Low-Value Service Use in Provider Organizations.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schwartz AL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5785325 | biostudies-other | 2018 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Low-Value Service Use in Provider Organizations.
Schwartz Aaron L AL Zaslavsky Alan M AM Landon Bruce E BE Chernew Michael E ME McWilliams J Michael JM
Health services research 20161110 1
<h4>Objective</h4>To assess whether provider organizations exhibit distinct profiles of low-value service provision.<h4>Data sources</h4>2007-2011 Medicare fee-for-service claims and enrollment data.<h4>Study design</h4>Use of 31 services that provide minimal clinical benefit was measured for 4,039,733 beneficiaries served by 3,137 provider organizations. Variation across organizations, persistence within organizations over time, and correlations in use of different types of low-value services w ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) on the use of vertebroplasty and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, 2 procedures for which randomized controlled trials suggest similar outcomes to sham surgery and therefore may provide low value. Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs aim to improve quality and decrease health care spending. Reducing the use of potentially low-value procedures can accomplish both of these goals.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent potentially low-value orthopedic procedures (vertebroplasty and partial meniscectomy) and a control (hip fracture) from 2010 to 2015 using a 20% sample of national Medicare claims. We performed an interrupted time-series analysis using linear spline models to evaluate the count of each procedure per 1000 patients, stratified by ACO participation.ResultsWe identified 76 256 patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, 44 539 patients who underwent vertebroplasty, and 50 760 patients who underwent hip fracture admission. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy rates decreased, vertebroplasty rates remained stable, and hip fracture rates increased for both groups during the study period, with similar trends among ACO and non-ACO patients. After January 1, 2013, ACO and non-ACO populations had similar trends for vertebroplasty (ACO incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.15 [1.08-1.23] vs non-ACO IRR = 1.11 [1.05-1.16]), meniscectomy (ACO IRR = 1.06 [1.01-1.12] vs non-ACO IRR = 1.03 [0.99-1.07]), and hip fracture (ACO IRR = 1.08 [1.01-1.14] vs non-ACO IRR = 1.08 [1.03-1.13]).ConclusionsACOs were not associated with a reduction in the frequency of vertebroplasty and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy.
| S-EPMC6503656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Because specialty care accounts for half of Medicare expenditures, improving its value is critical to the success of Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) in curbing spending growth. However, whether ACOs have reduced low-value specialty care without compromising use of high-value services remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS:Using national Medicare data, we identified 2 cohorts: beneficiaries for whom the value of coronary revascularization is lower (those with ischemic heart disease without angina, congestive heart failure, or recent admission for acute myocardial infarction) and beneficiaries for whom its value is higher (those with recent acute myocardial infarction admission). We then determined the provider groups who cared for the cohorts, distinguishing between those participating (n=298) and those not participating in a Medicare ACO (1329). After measuring the provider groups' use of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention among the 2 cohorts, we fit multivariable models to test the statistical significance of rates of change in low- and high-value revascularization after ACO participation. During the pre-ACO period, participating and nonparticipating provider groups had similar rates of low- and high-value revascularization. Our multivariable model results show that rates of change for low- and high-value coronary revascularization were not altered by a provider group's participation in a Medicare ACO (lower value: difference, -0.04 per year; 95% confidence interval, -0.11 to 0.03; higher value: difference, 0.96 per year; 95% confidence interval, -0.46 to 2.4). CONCLUSIONS:We found no association between provider group participation in a Medicare ACO and use of low- or high-value coronary revascularization.
| S-EPMC6005663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLow-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.ObjectiveTo assess national trends in low-value care use and spending.Design, setting, and participantsIn 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.ExposureBeing enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for a period of time, in years.Main outcomes and measuresThe 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.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceThis 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.
| S-EPMC7887655 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7970337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To support the use of research evidence by community-based organizations (CBOs) we have developed 'Synthesized HIV/AIDS Research Evidence' (SHARE), which is an evidence service for those working in the HIV sector. SHARE consists of several components: an online searchable database of HIV-relevant systematic reviews (retrievable based on a taxonomy of topics related to HIV/AIDS and open text search); periodic email updates; access to user-friendly summaries; and peer relevance assessments. Our objective is to evaluate whether this 'full serve' evidence service increases the use of research evidence by CBOs as compared to a 'self-serve' evidence service. METHODS/DESIGN:We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process study to explore the findings in greater depth. All CBOs affiliated with Canadian AIDS Society (n = 120) will be invited to participate and will be randomized to receive either the 'full-serve' version of SHARE or the 'self-serve' version (a listing of relevant systematic reviews with links to records on PubMed and worksheets that help CBOs find and use research evidence) using a simple randomized design. All management and staff from each organization will be provided access to the version of SHARE that their organization is allocated to. The trial duration will be 10 months (two-month baseline period, six-month intervention period, and two month crossover period), the primary outcome measure will be the mean number of logins/month/organization (averaged across the number of users from each organization) between baseline and the end of the intervention period. The secondary outcome will be intention to use research evidence as measured by a survey administered to one key decision maker from each organization. For the qualitative study, one key organizational decision maker from 15 organizations in each trial arm (n = 30) will be purposively sampled. One-on-one semi-structured interviews will be conducted by telephone on their views about and their experiences with the evidence service they received, how helpful it was in their work, why it was helpful (or not helpful), what aspects were most and least helpful and why, and recommendations for next steps. DISCUSSION:To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT to evaluate the effects of an evidence service specifically designed to support CBOs in finding and using research evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01257724.
| S-EPMC3127774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo describe the process of implementing a screening questionnaire for depression and anxiety, the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), in low-vision service (LVS) organizations.MethodsThis study consisted of three parts: (1) a usability study combined with semistructured interviews, in which clients (n = 10) of LVS organizations expressed their preference for using the PHQ-4; (2) a feasibility study, in which the PHQ-4 was implemented on a small scale and its use was evaluated, involving health care providers (n = 6) and clients (n = 9); and (3) semistructured interviews to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing the PHQ-4 according to health care providers (n = 6) and managers (n = 4) of LVS organizations. Results were integrated into themes and linked to constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).ResultsSix themes were derived from the substudies: (1) quality of the intervention, (2) applicability for clients of LVS organizations, (3) attitude and needs of clients, (4) attitude of health care providers, (5) support within LVS organizations, and (6) embedment in current practice. Results could be linked to 12 CFIR constructs. The constructs "relative advantage," "patient needs and resources," and "available resources" emerged most prominently in our themes as either barrier or facilitator.ConclusionsThe PHQ-4 seems an appropriate screening instrument for use in LVS organizations because of its quality and adaptable use. It might provide opportunities to timely detect depression and anxiety, but challenges in implementing the PHQ-4 should be considered.Translational relevanceBarriers and facilitators for implementing the PHQ-4 may also apply to implementing other questionnaires in LVS organizations.
| S-EPMC8762693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immediately after the approval of direct-acting antiviral medications for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in 2013, state Medicaid programs limited access to these expensive treatments based on liver disease stage, absence of active alcohol or substance use, and prescriber limitations. New York State fee-for-service (FFS) Medicaid eliminated these requirements in May 2016, but the effect on providers and patients obtaining prior authorization (PA) from Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) was unknown. We used a mixed methods approach to assess whether the removal of HCV treatment restrictions was associated with changes in Medicaid MCOs' PA approval processes and length of time to treatment initiation at two large urban New York City provider organizations participating in Project INSPIRE, an HCV care coordination demonstration project. At baseline, the top criteria for clinic care coordinators ranking MCOs as being "most difficult" were liver staging criteria, delayed treatment, and requiring a urine toxicology test. At follow-up, liver staging criteria were replaced by medication formulary limitations. Univariate analysis of the Project INSPIRE participant data suggests a decrease in the percentage of participants with insurance/PA-related treatment delays pre- versus post-policy change (23% versus 15%, p value = 0.02). Interrupted time series analysis found a 2 percentage point decrease (p value = 0.02) in the proportion of PAs each month with insurance-related treatment delays that was attributable to policy change. These results from two urban clinics indicate New York State FFS Medicaid's policy change for HCV treatment may have been associated with some changes in Medicaid MCO PA decisions, but MCO PA denials and treatment delays were still observed "on the ground" by clinic staff.
| S-EPMC8382819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Telehealth technology can create a disruptive communication environment for frontline care providers who mediate virtual communication with specialists in electronic consultations. As providers are dealing with various technology features when communicating with specialists, their flexible attitude and behaviors to use various telehealth-related technology features can change the outcome of virtual care service. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study is to examine frontline care providers' technology adaptation behaviors in the electronic consultation context. From the perspective of frontline care providers, we reapply and retest a theoretical model, reflecting a mechanism through which technology users' personal characteristics and technology adaptation behavior enhance virtual service performance, which is an important performance enabler in this online meeting context. In provider-to-provider communication, particularly, we explore the association among providers' information technology (IT)-related personal characteristics, adaptive telehealth technology use, and virtual service performance. METHODS:An online survey was administered to collect individual providers' personal traits, IT adaptation, and perception on virtual service performance. Partial least squares-structural equation modeling was used to estimate our predictive model of personal traits-IT adaptation, such as exploitative use (use the telehealth technology in a standard way), and exploratory use (use the telehealth technology as innovative way)-and virtual service performance. RESULTS:We collected 147 responses from graduate nursing students who were training to be nurse practitioners in their master's program, resulting in 121 valid responses from the cross-section online survey. Our theoretical model explained 60.0% of the variance in exploitative use of telehealth technology, 44% of the variance in exploratory use of telehealth technology, and 66% of the variance in virtual service performance. We found that exploitative IT use is an important driver to increase virtual service performance (?=0.762, P<.001), and personal characteristics such as habit are positively associated with both exploitative (?=0.293, P=.008) and exploratory use behaviors (?=0.414, P=.006), while computer self-efficacy is positively associated with exploitative use of telehealth technology (?=0.311, P=.047). CONCLUSIONS:This study discusses the unique role of frontline care providers in a virtual care service context and highlights the importance of their telehealth adaptation behavior in provider-to-provider communication. We showed that providers perceive that telehealth technologies should function as intended, otherwise it may create frustration or avoidance of the telehealth technology. Moreover, providers' habitual use of various technologies in daily lives also motivates them to adaptively use telehealth technology for improving virtual care service. Understanding providers' technology habit and adaptation can inform health care policy and further provide a better view of the design of telehealth technology for online communication.
| S-EPMC6740163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Timely follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test result is critical to the prevention and early diagnosis of cervical cancer. The current inadequate and inequitable delivery of these potentially life-saving services is attributed to several factors, including patient out-of-pocket costs. Waiving of consumer cost-sharing for follow-up testing (e.g., colposcopy and related cervical services) is likely to improve access and uptake, especially among underserved populations. One approach to defray the incremental costs of providing more generous coverage for follow-up testing is reducing expenditures on "low-value" cervical cancer screening services. To explore the potential fiscal implications of a policy that redirects cervical cancer screening resources from potentially low- to high-value clinical scenarios, we analyzed 2019 claims from the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database to quantify (i) total spending on low-value cervical cancer screening and (ii) out-of-pocket costs associated with colposcopy and related cervical services among commercially insured Virginians. In a cohort of 1,806,921 female patients (ages 48.1 ± 24.8 years), 295,193 claims for cervical cancer screening were reported, 100,567 (34.0%) of which were determined to be low-value ($4,394,361 total; $4,172,777 for payers and $221,584 out-of-pocket [$2/patient]). Claims for 52,369 colposcopy and related cervical services were reported ($40,994,016 total; $33,457,518 for payers and $7,536,498 out-of-pocket [$144/patient]). These findings suggest that reallocating savings incurred from unnecessary spending to fund more generous coverage of necessary follow-up care is a feasible approach to enhancing cervical cancer prevention equity and outcomes.Prevention relevanceOut-of-pocket fees are a barrier to follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test. Among commercially insured Virginians, out-of-pocket costs for follow-up services averaged $144/patient; 34% of cervical cancer screenings were classified as low value. Reallocating low-value cervical cancer screening expenditures to enhance coverage for follow-up care can improve screening outcomes. See related Spotlight, p. 363.
| S-EPMC10320459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe adoption of Internet-based patient-provider communication services (IPPC) in health care has been slow. Patients want electronic communication, and the quality of health care can be improved by offering such IPPCs. However, the rate of enrollment in such services remains low, and the reasons for this are unclear. Knowledge about the barriers to use is valuable during implementation of IPPCs in the health care services, and it can help timing, targeting, and tailoring IPPCs to different groups of patients.ObjectiveThe goal of our study was to investigate patients' views of an IPPC that they could use from home to pose questions to nurses and physicians at their treatment facility, and their reported reasons for non-use of the service.MethodsThis qualitative study was based on individual interviews with 22 patients who signed up for, but did not use, the IPPC.ResultsPatients appreciated the availability and the possibility of using the IPPC as needed, even if they did not use it. Their reported reasons for not using the IPPC fell into three main categories: (1) they felt that they did not need the IPPC and had sufficient access to information elsewhere, (2) they preferred other types of communication such as telephone or face-to-face contact, or (3) they were hindered by IPPC attributes such as login problems.ConclusionsPatients were satisfied with having the opportunity to send messages to health care providers through an IPPC, even if they did not use the service. IPPCs should be offered to the patients at an appropriate time in the illness trajectory, both when they need the service and when they are receptive to information about the service. A live demonstration of the IPPC at the point of enrollment might have increased its use.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00971139; http://clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/show/NCT00971139 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6KlOiYJrW).
| S-EPMC3841351 | biostudies-literature