BACKGROUND: Medication cost conversations occur less frequently than patients prefer, and it is unclear whether patients have positive experiences with them when they do occur.
OBJECTIVE: To describe patients\' experiences discussing their medication costs with their health care team.
METHODS: Cross-sectional survey.
METHODS: Nationally representative survey fielded in the United States in 2022 (response rate = 48.5%).
METHODS: 1020 adults over age 65.
METHODS: Primary measures were adapted from Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers Survey visit survey v4.0 and captured patients\' experiences of medication cost conversations. Additional measures captured patients\' interest in future cost conversations, the type of clinicians with whom they would be comfortable discussing costs, and sociodemographic characteristics.
RESULTS: Among 1020 respondents who discussed medication prices with their health care team, 39.3% were 75 or older and 78.6% were non-Hispanic White. Forty-three percent of respondents indicated that their prior medication cost conversation was not easy to understand; 3% indicated their health care team was not respectful and 26% indicated their health care team was somewhat respectful during their last conversation; 48% indicated that there was not enough time. Those reporting that their prior discussion was not easy to understand or that their clinician was not definitely respectful were less likely to be interested in future discussions. Only 6% and 10% of respondents indicated being comfortable discussing medication prices with financial counselors or social workers, respectively. Few differences in responses were observed by survey participant characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional survey of prior experiences may be subject to recall bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults who engaged in prior medication cost conversations, many report that these conversations are not easy to understand and that almost one-third of clinicians were somewhat or not respectful. Efforts to increase the frequency of medication cost conversations should consider parallel interventions to ensure the discussions are effective at informing prescribing decisions and reducing cost-related medication nonadherence.

Direct and indirect costs of care influence patients\' health choices and the ability to implement those choices. Despite the significant impact of care costs on patients\' health and daily lives, patient decision aid (PtDA) and shared decision-making (SDM) guidelines almost never mention a discussion of costs of treatment options as part of minimum standards or quality criteria. Given the growing study of the impact of costs in health decisions and the rising costs of care more broadly, in fall 2021 we organized a symposium at the Society for Medical Decision Making\'s annual meeting. The focus was on the role of cost information in PtDAs and SDM. Panelists gave an overview of work in this space at this virtual meeting, and attendees engaged in rich discussion with the panelists about the state of the problem as well as ideas and challenges in incorporating cost-related issues into routine care. This article summarizes and extends our discussion based on the literature in this area and calls for action. We recommend that PtDA and SDM guidelines routinely include a discussion of direct and indirect care costs and that researchers measure the frequency, quality, and response to this information.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of cost conversations on the following decision-making outcomes: patients\' knowledge about their conditions and treatment options, decisional conflict, and patient involvement.
METHODS: In 2020 we performed a secondary analysis of a randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters from trials run between 2007 and 2015. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized trials and one pre-post-prospective study comparing care with and without shared decision-making (SDM) tools.
RESULTS: The majority of trial participants were female (61%) and White (86%), with a mean age of 56, some college education (68%), and an income greater than or equal to $40,000 per year (75%), and who did not participate in an encounter aided by an SDM tool (52%). Cost conversations occurred in 106 encounters (48%). In encounters with SDM tools, having a cost conversation lead to lower uncertainty scores (2.1 vs 2.6, P=.02), and higher knowledge (0.7 vs 0.6, P=.04) and patient involvement scores (20 vs 15.7, P=.009) than in encounters using SDM tools where cost conversations did not occur. In a multivariate model, we found slightly worse decisional conflict scores when patients started cost conversations as opposed to when the clinicians started cost conversations. Furthermore, we found higher levels of knowledge when conversations included indirect versus direct cost issues.
CONCLUSIONS: Cost conversations have a minimal but favorable impact on decision-making outcomes in clinical encounters, particularly when they occurred in encounters aided by an SDM tool that raises cost as an issue.

BACKGROUND: Costs of care are important to patients making cancer treatment decisions, but clinicians often do not feel prepared to discuss treatment costs. We aim to (1) assess the impact of a conversation-based decision aid (Option Grid) containing cost information about slow-growing prostate cancer management options, combined with urologic surgeon training, on the frequency and quality of patient-urologic surgeon cost conversations, and (2) examine the impact of the decision aid and surgeon training on decision quality.
METHODS: We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in outpatient urology practices affiliated with a large academic medical center in the USA. We will randomize five urologic surgeons to four intervention sequences and enroll their patients with a first-time diagnosis of slow-growing prostate cancer independently at each period. Primary outcomes include frequency of cost conversations, initiator of cost conversations, and whether or not a referral is made to address costs. These outcomes will be collected by patient report (post-visit survey) and by observation (audio-recorded clinic visits) with consent. Other outcomes include the following: patient-reported decisional conflict post-visit and at 3-month follow-up, decision regret at 3-month follow-up, shared decision-making post-visit, communication post-visit, and financial toxicity post-visit and at 3-month follow-up; clinician-reported attitudes about shared decision-making before and after the study, and feasibility of sustained intervention use. We will use hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient-level outcomes, including urologic surgeon as a random effect to account for clustering of patient participants.
CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluates a two-part intervention to improve cost discussions between urologic surgeons and patients when deciding how to manage slow-growing prostate cancer. Establishing the effectiveness of the strategy under study will allow for its replication in other clinical decision contexts.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397016 . Registered on 21 May 2020.

As healthcare costs continue to rise, so does the importance of having cost-of-care conversations during medical office visits, especially for patients from vulnerable populations and patients with high-cost illnesses such as cancer. Such conversations remain relatively rare, however, even though physicians and patients say they want to have them. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for encouraging cost conversations and improving their quality.
The purpose of this project was to conduct a systematic review of the cost-of-care conversations literature, focusing on empirical studies to characterize the state of the literature and provide a foundation for developing evidence-based guidelines for these important conversations.
We searched seven electronic databases and identified an initial list of 1,986 records, 54 of which met inclusion criteria. We reviewed those articles to identify study purpose, use of theory, conceptual and operational definitions of cost conversations, sample characteristics, research methods, variables relevant to cost conversations, and relevant study findings.
Results revealed that this literature (a) consists overwhelmingly of cross-sectional survey research set in the United States, (b) defines cost conversations chiefly as those focused on healthcare or medication costs (either in general or out-of-pocket), (c) is focused primarily on establishing incidence/frequency of cost conversations but also considers patient/provider desire for, attitudes/beliefs toward, and perceived barriers to cost conversations, and (d) lacks theoretical guidance. There were very few findings that could provide actionable evidence to guide quality conversations about reducing cost of care. We offer observations and recommendations for the next steps in cost conversations research so that patients and physicians can work together to promote quality care at affordable costs.