ReviewCirculation. Heart failure2025
Challenges Related to Out-of-Pocket Costs in Heart Failure Management.
Review in Circulation. Heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medicare Advantage Benefits Design and Access to Cardiovascular Care.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of the Support and Services at Home (SASH) Program for Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Community-Based Approach to Healthy Aging in Place.Health services research · 2026Article
- Baseline Patient-Reported Health Status Predicts Hospitalization Duration and Cost in Chronic Heart Failure.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity related to heart failure treatment are substantial concerns. Two of 4 pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, for example, carry high costs that may attenuate their uptake. Furthermore, heart failure rarely occurs in isolation. Many patients have other comorbidities that require treatment, further driving up patients' out-of-pocket costs. Developing treatment plans that improve mortality without subjecting patients to financial toxicity can be challenging for several reasons. First, patients with heart failure can accrue out-of-pocket costs from multiple domains and can depend on a variety of insurance and pharmacy-related factors that can make determining patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates complicated. Second, strategies to mitigate financial toxicity involve health policy-level interventions and patient-level interventions. These have their own unique sets of challenges. Third, integrating out-of-pocket costs into shared decision-making requires nuanced and challenging discussions about whether a therapy is worth the cost. Though shared decision-making has been advocated, there are little data on how to best conduct these discussions. Health policies like the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 may provide relief to some patients, and efforts to improve transparency have the potential to be beneficial. Over the long term, policy solutions such as value-based insurance design and patient engagement solutions that emphasize enhancing shared decision-making have important potential to yield durable results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.