Some past studies have not shown that care management lowers costs. But a study published in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine reports lower costs and fewer hospital admissions in people who received telephone-based care management that included the use of shared decision-making tools to help patients understand that they have options and to understand the tradeoffs involved in the different options.
There are many other compelling moral reasons to employ shared decision-making more commonly in health care. But money speaks, and this study may drive new attention to shared decision-making.
The NEJM paper was submitted by a team from Health Dialog Services in Boston, with Dr. David Wennberg as its lead author.
(Disclosure: The Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making, which supports my HealthNewsReview.org project, derives much of its funding from a partnership with Health Dialog. In collaboration with Health Dialog, the Foundation produces patient decision aids to support a shared decision making process. This partnership provides the Foundation with funding in the form of royalties used to fund research, support clinical demonstration sites, and advance the mission to amplify the patient’s voice in health care decisions.) David Wennberg is the son of Jack Wennberg, the Dartmouth medical school pioneer in small area variations research. Jack is also a co-founder of FIMDM, for whom I worked throughout the ’90s.
The total reduction in health care costs was 3.6% in the enhanced-support group – or about $8 less on average per person per month than in the usual-support group. The cost of the intervention was less than $2 per month.
The team defines the “enhanced support group” arm of the study as the group for whom a greater number of subjects were made eligible for health coaching through lower cutoff points for predicted future costs and through the expansion of the number of qualifying health conditions. Wennberg credits their “analytics” for helping to identify the correct population.
What seems noteworthy is that most of the lower costs were attributed to reduced inpatient and outpatient hospital spending. The hospital admission rate was 10% lower in the enhanced-support group. The team reports, “This reduction was almost entirely accounted for by a 13.3% population-based reduction in admissions for high-variation medical conditions and an 11.5% reduction in admissions for preference-sensitive conditions.”
One group of study subjects had chronic conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and asthma. These people received behavior change and motivational counseling, as did people with high-risk conditions such as heart arrythmias, angina, obesity, tobacco use, depression or anxiety, hypertension with complications, back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, hyperlipidemia, abdominal pain – or people with multiple hospital or emergency room visits. Wennberg told me people in this category had “chaotic health care utilization patterns with lots of emergency room use.”
But the preference-sensitive category included people at risk for surgical intervention with conditions such as back surgery, knee or hip replacement or repair, heart bypass, prostate surgery for BPH, hysterectomy or myomectomy for benign uterine conditions. This was the group that received shared decision-making help.
In an interview, Wennberg called the results “a fairly large effect size, and not in any specific group but consistent across all groups.”
I asked him about the net $6 savings per month – $8 in cost reductions minus intervention costs of <$2/month. He said this was undoubtedly an underestimate of actual cost reductions, since there also would have been reduced out-of-pocket and copay costs for people in the enchanced-support group. Wennberg said the cost reduction in this study was far greater than that accepted as a goal in much of the Patient Protection Act & Affordable Care Act debate. And it is the potential for such work to have an impact on health policy discussions and on health care reform that makes it so intriguing. Many have looked for greater evidence of impact from shared decision-making. This study helps make the case. But the real money quote from Wennberg came at the end of our conversation when he said: “We see so many people who are simply battered by the health care system. They’re confused and unable to get even basic information on how to navigate their way through. This isn’t age-dependent; we see it in moms and dads worried about their kids on up through the Medicare population. It is sad to see how often people simply don’t know that they have options.” And that’s what shared decision-making gives them.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Mike Pierce
September 22, 2010 at 9:51 pmThe results are very encouraging for wider adoption of SDM directly within corporations and organizations with high risk employee sub-populations. It would take years and countless consultations through a wellness or disease management program to demonstrate similar effects. Because outcomes are often improved or steady, this type of in-year ROI cannot be ignored and is compelling justification as a complementary benefit to traditional wellness programs. David’s final quote accurately personalizes the value proposition from an employee perspective, and when supported by the cost savings, identifies a powerful option for employers in reducing their spend while improving employee health. Businesses and their policy trade groups would be well served to embrace and advocate these programs.
Jeff Kreisberg
September 23, 2010 at 9:21 amIn order to be able to participate in your healthcare you must be informed which means that the provider must communicate and create meaning for the patient. To create the trust that is needed for effective patient-centered care providers need to be attuned to not only the emotions of their patients but also their own emotionality. The tools necessary to be an effective communicator and, hence, an excellent physician can be taught and measured. For shared decision making to succeed medical schools must include communication in their curricula. I can remember my classmates looking down on to their patients in the VA as alchies- cirrhotic livers and atrophied minds- not worthy of their respect. This attitude, which was taught by example, does not build trust that is needed for shared decision making to succeed.
PC Wizards
October 4, 2010 at 7:39 amLet’s hope this encourages greater doctor-patient communication, but it shouldn’t merely be cost savings that provides incentive to doctors and the health care system as a whole to work with patients to allow them to make fully informed decision-making regarding their health care and treatment options.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like