Dataset Information

Trends in Low-Value Health Service Use and Spending in the US Medicare Fee-for-Service Program, 2014-2018.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Low-value care, defined as care offering no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is associated with harmful outcomes in patients and wasteful spending. Despite a national education campaign and increasing attention on reducing health care waste, recent trends in low-value care delivery remain unknown.

Objective

To assess national trends in low-value care use and spending.

Design, setting, and participants

In this cross-sectional study, analyses of low-value care use and spending from 2014 to 2018 were conducted using 100% Medicare fee-for-service enrollment and claims data. Included individuals were aged 65 years or older and continuously enrolled in Medicare parts A, B, and D during each measurement year and the previous year. Data were analyzed from September 2019 through December 2020.

Exposure

Being enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for a period of time, in years.

Main outcomes and measures

The Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator was used to assess 32 claims-based measures of low-value care associated with Choosing Wisely recommendations and other professional guidelines. The calculator designates services as wasteful, likely wasteful, or not wasteful based on an absence of indication of appropriate use in the claims history; calculator-designated wasteful services were defined as low-value care. Spending was calculated as claim-line level (ie, spending on the low-value service) and claim level (ie, spending on the low-value service plus associated services), adjusting for inflation.

Results

Among 21?045?759 individuals with fee-for-service Medicare (mean [SD] age, 77.4 [7.9] years; 12?515?915 [59.5%] women), the percentage receiving any of 32 low-value services decreased from 36.3% (95% CI, 36.3%-36.4%) to 33.6% (95% CI, 33.6%-33.6%) from 2014 to 2018. Uses of low-value services per 1000 individuals decreased from 677.8 (95% CI, 676.2-679.5) to 632.7 (95% CI, 632.6-632.8) from 2014 to 2018. Three services comprised approximately two-thirds of uses among 32 low-value services per 1000 individuals: preoperative laboratory testing decreased from 213.8 (95% CI, 213.4-214.2) to 166.2 (95% CI, 166.2-166.2), while opioids for back pain increased from 154.4 (95% CI, 153.6-155.2) to 182.1 (95% CI, 182.1-182.1) and antibiotics for upper respiratory infections increased from 75.0 (95% CI, 75.0-75.1) to 82 (95% CI, 82.0-82.0). Spending per 1000 individuals on low-value care also decreased, from $52 765.5 (95% CI, $51?952.3-$53?578.6) to $46?921.7 (95% CI, $46?593.7-$47?249.7) at the claim-line level and from $160?070.4 (95% CI, $158?999.8-$161?141.0) to $144?741.1 (95% CI, $144?287.5-$145?194.7) at the claim level.

Conclusions and relevance

This cross-sectional study found that among individuals with fee-for-service Medicare receiving any of 32 measured services, low-value care use and spending decreased marginally from 2014 to 2018, despite a national education campaign in collaboration with clinician specialty societies and increased attention on low-value care. While most use of low-value care came from 3 services, 1 of these was opioid prescriptions, which increased over time despite the harms associated with their use. These findings may represent several opportunities to prevent patient harm and lower spending.

SUBMITTER: Mafi JN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7887655 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Trends in Low-Value Health Service Use and Spending in the US Medicare Fee-for-Service Program, 2014-2018.

Mafi John N JN Reid Rachel O RO Baseman Lesley H LH Hickey Scot S Totten Mark M Agniel Denis D Fendrick A Mark AM Sarkisian Catherine C Damberg Cheryl L CL

JAMA network open 20210201 2

<h4>Importance</h4>Low-value care, defined as care offering no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is associated with harmful outcomes in patients and wasteful spending. Despite a national education campaign and increasing attention on reducing health care waste, recent trends in low-value care delivery remain unknown.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess national trends in low-value care use and spending.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>In this cross-sectional study, analyses of low-valu ...[more]

PMID: 33591365

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDecreasing use of low-value care is a major goal for Medicare given the potential to decrease costs and harms. Compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) is more strongly financially incentivized to decrease use of low-value care.ObjectivesTo compare use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA overall and to examine trends in use of low-value care in both programs from 2006 to 2015.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed individuals enrolled in TM and MA using data from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To account for differences in characteristics between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA, a propensity score-based approach was used. Data were analyzed from August 2020 through January 2021.ExposuresBeing enrolled in MA or TM.Main outcomes and measuresBinary measures of use were collected for 13 low-value services in 4 categories (ie, [1] cancer screening: cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in older adults; [2] antibiotic use: antibiotic for acute upper respiratory infection and antibiotic for influenza; [3] medication: anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic in an adult older than 65 years; benzodiazepine for depression; opioid for headache; opioid for back pain; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] for hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease; and [4] imaging: magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] for back pain, radiograph for back pain, and MRI or CT for headache) and 4 low-value composites corresponding to the categories (ie, cancer screening composite, antibiotic use composite, medication composite, and imaging composite).ResultsAmong 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, 9429 (56.0%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.3) years. Of 13 low-value services and 4 low-value composites, statistically significant differences were found in 2 measures. For the low-value medication composite, 2054 of 11 636 eligible individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 17.6%; 95% CI, 16.8%-18.3%) received the care, and 981 of 5141 eligible individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 19.7%; 95% CI, 18.3%-21.2%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-3.8 percentage points; P = .02). For the NSAID use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease metric, 807 of 7832 individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 10.0%; 95% CI, 9.2%-10.8%) received the care, and 447 of 3566 individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 12.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-27.1%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.3-4.6 percentage points; P = .001). Overall, there were no decreases in use of low-value care in TM or MA over time.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that use of low-value care was similarly prevalent in MA and TM, suggesting that MA enrollment was not associated with decreased provision of low-value care compared with TM.

Project description:ImportanceOwing to a rapid increase in rates of diagnostic cardiovascular testing in the 1990s and early 2000s, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented a series of payment changes intended to reduce overall spending on fee-for-service testing. Whether guideline-concordant testing has been subsequently affected is unknown to date.ObjectiveTo determine whether changes in overall rates of use of diagnostic cardiovascular tests were associated with changes in high-value testing recommended by guidelines and low-value testing that is expected to provide minimal benefits.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study assessed a national 5% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 95 years from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2016. Data were analyzed from February 15, 2018, through August 15, 2019.ExposuresEligibility to receive high-value testing (assessment of left ventricular systolic function among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction or heart failure) and low-value testing (stress testing before low-risk noncardiac surgery and routine stress testing within 2 years of coronary revascularization not associated with acute care visits).Main outcomes and measuresAge- and sex-adjusted annual rates of overall, high-value, and low-value diagnostic cardiovascular testing.ResultsMean (SD) age was similar over time (75.57 [7.32] years in 2000-2003; 74.82 [7.79] years in 2012-2016); the proportion of women slightly declined over time (63.23% in 2000 to 2003; 57.27% in 2012 to 2016). The rate of overall diagnostic cardiovascular testing per 1000 patient-years among the 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries increased from 275 in 2000 to 359 in 2008 (P?<?.001) and then declined to 316 in 2016 (P?<?.001). High-value testing increased steadily over the entire study period for patients with acute myocardial infarction (85.7% to 89.5%; P?<?.001) and heart failure (72.6% to 80.1%; P?<?.001). Low-value testing among patients undergoing low-risk surgery increased from 2.4% in 2000 to 3.8% in 2008 (P?<?.001) but then declined to 2.5% in 2016 (P?<?.001). Low-value testing within 2 years of coronary revascularization slightly increased from 47.4% in 2000 to 49.2% in 2003 (P?=?.03) but then declined to 30.8% in 2014 (P?<?.001).Conclusions and relevanceRates of overall and low-value diagnostic cardiovascular testing appear to have declined considerably and rates of high-value testing have increased slightly. Payment changes intended to reduce spending on overall testing may not have adversely affected testing recommended by guidelines.

Project description:ImportancePrescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions.Design, setting, and participantsDescriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage.ExposureCalendar year.Main outcomes and measuresNet spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs).ResultsThere were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts.Conclusions and relevanceIn 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have identified disparities in readmissions among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program's (HRRP's) priority conditions. Evidence suggests timely follow-up is associated with reduced risk of readmission, but it is unknown whether timely follow-up reduces disparities in readmission.ObjectiveTo assess whether follow-up within 7 days after discharge from a hospitalization reduces risk of readmission and mitigates identified readmission disparities.DesignA retrospective cohort study using Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the associations between sociodemographic characteristics (race and ethnicity, dual-eligibility status, rurality, and area social deprivation), follow-up, and readmission. Mediation analysis was used to examine if disparities in readmission were mitigated by follow-up.ParticipantsWe analyzed data from 749,402 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, or pneumonia, and discharged home between January 1 and December 1, 2018.Main measureAll-cause unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge.Key resultsPost-discharge follow-up within 7 days of discharge was associated with a substantially lower risk of readmission (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.52-0.53). Across all four HRRP conditions, beneficiaries with dual eligibility and beneficiaries living in areas with high social deprivation had a higher risk of readmission. Non-Hispanic Black beneficiaries had higher risk of readmission after hospitalization for pneumonia relative to non-Hispanic Whites. Mediation analysis suggested that 7-day follow-up mediated 21.2% of the disparity in the risk of readmission between dually and non-dually eligible beneficiaries and 50.7% of the disparity in the risk of readmission between beneficiaries living in areas with the highest and lowest social deprivation. Analysis suggested that after hospitalization for pneumonia, 7-day follow-up mediated nearly all (97.5%) of the increased risk of readmission between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White beneficiaries.ConclusionsImproving rates of follow-up could be a strategy to reduce readmissions for all beneficiaries and reduce disparities in readmission based on sociodemographic characteristics.

Project description:ImportanceLow-value care is prevalent in the United States, yet little is known about the downstream health care use triggered by low-value services. Measurement of such care cascades is essential to understanding the full consequences of low-value care.ObjectiveTo describe cascades (tests, treatments, visits, hospitalizations, and new diagnoses) after a common low-value service, preoperative electrocardiogram (EKG) for patients undergoing cataract surgery.Design, setting, and participantsObservational cohort study using fee-for-service Medicare claims data from beneficiaries aged 66 years or older without known heart disease who were continuously enrolled between April 1, 2013, and September 30, 2015, and underwent cataract surgery between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015. Data were analyzed from March 12, 2018, to April 9, 2019.ExposuresReceipt of a preoperative EKG. The comparison group included patients who underwent cataract surgery but did not receive a preoperative EKG.Main outcomes and measuresCascade event rates and associated spending in the 90 days after preoperative EKG, or in a matched timeframe for the comparison group. Secondary outcomes were patient, physician, and area-level characteristics associated with experiencing a potential cascade.ResultsAmong 110 183 cataract surgery recipients, 12 408 (11.3%) received a preoperative EKG (65.6% of them were female); of those, 1978 (15.9%) had at least 1 potential cascade event. The comparison group included 97 775 participants (63.1% female). Those who received a preoperative EKG experienced between 5.11 (95% CI, 3.96-6.25) and 10.92 (95% CI, 9.76-12.08) additional events per 100 beneficiaries relative to the comparison group. This included between 2.18 (95% CI, 1.34-3.02) and 7.98 (95% CI, 7.12-8.84) tests, 0.33 (95% CI, 0.19-0.46) treatments, 1.40 (95% CI, 1.18-1.62) new patient cardiology visits, and 1.21 (95% CI, 0.62-1.79) new cardiac diagnoses. Spending for the additional services was up to $565 per Medicare beneficiary (95% CI, $342-$775), or an estimated $35 025 923 annually across all Medicare beneficiaries in addition to the $3 275 712 paid for the preoperative EKGs. Among preoperative EKG recipients, those who were older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for patients aged 75 to 84 years vs 66 to 74 years old, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.28-1.57), had more chronic conditions (aOR for each additional Elixhauser condition, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.14-1.22), lived in more cardiologist-dense areas (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09), or had their preoperative EKG performed by a cardiac specialist rather than a primary care physician (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43) were more likely to experience a potential cascade.Conclusions and relevanceCare cascades after preoperative EKG for cataract surgery are infrequent but costly. Policy and practice interventions to reduce low-value services and the cascades that follow could yield substantial savings.

Project description:ImportanceAfter decades of rapid increase, Medicare per-beneficiary spending growth was historically low in the period leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. In the years immediately following the legislation, Medicare expenditure growth slowed even further.ObjectiveTo evaluate factors contributing to the slowdown in Medicare per-beneficiary spending growth.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, expected spending growth for 2012 to 2015 and 2016 to 2018 was predicted holding payment rates and population characteristics constant. By contrasting predicted and actual spending growth during these periods, the contribution of population vs payment factors to the Medicare spending slowdown was determined. Analyses included all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years and older, ranging from 30 to 35 million beneficiaries annually between 2007 and 2018. Data analyses were conducted from January 2018 to August 2018 and updated with new data in June 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome included annual growth in total per-beneficiary spending. The roles of payment rate changes and differences in the Medicare population over time were considered, including demographic characteristics and numbers of chronic conditions.ResultsBetween 2008 to 2011 and 2012 to 2015, the adjusted annual Medicare Parts A and B per-beneficiary spending growth rate declined from 3.3% to -0.1%. From 2016 to 2018, the mean annual Medicare spending growth rate rose relative to the previous period but remained lower than in the baseline period at 1.7% per year. This slowdown extended across all sectors within Parts A and B, except for physician-administered drugs offered under Part B. Changes in payment rates (including sequestration measures) and beneficiary characteristics explained 44% of the difference in overall per-beneficiary spending growth between 2007 to 2011 and 2012 to 2015, and 63% between 2007 to 2011 and 2016 to 2018.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of trends in spending growth per Medicare beneficiary aged 65 years or older, results suggested that Medicare payment policy, including sector-specific payment rate changes and sequestration, will be a critical determinant of whether the Medicare spending growth slowdown persists.

Dataset Information

Trends in Low-Value Health Service Use and Spending in the US Medicare Fee-for-Service Program, 2014-2018.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposure

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Trends in Low-Value Health Service Use and Spending in the US Medicare Fee-for-Service Program, 2014-2018.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets