg Med 2017; 24: 686 – 90.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePorath JD, Meka AP, Morrow C, et al. Patient preferences for diagnostic testing in the emergency department: a cross‐sectional study. Acad Emerg Med 2018; 25: 627 – 33.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGiuffrida A, Torgerson DJ. Should we pay the patient? Review of financial incentives to enhance patient compliance. BMJ 1997; 315: 703 – 7.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoriates C, Shah NT, Arora VM. First, do no (financial) harm. JAMA 2013; 310: 577.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWu J. Rewarding healthy behaviors–pay patients for performance. Ann Fam Med 2012; 10: 261 – 3.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchapira MM, Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J Health Commun 2006; 11: 569 – 82.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrust‐Renck PG, Royer CE, Reyna VF. Communicating numerical risk. Rev Hum Factors Ergon 2013; 8: 235 – 76.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography–an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2277 – 84.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFagerlin A, Zikmund‐Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 672 – 80.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.