Objective: To develop cases of preference-sensitive care and analyze the individualized cost-effectiveness of respecting patient preference compared to guidelines.
Methods: Four cases were analyzed comparing patient preference to guidelines: (a) high-risk cancer patient preferring to forgo colonoscopy; (b) decubitus patient preferring to forgo air-fluidized bed use; (c) anemic patient preferring to forgo transfusion; (d) end-of-life patient requesting all resuscitative measures. Decision trees were modeled to analyze cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments that respect preference compared to guidelines in USD per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold from patient, provider and societal perspectives.
Results: Forgoing colonoscopy dominates colonoscopy from patient, provider, and societal perspectives. Forgoing transfusion and air-fluidized bed are cost-effective from all three perspectives. Palliative care is cost-effective from provider and societal perspectives, but not from the patient perspective.
Conclusion: Prioritizing incorporation of patient preferences within guidelines holds good value and should be prioritized when developing new guidelines.
Keywords: Patient preferences; cost-effectiveness analysis; guidelines; patient-centered care.