Cost Consideration in the Clinical Guidance Documents of Physician Specialty Societies in the United States | Health Care Reform | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Anderson GF, Squires DA. Measuring the U.S. health care system: a cross-national comparison.   Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2010;1412(90):1-1020614654PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Emanuel EJ, Fuchs VR. The perfect storm of overutilization.  JAMA. 2008;299(23):2789-279118560006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Eddy DM.  Rationing resources while improving quality: how to get more for less [clinical decision making: from theory to practice].  JAMA. 1994;272(10):817-8248078149PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Pearson SD. Caring and cost: the challenge for physician advocacy.  Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(2):148-15310896641PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Sommers BD. Why lowering health costs should be a key adjunct to slowing health spending growth.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(9):1651-165520820021PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Richmond JB, Fein R. The Healthcare Mess: How We Got Into It and What It Will Take to Get Out. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2005:257-263
7.
Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ. Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions.  Lancet. 2009;373(9661):423-43119186274PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Spatz ES, Gross CP. Moving reform to the bedside: involvement of individual physicians.  JAMA. 2010;303(13):1305-130620371791PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Office of the Speaker.  Strong cost containment measures: affordable health care for America. March 21, 2010. http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/COST_CONTAINMENT.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2011
10.
Brook RH. What if physicians actually had to control medical costs?  JAMA. 2010;304(13):1489-149020924017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Palfrey S. Daring to practice low-cost medicine in a high-tech era [published online March 2, 2011].  N Engl J Med. 2011;e21(1)-e21(2)21366468PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.  National Guideline Clearinghouse. http://www.guideline.gov/. Accessed September 2010 through May 2012
13.
 The Federation of Medicine national medical specialty society websites. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/the-federation-medicine/national-medical-specialty-society-websites.page?. Accessed June 13, 2011
14.
 Yahoo! directory. http://dir.yahoo.com/health/medicine/organizations/professional/. Accessed September 22, 2010
15.
GRADE Working Group.  GRADE guidelines—best practices using the GRADE framework. 2011. http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/publications/JCE_series.htm. Accessed January 10, 2012
16.
Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD,  et al.  Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature.  Am Fam Physician. 2004;69(3):548-55614971837PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
AGREE Collaboration.  Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. September 2001. http://www.openclinical.org/prj_agree.html. Accessed January 10, 2012
18.
Matchar DB, Mark DB. Strategies for incorporating resource allocation and economic considerations: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th edition).  Chest. 2008;1336:(suppl)  132S-140S18574263PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Greenland P, Alpert JS, Beller GA,  et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association.  2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(25):e50-e10321144964PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF,  et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; American College of Radiology; American Heart Association; American Society of Echocardiology; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance; Society of Nuclear Medicine.  ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(23):2201-222919497454PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
National Guideline Clearinghouse.  American Osteopathic Association guidelines for osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for patients with low back pain. http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=15271. Accessed November 23, 2010
22.
Sharlip ID, Baker AM, Honig S,  et al.  Vasectomy: AUA guideline. Approved by the AUA Board of Directors May 2012. http://www.auanet.org. Accessed March 25, 2013
23.
 Endoscopy and polyp surveillance physician performance measurement set. Approved by the PCPI August 2008. http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/listserv/x-check/qmeasure.cgi?submit=PCPI. Accessed March 25, 2013
24.
Becker RC, Meade TW, Berger PB,  et al.  The primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th edition).  Chest. 2008;133(6):(suppl)  776S-814S18574278PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 89: elective and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.  Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):231-24118165419PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Bhattacharyya N, Baugh RF, Orvidas L,  et al; American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.  Clinical practice guideline: benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;139(5):(suppl 4)  S47-S8118973840PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.  Clinical practice guidelines we can trust: standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). March 2011. http://www.iom.edu/cpgstandards. Accessed January 25, 2010
28.
American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.  Choosing Wisely. ABIM Foundation website. http://www.abimfoundation.org/Initiatives/Choosing-Wisely.aspx. Published 2012. Accessed December 12, 2012
29.
Guyatt G, Baumann M, Pauker S,  et al.  Addressing resource allocation issues in recommendations from clinical practice guideline panels: suggestions from an American College of Chest Physicians task force.  Chest. 2006;129(1):182-18716424430PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Woolf SH. Practice guidelines: a new reality in medicine, I: recent developments.  Arch Intern Med. 1990;150(9):1811-18182203320PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Rosenbaum L, Lamas D. Cents and sensitivity—teaching physicians to think about costs.  N Engl J Med. 2012;367(2):99-10122784112PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Saarni SI, Gylling HA. Evidence based medicine guidelines: a solution to rationing or politics disguised as science?  J Med Ethics. 2004;30(2):171-17515082812PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Sulmasy DP. Cancer care, money, and the value of life: whose justice? which rationality?  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(2):217-22217210943PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Angell M. The doctor as double agent.  Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1993;3(3):279-28610127995PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Garber AM, Sox HC. The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(10):1805-181120921479PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Pearson SD. Cost, coverage, and comparative effectiveness research: the critical issues for oncology.  J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4275-428123071229PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Wallace JF, Weingarten SR, Chiou CF,  et al.  The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines.  J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):210-22011929508PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Hoffman A, Pearson SD. “Marginal medicine”: targeting comparative effectiveness research to reduce waste.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(4):w710-w71819556249PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Cassel CK, Guest JA. Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care.  JAMA. 2012;307(17):1801-180222492759PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC. Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information.  N Engl J Med. 2010;363(16):1495-149720942664PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Neumann PJ, Greenberg D. Is the United States ready for QALYs?  Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(5):1366-137119738253PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
Health Care Reform
June 24, 2013

Cost Consideration in the Clinical Guidance Documents of Physician Specialty Societies in the United States

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (Drs Schwartz and Pearson); and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, Massachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, Boston (Dr Pearson).

JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(12):1091-1097. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.817
Abstract

Importance Despite increasing concerns regarding the cost of health care, the consideration of costs in the development of clinical guidance documents by physician specialty societies has received little analysis.

Objective To evaluate the approach to consideration of cost in publicly available clinical guidance documents and methodological statements produced between 2008 and 2012 by the 30 largest US physician specialty societies.

Design Qualitative document review.

Main Outcomes and Measures Whether costs are considered in clinical guidance development, mechanism of cost consideration, and the way that cost issues were used in support of specific clinical practice recommendations.

Results Methodological statements for clinical guidance documents indicated that 17 of 30 physician societies (57%) explicitly integrated costs, 4 (13%) implicitly considered costs, 3 (10%) intentionally excluded costs, and 6 (20%) made no mention. Of the 17 societies that explicitly integrated costs, 9 (53%) consistently used a formal system in which the strength of recommendation was influenced in part by costs, whereas 8 (47%) were inconsistent in their approach or failed to mention the exact mechanism for considering costs. Among the 138 specific recommendations in these guidance documents that included cost as part of the rationale, the most common form of recommendation (50 [36%]) encouraged the use of a specific medical service because of equal effectiveness and lower cost.

Conclusions and Relevance Slightly more than half of the largest US physician societies explicitly consider costs in developing their clinical guidance documents; among these, approximately half use an explicit mechanism for integrating costs into the strength of recommendations. Many societies remain vague in their approach. Physician specialty societies should demonstrate greater transparency and rigor in their approach to cost consideration in documents meant to influence care decisions.

×