Dataset Information

Low-Value Care at the Actionable Level of Individual Health Systems.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Low-value health care remains prevalent in the US despite decades of work to measure and reduce such care. Efforts have been only modestly effective in part because the measurement of low-value care has largely been restricted to the national or regional level, limiting actionability.

Objectives

To measure and report low-value care use across and within individual health systems and identify system characteristics associated with higher use using Medicare administrative data.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study of health system-attributed Medicare beneficiaries was conducted among 556 health systems in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Compendium of US Health Systems and included system-attributed beneficiaries who were older than 65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B for at least 12 months in 2016 or 2017, and eligible for specific low-value services. Statistical analysis was conducted from January 26 to July 15, 2021.

Main outcomes and measures

Use of 41 individual low-value services and a composite measure of the 28 most common services among system-attributed beneficiaries, standardized to distance from the mean value. Measures were based on the Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator and published claims-based definitions.

Results

Across 556 health systems serving a total of 11 637 763 beneficiaries, the mean (SD) use of each of the 41 low-value services ranged from 0% (0.01%) to 28% (4%) of eligible beneficiaries. The most common low-value services were preoperative laboratory testing (mean [SD] rate, 28% [4%] of eligible beneficiaries), prostate-specific antigen testing in men older than 70 years (mean [SD] rate, 27% [8%]), and use of antipsychotic medications in patients with dementia (mean [SD] rate, 24% [8%]). In multivariable analysis, the health system characteristics associated with higher use of low-value care were smaller proportion of primary care physicians (adjusted composite score, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.04-0.26] for systems with less than the median percentage of primary care physicians vs -0.16 [95% CI, -0.27 to -0.05] for those with more than the median percentage of primary care physicians; P < .001), no major teaching hospital (adjusted composite, 0.10 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.20] without a teaching hospital vs -0.18 [95% CI, -0.34 to -0.02] with a teaching hospital; P = .01), larger proportion of non-White patients (adjusted composite, 0.15 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.32] for systems with >20% of non-White beneficiaries vs -0.06 [95% CI, -0.16 to 0.03] for systems with ≤20% of non-White beneficiaries; P = .04), headquartered in the South or West (adjusted composite, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.14-0.43] for the South and 0.22 [95% CI, 0.02-0.42] for the West compared with -0.09 [95% CI, -0.26 to 0.08] for the Northeast and -0.44 [95% CI, -0.60 to -0.28] for the Midwest; P < .001), and serving areas with more health care spending (adjusted composite, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.11-0.35] for areas above the median level of spending vs -0.24 [95% CI, -0.36 to -0.12] for areas below the median level of spending; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

The findings of this large cohort study suggest that system-level measurement and reporting of specific low-value services is feasible, enables cross-system comparisons, and reveals a broad range of low-value care use.

SUBMITTER: Ganguli I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8477305 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePatient reviews of health care experiences are increasingly used for public reporting and alternative payment models. Critics have argued that this incentivizes physicians to provide more care, including low-value care, undermining efforts to reduce wasteful practices.ObjectiveTo assess associations between rates of low-value service provision to a primary care professional (PCP) patient panel and patients' ratings of their health care experiences.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study used Medicare fee-for-service claims from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014, for a random 20% sample of beneficiaries to identify beneficiaries for whom each of 8 low-value services could be ordered but would be considered unnecessary. The study also used health care experience reports from independently sampled beneficiaries who responded to the 2010-2015 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Medicare fee-for-service survey. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, to December 9, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were health care experience ratings from Medicare beneficiaries who responded to the CAHPS survey from 2 domains, namely "Your Health Care in the Last 6 Months" (overall health care, office wait time, timely access to nonurgent care, and timely access to urgent care) and "Your Personal Doctor" (overall personal physician and a composite score for interactions with personal physician). Beneficiaries in both samples were attributed to the PCP with whom they had the most spending. For each PCP, a composite score of low-value service exposure was constructed using the 20% sample; this score represented the adjusted relative propensity of the PCP patient panel to receive low-value care. The association between low-value service exposure and health care experience ratings reported by the CAHPS respondents in the PCP patient panel was estimated using regression analysis.ResultsThe final sample had 100 743 PCPs, with a mean of approximately 258 patients per PCP. Only 1 notable association was found; more low-value care exposure was associated with more frequent reports of having to wait more than 15 minutes after the scheduled time of an appointment (a mean of 0.448 points lower CAHPS score on a 10-point scale for PCP patient panels who received the most low-value care vs the least low-value care). Although some other associations were statistically significant, their magnitudes were substantially smaller than those typically considered meaningful in other CAHPS literature and were inconsistent in direction across levels of low-value service exposure.Conclusions and relevanceThis quality improvement study found that more low-value care exposure for a PCP patient panel was not associated with more favorable patient ratings of their health care experiences.

Project description:BackgroundPrior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature.MethodsA search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020.ResultsA total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%).ConclusionsThis review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Project description:ImportanceThe association of low-value testing with downstream care and clinical outcomes among primary care outpatients is unknown to date.ObjectiveTo assess the association of low-value testing with subsequent care among low-risk primary care outpatients undergoing an annual health examination (AHE).Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based retrospective cohort study used administrative health care claims from Ontario, Canada, for primary care outpatients undergoing an AHE between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2016, to identify individuals who could be placed into one (or more) of the following 3 cohorts: adult patients (18 years or older) at low risk for cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, adult patients at low risk for cardiovascular disease, and female patients (aged 13-20 years or older than 69 years) at low risk for cervical cancer. The dates of analysis were June 3 to September 12, 2019.ExposuresLow-value screening tests were defined per cohort as (1) a chest radiograph within 7 days, (2) an electrocardiogram (ECG) within 30 days, or (3) a Papanicolaou test within 7 days after an AHE.Main outcomes and measuresSubsequent specialist visits, diagnostic tests, and procedures within 90 days after a low-value test (if the patient had a chest radiograph, ECG, or Papanicolaou test) or end of the exposure observation window (if not tested).ResultsIncluded in the chest radiograph, ECG, and Papanicolaou test cohorts of propensity score-matched pairs were 43 532 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.5 [14.4] years; 38.5% female), 245 686 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [13.7] years; 51.1% female), and 29 194 patients (mean [SD] age, 45.5 [27.1] years; 100% female), respectively. At 90 days, chest radiographs in low-risk patients were associated with an additional 0.87 (95% CI, 0.69-1.05) and 1.96 (95% CI, 1.71-2.22) patients having an outpatient pulmonology visit or an abdominal or thoracic computed tomography scan per 100 patients, respectively, and ECGs in low-risk patients were associated with an additional 1.92 (95% CI, 1.82-2.02), 5.49 (95% CI, 5.33-5.65), and 4.46 (95% CI, 4.31-4.61) patients having an outpatient cardiologist visit, a transthoracic echocardiogram, or a cardiac stress test per 100 patients, respectively. At 180 days, Papanicolaou testing in low-risk patients was associated with an additional 1.31 (95% CI, 0.84-1.78), 52.8 (95% CI, 51.9-53.6), and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.66-1.01) patients having an outpatient gynecology visit, a follow-up Papanicolaou test, or colposcopy per 100 patients, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceObserved associations in this population-based cohort study suggest that testing in low-risk patients as part of an AHE increases the likelihood of subsequent specialist visits, diagnostic tests, and procedures.

Project description:Despite the importance of identifying and reducing wasteful health care use, few direct measures of overuse have been developed. Direct measures are appealing because they identify specific services to limit and can characterize low-value care even among the most efficient providers.To develop claims-based measures of low-value services, examine service use (and associated spending) detected by these measures in Medicare, and determine whether patterns of use are related across different types of low-value services.Drawing from evidence-based lists of services that provide minimal clinical benefit, we developed 26 claims-based measures of low-value services. Using 2009 claims for 1,360,908 Medicare beneficiaries, we assessed the proportion of beneficiaries receiving these services, mean per-beneficiary service use, and the proportion of total spending devoted to these services. We compared the amount of use and spending detected by versions of these measures with different sensitivity and specificity. We also estimated correlations between use of different services within geographic areas, adjusting for beneficiaries' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.Use and spending detected by 26 measures of low-value services in 6 categories: low-value cancer screening, low-value diagnostic and preventive testing, low-value preoperative testing, low-value imaging, low-value cardiovascular testing and procedures, and other low-value surgical procedures.Services detected by more sensitive versions of measures affected 42% of beneficiaries and constituted 2.7% of overall annual spending. Services detected by more specific versions of measures affected 25% of beneficiaries and constituted 0.6% of overall spending. In adjusted analyses, low-value spending detected in geographic regions at the 5th percentile of the regional distribution of low-value spending ($227 per beneficiary) exceeded the difference in detected low-value spending between regions at the 5th and 95th percentiles ($189 per beneficiary). Adjusted regional use was positively correlated among 5 of 6 categories of low-value services (mean r for pairwise, between-category correlations, 0.33; range, 0.14-0.54; P???.01).Services detected by a limited number of measures of low-value care constituted modest proportions of overall spending but affected substantial proportions of beneficiaries and may be reflective of overuse more broadly. Performance of claims-based measures in supporting targeted payment or coverage policies to reduce overuse may depend heavily on how the measures are defined.