Dataset Information

Payer Type and Low-Value Care: Comparing Choosing Wisely Services across Commercial and Medicare Populations.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare low-value health service use among commercially insured and Medicare populations and explore the influence of payer type on the provision of low-value care. DATA SOURCES:2009-2011 national Medicare and commercial insurance administrative data. DESIGN:We created claims-based algorithms to measure seven Choosing Wisely-identified low-value services and examined the correlation between commercial and Medicare overuse overall and at the regional level. Regression models explored associations between overuse and regional characteristics. METHODS:We created measures of early imaging for back pain, vitamin D screening, cervical cancer screening over age 65, prescription opioid use for migraines, cardiac testing in asymptomatic patients, short-interval repeat bone densitometry (DXA), preoperative cardiac testing for low-risk surgery, and a composite of these. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Prevalence of four services was similar across the insurance-defined groups. Regional correlation between Medicare and commercial overuse was high (correlation coefficient = 0.540-0.905) for all measures. In both groups, similar region-level factors were associated with low-value care provision, especially total Medicare spending and ratio of specialists to primary care physicians. CONCLUSIONS:Low-value care appears driven by factors unrelated to payer type or anticipated reimbursement. These findings suggest the influence of local practice patterns on care without meaningful discrimination by payer type.

SUBMITTER: Colla CH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5867100 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Payer Type and Low-Value Care: Comparing Choosing Wisely Services across Commercial and Medicare Populations.

Colla Carrie H CH Morden Nancy E NE Sequist Thomas D TD Mainor Alexander J AJ Li Zhonghe Z Rosenthal Meredith B MB

Health services research 20170219 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare low-value health service use among commercially insured and Medicare populations and explore the influence of payer type on the provision of low-value care.<h4>Data sources</h4>2009-2011 national Medicare and commercial insurance administrative data.<h4>Design</h4>We created claims-based algorithms to measure seven Choosing Wisely-identified low-value services and examined the correlation between commercial and Medicare overuse overall and at the regional level. Regr ...[more]

PMID: 28217968

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSpecialty societies in the United States identified low-value tests and procedures that contribute to waste and poor health care quality via implementation of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative.ObjectiveTo develop claims-based algorithms, to use them to estimate the prevalence of select Choosing Wisely services and to examine the demographic, health and health care system correlates of low-value care at a regional level.DesignUsing Medicare data from 2006 to 2011, we created claims-based algorithms to measure the prevalence of 11 Choosing Wisely-identified low-value services and examined geographic variation across hospital referral regions (HRRs). We created a composite low-value care score for each HRR and used linear regression to identify regional characteristics associated with more intense use of low-value services.PatientsFee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries over age 65.Main measuresPrevalence of selected Choosing Wisely low-value services.Key resultsThe national average annual prevalence of the selected Choosing Wisely low-value services ranged from 1.2% (upper urinary tract imaging in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia) to 46.5% (preoperative cardiac testing for low-risk, non-cardiac procedures). Prevalence across HRRs varied significantly. Regional characteristics associated with higher use of low-value services included greater overall per capita spending, a higher specialist to primary care ratio and higher proportion of minority beneficiaries.ConclusionsIdentifying and measuring low-value health services is a prerequisite for improving quality and eliminating waste. Our findings suggest that the delivery of wasteful and potentially harmful services may be a fruitful area for further research and policy intervention for HRRs with higher per-capita spending. These findings should inform action by physicians, health systems, policymakers, payers and consumer educators to improve the value of health care by targeting services and areas with greater use of potentially inappropriate care.

Project description:BackgroundChoosing Wisely (CW) is an international movement comprised of campaigns in more than 20 countries to reduce low-value care (LVC). De-implementation, the reduction or removal of a healthcare practice that offers little to no benefit or causes harm, is an emerging field of research. Little is known about the factors which (i) sustain LVC; and (ii) the magnitude of the problem of LVC. In addition, little is known about the processes of de-implementation, and if and how these processes differ from implementation endeavours. The objective of this study was to explicate the myriad factors which impact the processes and outcomes of de-implementation initiatives that are designed to address national Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals implementing Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations in healthcare settings in four provinces. The interview guide was developed using concepts from the literature and the Implementation Process Model (IPM) as a framework. All interviews were conducted virtually, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.FindingsSeventeen Choosing Wisely team members were interviewed. Participants identified numerous provider factors, most notably habit, which sustain LVC. Contrary to reporting in recent studies, the majority of LVC in the sample was not 'patient facing'; therefore, patients were not a significant driver for the LVC, nor a barrier to reducing it. Participants detailed aspects of the magnitude of the problems of LVC, providing insight into the complexities and nuances of harm, resources and prevalence. Harm from potential or common infections, reactions, or overtreatment was viewed as the most significant types of harm. Unique factors influencing the processes of de-implementation reported were: influence of Choosing Wisely campaigns, availability of data, lack of targets and hard-coded interventions.ConclusionsThis study explicates factors ranging from those which impact the maintenance of LVC to factors that impact the success of de-implementation interventions intended to reduce them. The findings draw attention to the significance of unintentional factors, highlight the importance of understanding the impact of harm and resources to reduce LVC and illuminate the overstated impact of patients in de-implementation literature. These findings illustrate the complexities of de-implementation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It is unknown to what extent Choosing Wisely recommendations about income-generating treatments apply to members of the society generating the recommendations. The primary aim of this study is to determine the proportion of Choosing Wisely recommendations targeting income-generating treatments, and whether recommendations from professional societies on income-generating treatments are more likely to target members or non-members. The secondary aim is to determine the prevalence of qualified statements, and whether qualified statements are more likely to appear in recommendations targeting income-generating or non-income-generating treatments that apply to members. METHODS:We performed a content analysis of all Choosing Wisely recommendations, with data extracted from Choosing Wisely websites. Two researchers coded recommendations as test or treatment-based, for or against a procedure, containing qualified statements, income-generating and applying to members. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation with a third researcher. A Chi-squared test evaluated whether society recommendations on income-generating treatments were more likely to target members or non-members; and whether qualified statements were more likely to appear in recommendations targeting income-generating or non-income-generating treatments that apply to members. RESULTS:We found 1293 Choosing Wisely recommendations (48.3% tests and 48.6% treatments). Ninety-eight treatment recommendations targeted income-generating treatments (17.8%), and recommendations on income-generating treatments were less likely to target members compared to non-members (15.6% vs. 40.4%, p?<?0.001). Nearly half of all recommendations were qualified (41.9%), with a similar proportion of recommendations targeting income-generating and non-income-generating treatments that apply to members containing qualified statements (49.4% vs. 42.0%, p?=?0.23). CONCLUSIONS:Many societies provide Choosing Wisely recommendations that minimise impact on their own members. Only 20% of treatment recommendations target income-generating treatments, and of these recommendations mostly target non-members. Many recommendations are also qualified. Increasing the number of recommendations from societies that are unqualified and target member clinicians responsible for de-implementation of low-value and costly treatments should be a priority.

Project description:ImportanceEvidence comparing the consequences of Choosing Wisely recommendations across health systems or with the consequences of recommendations plus policy change is lacking.ObjectivesTo compare changes in the use of 2 low-value laboratory tests after the release of Choosing Wisely recommendations across 3 health care jurisdictions and changes associated with a related policy change.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was a population-based interrupted time series of adult patients (aged 18-64 years) who had primary care visits between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015, or established hypothyroidism between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2015, across 3 health care delivery jurisdictions: Ontario, Canada; the US Veterans Health Administration; and the US employer-sponsored insurance market. Data analysis was performed from March 21, 2018, to October 31, 2019.ExposuresA December 2010 payment policy change that eliminated reimbursement of vitamin D screening in Ontario, Canada, and the subsequent release of Choosing Wisely recommendations against low-value use of vitamin D tests in February 2013 and triiodothyronine tests in October 2013 in the United States and both tests in October 2014 in Canada.Main outcomes and measuresRelative marginal effects (RMEs) comparing low-value testing rates after the release of Choosing Wisely recommendations with rates expected based on prerelease trends and the associated change in low-value vitamin D testing after the 2010 payment policy change in Ontario, Canada.ResultsOf 54 223 448 total persons, 28 504 576 (52.6%) were female, with 17 895 458 persons (33.0%) aged 18 to 34 years, 11 101 985 (20.5%) aged 35 to 44 years, and 25 226 005 (46.5%) aged 45 to 64 years. The December 2010 policy eliminating reimbursement for low-value vitamin D screening in Ontario, Canada, was associated with a 92.7% (95% CI, 92.4%-93.0%) relative reduction in such screening. Corresponding Choosing Wisely recommendations were associated with smaller reductions: 4.5% (95% CI, 2.6%-6.3%) in Ontario, 13.8% (95% CI, 11.8%-15.9%) for US Veterans Health Administration, and 14.0% (95% CI, 12.8%-15.2%) for US employer-sponsored insurance. In contrast, low-value use of triiodothyronine testing did not change significantly in Ontario, Canada (RME, 0.3%; 95% CI, -1.4% to 2.0%) or the US Veterans Health Administration (RME, 0.7%; 95% CI, -4.7% to 6.4%) and increased (RME, 3.0%; 95% CI, 1.6%-4.4%) for US employer-sponsored insurance.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, marginal reductions in the use of 2 low-value laboratory tests were associated with the release of related Choosing Wisely recommendations but a greater reduction in low-value vitamin D screening was associated with a previous payment policy change implemented in Ontario, Canada. These findings suggest that recommendations alone may be insufficient to significantly reduce use of low-value services and that pairing recommendations with policy changes may be more effective.

Project description:ImportanceWasteful practices are widespread in the US health care system. It is unclear if payment models intended to improve health care efficiency, such as the Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) programs, discourage the provision of low-value services.ObjectiveTo assess whether the first year of the Medicare Pioneer ACO program was associated with a reduction in use of low-value services.Design, setting, and participantsIn a difference-in-differences analysis, we compared use of low-value services between Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to health care provider groups that entered the Pioneer program (ACO group) and beneficiaries attributed to other health care providers (control group) before (2009-2011) vs after (2012) Pioneer ACO contracts began. Data analysis was conducted from December 1, 2014, to June 27, 2015. Comparisons were adjusted for beneficiaries' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics as well as for geography. We decomposed estimates according to service characteristics (clinical category, price, and sensitivity to patient preferences) and compared estimates between subgroups of ACOs with higher vs lower baseline use of low-value services.Main outcomes and measuresUse of, and spending on, 31 services in instances that provide minimal clinical benefit, measured as annual service counts per 100 beneficiaries and price-standardized annual service spending per 100 beneficiaries.ResultsDuring the precontract period, trends in the use of low-value services were similar for the ACO and control groups. The first year of ACO contracts was associated with a differential reduction (95% CI) of 0.8 low-value services per 100 beneficiaries for the ACO group (-1.2 to -0.4; P < .001), corresponding to a 1.9% differential reduction in service quantity (-2.9% to -0.9%) and a 4.5% differential reduction in spending on low-value services (-7.5% to -1.4%; P = .004). Differential reductions were similar for services less sensitive vs more sensitive to patient preferences and for higher- vs lower-priced services. The ACOs with higher than their markets' mean baseline levels of low-value service use experienced greater service reductions (-1.2 services per 100 beneficiaries; -1.7 to -0.7; P < .001) than did ACOs with use below the mean (-0.2 services per 100 beneficiaries, -0.6 to -0.2; P = .41; P = .003 for test of difference between subgroups).Conclusions and relevanceDuring its first year, the Pioneer ACO program was associated with modest reductions in low-value services, with greater reductions for organizations providing more low-value care. Accountable care organization-like risk contracts may be able to discourage use of low-value services even without specifying services to target.

Dataset Information

Payer Type and Low-Value Care: Comparing Choosing Wisely Services across Commercial and Medicare Populations.

Publications

Payer Type and Low-Value Care: Comparing Choosing Wisely Services across Commercial and Medicare Populations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets