The impact of expressions of treatment efficacy and out-of-pocket expenses on patient and physician interest in osteoporosis treatment: implications for pay-for-performance programs.
BACKGROUND
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are increasingly used as the basis for pay-for-performance (P4P) programs. It is unclear how support for guidelines varies when treatment efficacy is expressed in varying mathematically equivalent ways.


OBJECTIVE
To assess: (1) how patient and provider compliance with osteoporosis CPGs varies when pharmacotherapy efficacy is presented as relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR) and (2) the impact of increasing out-of-pocket drug expenditures on acceptance of guideline concordant therapy.


METHODS
Cross-sectional survey of patients and physicians.


METHODS
Female patients age >50 years and providers drawn from academic and community outpatient clinics.


METHODS
Patient and provider acceptance of pharmacotherapy when treatment efficacy (reduction in hip fractures) was expressed alternatively in relative terms (35% RRR) versus absolute terms (1% ARR); acceptance of pharmacotherapy as patient drug copayment increased from 0% to 100% of the total drug costs.


RESULTS
Compliance with CPGs fell significantly when the expression of treatment benefit was switched from RRR to ARR for both patients (86% vs 57% compliance; P < .001) and physicians (97% vs 56% compliance; P < .001). Increasing drug copayment from 0% to 10% of total drug cost decreased patient compliance with CPGs from 80% to 57% (P < .001) but did not impact physician compliance. With increasing levels of copay, both patient and provider interest in treatment decreased.


CONCLUSIONS
Respondents may not have fully understood the risks and benefits associated with osteoporosis and its treatment.


CONCLUSIONS
Patient and provider interest in CPG-recommended treatment for osteoporosis is reduced when treatment benefit is expressed as ARR rather than RRR. In addition, minimal increases in drug copayment significantly decreased patient, but not provider, interest in osteoporosis treatment. Designers of P4P programs should consider details including expressions of treatment benefit and patients' out-of-pocket costs when developing measures to assess quality-of-care.
Sinsky
Christine A
CA
Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Associates Clinic and Health Plans, Dubuque, IA 52001, USA. csinsky1@mahealthcare.com
Foreman-Hoffman
Valerie
V
Cram
Peter
P
D000328:Adult; D054869:Clinical Audit; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D003669:Deductibles and Coinsurance; D004164:Diphosphonates / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D005260:Female; D050723:Fractures, Bone / Q000517:prevention & control; D005102:Health Expenditures / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010024:Osteoporosis / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000191:economics*; D010349:Patient Compliance; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012052:Reimbursement, Incentive; D012306:Risk; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D004164:Diphosphonates