Summary

This is a prospective survey study on sports medicine patients querying whether patients have heard of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections and their willingness to pay for a PRP injection.

Abstract

Introduction

The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for sports-related injuries is a hotly-debated topic. PRP is a cash-pay procedure that is not covered by insurance, and it is actively advertised for a number of different indications, some without supporting evidence. Yet, an increasing number of patients are asking their physicians for PRP injections. The aim of this study is to better understand patients’ knowledge of PRP and willingness to pay out of pocket.

Methods

This ongoing Institutional Review Board-approved prospective study included patients presenting with a new chief complaint at a sports medicine orthopedic office in a large urban academic health system. Patients completed an anonymous survey prior to evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon. The survey collected demographic information, clinical information, knowledge of PRP, willingness to pay for PRP based on expected percentage pain reduction, and motivators behind willingness to pay. Two cohorts included: 1) patients who had heard of PRP and 2) patients who had not. The latter group was given a short educational excerpt on PRP. Two-tailed Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests evaluated pain scores and willingness to pay for PRP between the cohorts. Spearman rank correlation tests evaluated correlations between household income and willingness to pay.

Results

To date, we have enrolled 32 patients of which 37.5% had previous orthopedic surgery, 43.75% had seen another medical provider for their current symptoms and 37.5% had previously heard of PRP. Patients who had heard of PRP (versus those that had not) reported lower median pain scores (median 4.75 versus 5.0 out of 10), the same hindrance of daily activities (median 3.0 out of 5), and longer duration of symptoms (median 5.0 months versus 1.0 month), although not statistically significant. Patients were willing to pay more for a greater anticipated reduction in pain: median of $50, $250, and $500 for 25%, 50% and 100% reduction in pain, respectively (p<0.05). Patients who had heard of PRP were willing to pay more for PRP (median $500 versus $200); this was not statistically significant. There was no correlation between patients’ income and willingness to pay. Finally, regarding willingness to pay for a given percent reduction in pain, patients reported their top three motivators to be symptoms affecting their day-to-day life, desire to try non-surgical interventions, and desire to return to normal activity. For patients who had not heard of PRP, after being informed of PRP these patients reported physician trust as the greatest motivator behind their willingness to pay.

Conclusion

This ongoing study demonstrates the correlation between willingness to pay and perceived effectiveness of PRP while also noting motivators to pay. Moreover, we were also able to demonstrate some differences between patients who had heard of PRP versus those that had not. These data may be further refined with ongoing enrollment and will provide important insights into patients’ knowledge and how this impacts decision-making in the context of PRP injections.