Patient attitudes and preferences regarding treatment: GH therapy for childhood short stature.

This paper examines the role of parents' attitudes and preferences regarding growth hormone therapy for childhood short stature. Four main questions are addressed. First, what are the demographic characteristics of families seeking medical advice for their child's short stature? Second, what are parents' attitudes towards short stature? Third, what are parents' treatment preferences (i.e. what characteristics of growth treatments are important to parents)? Finally, how do the attitudes of parents affect physician decision making? Several studies are reviewed and data are presented to answer these questions.

Insurance coverage, physician recommendations, and access to emerging treatments: growth hormone therapy for childhood short stature.

CONTEXT: There is concern in both the medical community and the general public about mechanisms of medical decision making and the interplay of physician and insurer decisions in determining access to care. OBJECTIVE: To examine the medical process influencing access to growth hormone (GH) therapy for childhood short stature by comparing coverage policies of US insurers with the treatment recommendations of US physicians. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Independent national representative surveys were mailed to insurers (private, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, health maintenance organizations, programs for Children with Special Health Care Needs, and Medicaid programs, n=113), primary care physicians (n=1504), and pediatric endocrinologists (n=534) with response rates of 75%, 60%, and 81%, respectively. Each survey included identical case scenarios. Primary care physicians were asked decisions about referrals to pediatric endocrinologists. Endocrinologists were asked GH treatment recommendations. Insurers were asked coverage decisions for GH therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Insurer coverage decisions for GH in specific case scenarios were compared with the recommendations of primary care physicians and pediatric endocrinologists. RESULTS: Physician recommendations and insurance coverage decisions differed strikingly. For example, while 96% of pediatric endocrinologists recommended GH therapy for children with Turner syndrome, insurer policies covered GH therapy for only 52% of these children. Overall, referral and treatment decisions by physicians resulted in recommendations for GH therapy in 78% of children with GH deficiency, Turner syndrome, or renal failure; of those recommended for treatment, 28% were denied coverage by insurers. Similarly, GH therapy would be recommended by physicians for only 9% of children with idiopathic short stature, but insurers would not cover GH for the vast majority of these children. Furthermore, the data indicated considerable variation among insurers regarding coverage policies for GH (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Access to GH therapy differs depending on the type of insurance coverage. The deep discord between physician recommendations and insurance coverage decisions, exemplified by these findings, represents a major challenge to mechanisms of health care decision making, access, and costs.

Short stature and growth hormone therapy. A national study of physician recommendation patterns.

OBJECTIVE: To determine current expert opinion and recommendations regarding the controversial issue of the use of growth hormone (GH) to treat short children who do not have classical GH deficiency (non-GHD children). STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of a national survey mailed to 534 US physician experts on the management of short stature (pediatric endocrinologists) with a response rate of 81.3%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The experts' GH treatment recommendations. RESULTS: The physicians reported that approximately 58% of their current patients undergoing GH therapy have classical GH deficiency, while 42% have other conditions. The proportion of physicians who recommended GH treatment of short non-GHD children ranged from 1% to 74% over all case scenarios presented. The likelihood of GH being recommended depended on the physiological growth characteristics of the child (ie, the child's height, growth rate, and predicted adult height), contingency factors (ie, strong family wishes or a reduction in GH cost), and physician beliefs (ie, the impact of short stature on well-being, the effectiveness of GH therapy). Each of these factors exerted highly significant, independent, and additive effects on decisions to recommend GH. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that many pediatric endocrinologists consider GH treatment appropriate for selected short non-GHD children, going beyond current Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for GH. Decisions to recommend GH for a non-GHD child rest on a combination of medical, social, and perceptual factors; variations in treatment patterns stem from variations in these influences. Future GH use will likely be determined not only by the results of controlled trials, but also by family preferences, producer pricing, and physician perceptions of the value of height and GH therapy.