Abstract
Objective: To identify physicians' views regarding cost-containment and cost-effectiveness and their attitudes and experience using cost-effectiveness in clinical decision making. Design: A close-ended 30-item written survey. Subjects: 1,000 randomly selected physicians whose practices currently encompass direct patient care and who work in the California counties of Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, Nevada, and El Dorado. Outcome measures: Physician attitudes about the role of cost and cost-effectiveness in treatment decisions, perceived barriers to cost-effective medical practice, and response of physicians and patients if there are conflicts about treatment that physicians consider either not indicated or not cost-effective. Results: Most physicians regard cost-effectiveness as an appropriate component of clinical decisions and think that only the treating physician and patient should decide what is cost-worthy. However, physicians are divided on whether they have a duty to offer medical interventions with remote chances of benefit regardless of cost, and they vary considerably in their interactions with patients when cost-effectiveness is an issue. Conclusion: Although physicians in the Sacramento region accept cost-effectiveness as important and appropriate in clinical practice, there is little uniformity in how cost-effectiveness decisions are implemented.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 390-394 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Western Journal of Medicine |
| Volume | 173 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2000 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine(all)
Cite this
A survey of physician attitudes and practices concerning cost-effectiveness in patient care. / Ginsburg, M. E.; Kravitz, Richard L; Sandberg, W. A.
In: Western Journal of Medicine, Vol. 173, No. 6, 2000, p. 390-394.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A survey of physician attitudes and practices concerning cost-effectiveness in patient care
AU - Ginsburg, M. E.
AU - Kravitz, Richard L
AU - Sandberg, W. A.
PY - 2000
Y1 - 2000
N2 - Objective: To identify physicians' views regarding cost-containment and cost-effectiveness and their attitudes and experience using cost-effectiveness in clinical decision making. Design: A close-ended 30-item written survey. Subjects: 1,000 randomly selected physicians whose practices currently encompass direct patient care and who work in the California counties of Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, Nevada, and El Dorado. Outcome measures: Physician attitudes about the role of cost and cost-effectiveness in treatment decisions, perceived barriers to cost-effective medical practice, and response of physicians and patients if there are conflicts about treatment that physicians consider either not indicated or not cost-effective. Results: Most physicians regard cost-effectiveness as an appropriate component of clinical decisions and think that only the treating physician and patient should decide what is cost-worthy. However, physicians are divided on whether they have a duty to offer medical interventions with remote chances of benefit regardless of cost, and they vary considerably in their interactions with patients when cost-effectiveness is an issue. Conclusion: Although physicians in the Sacramento region accept cost-effectiveness as important and appropriate in clinical practice, there is little uniformity in how cost-effectiveness decisions are implemented.
AB - Objective: To identify physicians' views regarding cost-containment and cost-effectiveness and their attitudes and experience using cost-effectiveness in clinical decision making. Design: A close-ended 30-item written survey. Subjects: 1,000 randomly selected physicians whose practices currently encompass direct patient care and who work in the California counties of Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, Nevada, and El Dorado. Outcome measures: Physician attitudes about the role of cost and cost-effectiveness in treatment decisions, perceived barriers to cost-effective medical practice, and response of physicians and patients if there are conflicts about treatment that physicians consider either not indicated or not cost-effective. Results: Most physicians regard cost-effectiveness as an appropriate component of clinical decisions and think that only the treating physician and patient should decide what is cost-worthy. However, physicians are divided on whether they have a duty to offer medical interventions with remote chances of benefit regardless of cost, and they vary considerably in their interactions with patients when cost-effectiveness is an issue. Conclusion: Although physicians in the Sacramento region accept cost-effectiveness as important and appropriate in clinical practice, there is little uniformity in how cost-effectiveness decisions are implemented.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034520404&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034520404&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/ewjm.173.6.390
DO - 10.1136/ewjm.173.6.390
M3 - Article
C2 - 11112752
AN - SCOPUS:0034520404
VL - 173
SP - 390
EP - 394
JO - Western Journal of Medicine
JF - Western Journal of Medicine
SN - 0093-0415
IS - 6
ER -