Patient engagement and shared decision making are two sides of an approach to improving health care delivery that relies on motivating patients to pay attention to their health, providing them with ample information about health and treatment options and encouraging discussions with providers about those options. The underlying hope is that patients will make “good” choices, which theoretically will save money and that by generally paying more attention to their health, patients will be in better health and incur fewer expenses. Sounds good, but will it really work across the large pool of American patients, who have varying ability to be engaged and to make good decisions. An article in Health Affairs suggests an alternative approach. (HA Article) The authors basically propose that “choice architecture”, which in essence pushes consumers in a certain direction, is a better way to get desired behavior than engagement is. They first lay out several issues they see with the engagement strategy, including that getting people to pay sustained attention to anything is hard and that getting people from “intend to change” to actually changing behavior is very difficult. The authors suggest that choice architecture, which guides decisions in a certain direction, may be a better way to get to the same outcomes, at least for some health care decisions. A well-known example would be requiring consumers to opt out of certain choices, as opposed to having to opt in. The authors review research that requiring opt outs significantly increases the percent of people going down the desired path, for example, using generic drugs, or mail delivery of drugs. While this appears to be a reasonable approach, it feels manipulative, and that may undercut respect for the individuals involved, as opposed to shared decision-making, which at least has as a nominal value the honoring of personal values and preferences. If choice architecture is used, perhaps patients should be informed that it is being used and why.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
Research
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Headlines
Tags
Access
ACO
Care Management
Chronic Disease
Comparative Effectiveness
Consumer Directed Health
Consumers
Devices
Disease Management
Drugs
EHRs
Elder Care
End-of-Life Care
FDA
Financings
Genomics
Government
Health Care Costs
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Insurance
Health Insurance Exchange
HIT
HomeCare
Hospital
Hospital Readmissions
Legislation
M&A
Malpractice
Meaningful Use
Medicaid
Medical Care
Medicare
Medicare Advantage
Mobile
Pay For Performance
Pharmaceutical
Physicians
Providers
Regulation
Repealing Reform
Telehealth
Telemedicine
Wellness and Prevention
Workplace
Related Posts
Commentary
March 31, 2023
Electric Vehicles Suck
Electric cars are more expensive to buy and operate than gas ones, and worse for…
Commentary
March 31, 2023
Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 202
Such a depressing world and I am not sure these research summaries are particularly elevating.
Commentary
March 31, 2023
And Then There is This…
Some supposed conservatives just spout conspiratorial nonsense that ensures that we lose, which is one…