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

Real-world evidence of the effectiveness of ombitasvir-paritaprevir/r ± dasabuvir ± ribavirin in patients monoinfected with chronic hepatitis C or coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus-1 in Spain

Aim: We describe the effectiveness and safety of the interferon-free regimen ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir plus dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (OBV/PTV/r ± DSV ± RBV) in a nationwide representative sample of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) monoinfected and human immunodeficiency virus-1/hepatitis C virus (HIV/HCV) coinfected population in Spain. Material and methods: Data were collected from patients infected with HCV genotypes 1 or 4, with or without HIV-1 coinfection, treated with OBV/PTV/r ± DSV ± RBV at 61 Spanish sites within the initial implementation year of the first government-driven "National HCV plan." Effectiveness was assessed by sustained virologic response at post-treatment week 12 (SVR12) and compared between monoinfected and coinfected patients using a non-inferiority margin of 5% and a 90% confidence interval (CI). Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics or patients and adverse events (AEs) were also recorded. Results: Overall, 2,408 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 386 (16%) were patients with HIV/HCV. Patient selection reflected the real distribution of patients treated in each participating region in Spain. From the total population, 96.6% (95% CI, 95.8-97.3%) achieved SVR12. Noninferiority of SVR12 in coinfected patients was met, with a difference between monoinfected and coinfected patients of -2.2% (90% CI, -4.5% - 0.2%). Only genotype 4 was associated with non-response to OBV/PTV/r ± DSV ± RBV treatment (p<0.001) in the multivariate analysis. Overall, 286 patients (11.9%) presented AEs potentially related to OBV/PTV/r ± DSV, whereas 347 (29.0%) presented AEs potentially related to ribavirin and 61 (5.1%) interrupted ribavirin. Conclusions: Our results confirm that OBV/PTV/r ± DSV ± RBV is effective and generally well tolerated in a representative sample of the HCV monoinfected and HCV/HIV coinfected population in Spain within the experience of a national strategic plan to tackle HCV