Birju R Rao, Larry A Allen, Alexander T Sandhu, Neal W Dickert
{"title":"Challenges Related to Out-of-Pocket Costs in Heart Failure Management.","authors":"Birju R Rao, Larry A Allen, Alexander T Sandhu, Neal W Dickert","doi":"10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.124.011584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>High out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity related to heart failure treatment are substantial concerns. Two of 4 pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, for example, carry high costs that may attenuate their uptake. Furthermore, heart failure rarely occurs in isolation. Many patients have other comorbidities that require treatment, further driving up patients' out-of-pocket costs. Developing treatment plans that improve mortality without subjecting patients to financial toxicity can be challenging for several reasons. First, patients with heart failure can accrue out-of-pocket costs from multiple domains and can depend on a variety of insurance and pharmacy-related factors that can make determining patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates complicated. Second, strategies to mitigate financial toxicity involve health policy-level interventions and patient-level interventions. These have their own unique sets of challenges. Third, integrating out-of-pocket costs into shared decision-making requires nuanced and challenging discussions about whether a therapy is worth the cost. Though shared decision-making has been advocated, there are little data on how to best conduct these discussions. Health policies like the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 may provide relief to some patients, and efforts to improve transparency have the potential to be beneficial. Over the long term, policy solutions such as value-based insurance design and patient engagement solutions that emphasize enhancing shared decision-making have important potential to yield durable results.</p>","PeriodicalId":10196,"journal":{"name":"Circulation: Heart Failure","volume":" ","pages":"e011584"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11919555/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation: Heart Failure","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.124.011584","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
High out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity related to heart failure treatment are substantial concerns. Two of 4 pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, for example, carry high costs that may attenuate their uptake. Furthermore, heart failure rarely occurs in isolation. Many patients have other comorbidities that require treatment, further driving up patients' out-of-pocket costs. Developing treatment plans that improve mortality without subjecting patients to financial toxicity can be challenging for several reasons. First, patients with heart failure can accrue out-of-pocket costs from multiple domains and can depend on a variety of insurance and pharmacy-related factors that can make determining patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates complicated. Second, strategies to mitigate financial toxicity involve health policy-level interventions and patient-level interventions. These have their own unique sets of challenges. Third, integrating out-of-pocket costs into shared decision-making requires nuanced and challenging discussions about whether a therapy is worth the cost. Though shared decision-making has been advocated, there are little data on how to best conduct these discussions. Health policies like the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 may provide relief to some patients, and efforts to improve transparency have the potential to be beneficial. Over the long term, policy solutions such as value-based insurance design and patient engagement solutions that emphasize enhancing shared decision-making have important potential to yield durable results.
高昂的自付费用和与心力衰竭治疗相关的财务毒性是主要问题。例如,针对降低射血分数的心力衰竭的4大支柱药物治疗中,有2个支柱的成本很高,这可能会削弱它们的吸收。此外,心力衰竭很少单独发生。许多患者还有其他需要治疗的合并症,这进一步推高了患者的自付费用。由于几个原因,制定既能提高死亡率又不使患者遭受经济损失的治疗计划可能具有挑战性。首先,心力衰竭患者的自付费用可能来自多个领域,并且可能取决于各种保险和药物相关因素,这些因素可能使确定特定患者的自付费用估算变得复杂。其次,减轻财务毒性的战略涉及卫生政策层面的干预和患者层面的干预。它们都有自己独特的挑战。第三,将自付费用纳入共同决策需要细致而富有挑战性的讨论,即一种治疗是否物有所值。虽然共同决策一直被提倡,但关于如何最好地进行这些讨论的数据很少。《2022年通货膨胀削减法案》(Inflation Reduction Act of 2022)等医疗政策可能会为一些患者提供缓解,而提高透明度的努力也可能是有益的。从长期来看,政策解决方案,如基于价值的保险设计和强调加强共同决策的患者参与解决方案,具有产生持久结果的重要潜力。
期刊介绍:
Circulation: Heart Failure focuses on content related to heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and heart transplant science and medicine. It considers studies conducted in humans or analyses of human data, as well as preclinical studies with direct clinical correlation or relevance. While primarily a clinical journal, it may publish novel basic and preclinical studies that significantly advance the field of heart failure.