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

BackgroundExcessive 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.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151851/1/acem13823_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151851/2/acem13823-sup-0001-DataSupplementS1.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151851/3/acem13823.pd

Recent insights into targeting the IL-6 cytokine family in inflammatory diseases and cancer

The IL-6 family of cytokines consists of IL-6, IL-11, IL-27, IL-31, oncostatin M (OSM), leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF), ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF), cardiotrophin 1 (CT-1) and cardiotrophin-like cytokine factor 1 (CLCF1). Membership of this cytokine family is defined by usage of common β-receptor signalling subunits, which activate various intracellular signalling pathways. Each IL-6 family member elicits responses essential to the physiological control of immune homeostasis, haematopoiesis, inflammation, development and metabolism. Accordingly, distortion of these cytokine activities often promotes chronic disease and cancer; the pathological importance of this is exemplified by the successful treatment of certain autoimmune conditions with drugs that target the IL-6 pathway. Here, we discuss the emerging roles for IL-6 family members in infection, chronic inflammation, autoimmunity and cancer and review therapeutic strategies designed to manipulate these cytokines in disease