‘Broad disconnect’ between patient desires, actual imaging experience, new data show
There is a “broad disconnect” between patients’ desire for additional info about imaging prices and the actual in-person experience, according to new survey data.
Out-of-pocket costs for radiological care can place a substantial burden on patients, with many unaware of such expenses ahead of time. CMS has attempted to address price transparency through legislation, but hospital compliance with these demands has varied, experts detailed Saturday in JACR.
Researchers with Cincinnati Children’s recently aimed to better understand parent and other caregiver preferences for pricing information, surveying 400 such individuals between 2024 and 2025. They found that more work must be done to meet consumers’ demands, which could help to improve caregiver decision-making while reducing financial concerns.
This could be especially crucial when patients face high out-of-pocket costs, complex administrative hurdles or coverage uncertainties.
“In summary, most parents in our study desired information about imaging costs, though only a small proportion reported prior discussions on the topic,” Shireen E. Hayatghaibi, PhD, a health services researcher with the Ohio hospital, and colleagues wrote Feb. 14. “This gap highlights a broad disconnect between patient wants for cost information and their actual experience.”
For their survey, researchers targeted English-speaking parents or legal guardians whose children were scheduled for outpatient X-rays, fluoroscopy, CT, MRI or PET at two hospitals. Recruitment occurred in waiting areas before the start of a scheduled scan, and parents completed the survey on a tablet or their own device. Respondents received a $10 gift card after low initial response rates. Altogether, the survey spanned 38 different questions, with the hospitals’ parent advisory group reviewing the questionnaire for clarity.
About 49% of respondents were classified as experiencing financial toxicity, based on a previously validated scoring system. Another 84% agreed or strongly agreed it was important for them to know the costs of their kids’ imaging exams. Moreover, another 74% agreed or strongly agreed a hospital employee should talk with them about the costs of their child’s tests. However, only 10% reported that these discussions took place, the survey found.
Hayatghaibi and colleagues only found modest correlation between financial toxicity and desire to discuss imaging prices, after adjusting for various family and child characteristics. Child age was only weakly linked to this desire, they noted. For instance, those with infants were more likely to want to discuss costs compared to others with kids 6 to 11, with no statistically significant differences in other age categories. Perceptions that the conversations “would not lead to a change in their child’s imaging costs” was cited as the most common perceived barrier to having these conversations.
Only about 29% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that they considered costs when making radiology-related decisions. And there were no significant associations found between patient and parent characteristics and a caregiver’s desire to want to discuss costs.
“These findings suggest that parental interest in cost information may reflect a desire for transparency so that parents may plan for imaging costs, rather than making imaging choices based on costs,” the authors concluded. “Future efforts should explore strategies to integrate price transparency into pediatric imaging workflows and evaluate their impact on adherence.”
Read more, including potential study limitations, in the Journal of the American College of Radiology.
Marty Stempniak has covered healthcare since 2012, with his byline appearing in the American Hospital Association's member magazine, Modern Healthcare and McKnight's. Prior to that, he wrote about village government and local business for his hometown newspaper in Oak Park, Illinois. He won a Peter Lisagor and Gold EXCEL awards in 2017 for his coverage of the opioid epidemic.