Many medical guidelines don't consider costs

NEW YORK Tue May 7, 2013 5:08pm EDT

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Professional medical societies don't often consider costs when they're developing their treatment guidelines for specific conditions, according to a new study.

Researchers found that just over half of the top medical societies with at least 10,000 members considered costs when developing best practices. The other half either implicitly considered costs or didn't address them at all.

"Even when they said they looked at costs, they didn't seem to have a clear, consistent or rigorous way to do so," said Dr. Steven Pearson, the study's senior author and a visiting scientist in the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

Pearson and his colleague Dr. Jennifer Schwartz write in JAMA Internal Medicine that while a lot of debate has focused on the cost of healthcare in the U.S., few researchers have looked at whether professional societies develop their treatment recommendations with costs in mind.

Clinical guidelines are often crafted by professional medical societies to help doctors decide which therapies are best for certain conditions. But saying a treatment is not worth the cost may spark fears of care rationing.

"It's obviously very controversial about when costs should be included in the discussion of healthcare," Pearson said.

But the professional practice recommendations may factor into reimbursement policies among organizations that pay for treatment, like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

For the new study, the researchers examined the publicly available clinical guidelines issued by the 30 largest U.S. medical societies between 2008 and 2012 to see which ones discussed costs.

More than half - 17 of the 30 societies - explicitly included costs in their discussion of clinical guidelines, four at least implicitly considered costs, three purposely excluded costs and six did not mention prices.

The researchers then examined the 279 guidelines published by the 17 societies that included costs in their decisions. Based on that review, they found nine had a formal evaluation system for costs. The other eight societies had several methods to evaluate costs or didn't mention their process.

"I think it's encouraging the societies are now starting to include costs into their guidelines. And when they decide not to, I think it's important to be transparent about that," said Schwartz, a research fellow in the NIH Department of Bioethics.

Dr. Joseph Drozda, from the Center for Innovative Care at Mercy in Chesterfield, Missouri, said he believes more and more societies will be including cost analyses in their guidelines.

"(The researchers) caught it on the upslope so I think we're going to see more attention to cost in guidelines," said Drozda, the chair of the American College of Cardiology Foundation's Clinical Quality Committee who wrote a commentary accompanying the new study.

"I think clearly there is - over time - more of an interest in incorporating cost issues into guidelines," said Dr. Steven Weinberger, executive vice president and CEO of the American College of Physicians in Philadelphia.

"What a lot of organizations are doing - and certainly what we're doing - is recognizing that there are so many areas of overuse and misuse of care," said Weinberger, who has written about cost-conscious care but was not involved in the new research.

He added that the discussion of costs in healthcare is not about rationing, but finding which treatments offer the best value.

"I would really like to see a much more open dialogue between physicians and patients about costs," Weinberger said.

SOURCE: bit.ly/11QkvOK and bit.ly/11QkwCj JAMA Internal Medicine, online May 6, 2013.

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
jrj906202 wrote:
Since most of healthcare payments,are from third parties,neither patient or provider,cares how much doctors/hospitals charge.A real surprise,when you choose to be uninsured, get minor care,at a hospital emergency room,expecting to get a reasonable bill.A few weeks later,you get 4 bills,that are about 10X what any other business would charge,for equivalent services.At that point,all you can do,is refuse the ripoff and pay a more reasonable,still overpriced bill.Take a ding on your credit rating and move on.

May 08, 2013 12:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
oldtechie wrote:
You must remember that America does not have healthcare, we now have a “for profit medical business.” Capitalist medicine maximizes profits, even if it means drug companies pay billions of dollars in fines for selling drugs for unapproved uses since the fines are tiny compared to profits. Medicare fraud is well documented, probably widespread because few get caught.
But al this is part of the “medical bubble,” which, just like the “housing bubble” is headed for a meltdown. Medical costs in the US are currently ~1/6th of the GNP and at current growth rates will be 1/3 soon – a totally unsustainable number.
Are for-profit hospital systems, insurers and drug companies “too big to fail?”

May 08, 2013 2:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.