Search

BACKGROUND: Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions based on quality indicators have been shown to lead to significant improvements in compliance with evidence-based care including de-adoption of low-value practices (LVPs). Our primary aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding a hypothetical A&F module targeting LVPs for trauma admissions to an existing quality assurance intervention targeting high-value care and risk-adjusted outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess how certain A&F characteristics might influence its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a probabilistic static decision analytic model in the Québec trauma care continuum. We considered the Québec Ministry of Health perspective. Our economic evaluation compared a hypothetical scenario in which the A&F module targeting LVPs is implemented in a Canadian provincial trauma quality assurance program to a status quo scenario in which the A&F module is not implemented. In scenarios analyses we assessed the impact of A&F characteristics on its cost-effectiveness. Results are presented in terms of incremental costs per LVP avoided. RESULTS: Results suggest that the implementation of A&F module (Cost = $1,480,850; Number of LVPs = 6,005) is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness compared to status quo (Cost = $1,124,661; Number of LVPs = 8,228). The A&F module would cost $160 per LVP avoided compared to status quo. The A&F module becomes more cost-effective with the addition of facilitation visits; more frequent evaluation; and when only high-volume trauma centers are considered. CONCLUSION: A&F module targeting LVPs is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness than status quo and has the potential to be cost-effective if the decision-makers willingness-to-pay is at least $160 per LVP avoided. This likely represents an underestimate of true ICER due to underestimated costs or missed opportunity costs. Results suggest that virtual facilitation visits, frequent evaluation, and implementing the module in high-volume centers can improve cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in the use of high- and low-value health care between immigrant and US-born adults. DATA SOURCE: The 2007-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. STUDY DESIGN: We split the sample into younger (ages 18-64 years) and older adults (ages 65 years and over). Our outcome measures included the use of high-value care (eight services) and low-value care (seven services). Our key independent variable was immigration status. For each outcome, we ran regressions with and without individual-level characteristics. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: N/A. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Before accounting for individual-level characteristics, the use of high- and low-value care was lower among immigrant adults than US-born adults. After accounting for individual-level characteristics, this difference decreased in both groups of younger and older adults. For high-value care, significant differences were observed in five services and the direction of the differences was mixed. The use of breast cancer screening was lower among immigrant than US-born younger and older adults (-5.7 [95% CI: -7.4 to -3.9] and -2.9 percentage points [95% CI: -5.6 to -0.2]) while the use of colorectal cancer screening was higher among immigrant than US-born younger and older adults (2.6 [95% CI: 0.5 to 4.8] and 3.6 [95% CI: 0.2 to 7.0] percentage points). For low-value care, we did not identify significant differences except for antibiotics for acute upper respiratory infection among younger adults and opioids for back pain among older adults (-3.5 [95% CI: -5.5 to -1.5] and -3.8[95% CI: -7.3 to -0.2] percentage points). Particularly, differences in socioeconomic status, health insurance, and care access between immigrant and US-born adults played a key role in accounting for differences in the use of high- and low-value health care. The use of high-value care among immigrant and US-born adults increased over time, but the use of low-value care did not decrease. CONCLUSION: Differential use of high- and low-value care between immigrant and US-born adults may be partly attributable to differences in individual-level characteristics, especially socioeconomic status, health insurance, and access to care.

ObjectivesWe aimed to examine the use and factors associated with the provision of low-value care in Japan.DesignA multicentre observational study.SettingRoutinely collected claims data that include all inpatient and outpatient visits in 242 large acute care hospitals (accounting for approximately 11% of all acute hospitalisations in Japan).Participants345 564 patients (median age (IQR): 62 (40-75) years; 182 938 (52.9%) women) seeking care at least once in the hospitals in the fiscal year 2019.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe identified 33 low-value services, as defined by clinical evidence, and developed two versions of claims-based measures of low-value services with different sensitivity and specificity (broader and narrower definitions). We examined the number of low-value services, the proportion of patients receiving these services and the proportion of total healthcare spending incurred by these services in 2019. We also evaluated the 2015-2019 trends in the number of low-value services.ResultsServices identified by broader low-value care definition occurred in 7.5% of patients and accounted for 0.5% of overall annual healthcare spending. Services identified by narrower low-value care definition occurred in 4.9% of patients and constituted 0.2% of overall annual healthcare spending. Overall, there was no clear trend in the prevalence of low-value services between 2015 and 2019. When focusing on each of the 17 services accounting for more than 99% of all low-value services identified (narrower definition), 6 showed decreasing trends from 2015 to 2019, while 4 showed increasing trends. Hospital size and patients' age, sex and comorbidities were associated with the probability of receiving low-value service.ConclusionsA substantial number of patients received low-value care in Japan. Several low-value services with high frequency, especially with increasing trends, require further investigation and policy interventions for better resource allocation.

Background and aims5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are frequently used in the management of Crohn's disease (CD). We used a de-identified administrative claims database to compare patterns and outcomes of continuing versus stopping 5-ASA in patients with CD who escalated to anti-metabolite monotherapy.MethodsPatients with CD on 5-ASA who were new users of anti-metabolite monotherapy and followed for at least 12 months from OptumLabs® Data Warehouse. Three patterns of 5-ASA use were identified: stopped 5-ASA, short-term 5-ASA (use for  6 months after starting anti-metabolites). Outcomes (need for corticosteroids, risk of CD-related hospitalization and/or surgery, treatment escalation to biologic therapy) were compared using Cox proportional hazard analysis adjusting for key covariates, with a 12-month immortal time period.ResultsOf 3036 patients with CD who were new-users of anti-metabolite monotherapy, 667 (21.9%), 626 (20.6%), and 1743 (57.4%) stopped 5-ASA, used 5-ASA transiently or persistently, respectively. Compared to patients who stopped 5-ASA after starting anti-metabolites, persistent 5-ASA use was associated with a higher risk of corticosteroid use (HR, 1.24 [1.08-1.42]), without an increase in risk of CD-related hospitalization (HR, 1.21 [0.98-1.49]), CD-related surgery (HR, 1.28 [0.90-1.80]) or treatment escalation (HR, 0.85 [0.62-1.20]). Sensitivity analyses using a 3-month window after initiation of anti-metabolites to classify patients as continuing vs. stopping 5-ASA showed similar results. Residual confounding by disease severity could not be excluded.Conclusion5-ASAs are frequently continued long-term even after escalation to anti-metabolite therapy in patients with CD but offer no clinical benefit over stopping 5-ASA.

An aspect of overuse is who decides which practices are evaluated for overuse and which of the studies on overuse are published in the medical literature. We sought to examine the frequency with which studies in medical journals questioned an established practice. As a secondary objective, we sought to determine if there was variance among medical specialties. We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional review of the published literature in 14 medical specialty journals. We included studies from one issue in three high-impact journals (November/December 2020) for each specialty. We assessed whether the study reported on a medical practice, whether it reported on an existing practice, whether the author expressed uncertainty regarding the practice, whether the study was a randomized design, and if the authors encouraged further testing in randomized studies. For all medical specialties combined, we found that 37% (n = 98) questioned existing practices, and 15% (n = 40) either tested the practice in a randomized trial or encouraged future randomized testing of the practice. The medical specialties that questioned their practices the most were gastroenterology (61%; n = 10/18), obstetrics/gynecology (52%; n = 11/21), and cardiovascular (50%; n = 5/10). These findings indicate that, although research is being conducted to examine current medical practices, few studies advocate for randomized testing of these practices, and even fewer actually test them in a randomized fashion. Additionally, the variation across medical specialties suggests areas in which to look for potential practices that are low-value, duplicative, and/or wasteful.

BackgroundLow-value care, or patient care that offers no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is costly and often associated with patient harm. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendations represent one of the most scientifically sound and frequently delivered groups of low-value services, but a more contemporary measurement of the utilization and spending for Grade D services beyond the small number of previously studied measures is needed.ObjectiveTo estimate utilization and costs of seven USPSTF Grade D services among US Medicare beneficiaries.DesignWe conducted a cross-sectional study of data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2007 to 2016 to identify instances of Grade D services.Setting/participantsNAMCS is a nationally representative survey of US ambulatory visits at non-federal and non-hospital-based offices that uses a multistage probability sampling design. We included all visits by Medicare enrollees, which included traditional fee-for-service, Medicare Advantage, supplemental coverage, and dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid enrollees.Main measuresWe measured annual utilization of seven Grade D services among adult Medicare patients, using inclusion and exclusion criteria from prior studies and the USPSTF recommendations. We calculated annual costs by multiplying annual utilization counts by mean per-unit costs of services using publicly available sources.Key resultsDuring the study period, we identified 95,121 unweighted Medicare patient visits, representing approximately 2.4 billion visits. Each year, these seven Grade D services were utilized 31.1 million times for Medicare beneficiaries and cost $477,891,886. Three services-screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria, vitamin D supplements for fracture prevention, and colorectal cancer screening for adults over 85 years-comprised $322,382,772, or two-thirds of the annual costs of the Grade D services measured in this study.ConclusionsUS Medicare beneficiaries frequently received a group of rigorously defined and costly low-value preventive services. Spending on low-value preventive care concentrated among a small subset of measures, representing important opportunities to safely lower US health care spending while improving the quality of care.

IntroductionRobust randomised trial data have shown that routine preoperative (pre-op) testing for cataract surgery patients is inappropriate. While guidelines have discouraged testing since 2002, cataract pre-op testing rates have remained unchanged since the 1990s. Given the challenges of reducing low-value care despite strong consensus around the evidence, innovative approaches are needed to promote high-value care. This trial evaluates the impact of an interdisciplinary electronic health record (EHR) intervention that is informed by behavioural economic theory.Methods and analysisThis pragmatic randomised trial is being conducted at UCLA Health between June 2021 and June 2022 with a 12-month follow-up period. We are randomising all UCLA Health physicians who perform pre-op visits during the study period to one of the three nudge arms or usual care. These three nudge alerts address (1) patient harm, (2) increased out-of-pocket costs for patients and (3) psychological harm to the patients related to pre-op testing. The nudges are triggered when a physician starts to order a pre-op test. We hypothesise that receipt of a nudge will be associated with reduced pre-op testing. The primary outcome will be the change in the percentage of patients undergoing pre-op testing at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will include the percentage of patients undergoing specific categories of pre-op tests (labs, EKGs, chest X-rays (CXRs)), the efficacy of each nudge, same-day surgery cancellations and cost savings.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the University of California, Los Angeles as well as a nominated Data Safety Monitoring Board. If successful, we will have created a tool that can be disseminated rapidly to EHR vendors across the nation to reduce inappropriate testing for the most common low-risk surgical procedures in the country.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04104256.

BackgroundIdentifying ineffective practices that have been used in oncology is important in reducing wasted resources and harm. We sought to examine the prevalence of practices that are being used but have been shown in RCTs to be ineffective (medical reversals) in published oncology studies.MethodsWe cross-sectionally analyzed studies published in three high-impact oncology medical journals (2009-2018). We abstracted data relating to the frequency and characterization of medical reversals.ResultsOf the 64 oncology reversals, medications (44%) represented the most common intervention type (39% were targeted). Fourteen (22%) were funded by pharmaceutical/industry only and 56% were funded by an organization other than pharmaceutical/industry. The median number of years that the practice had been in use prior to the reversal study was 9 years (range 1-50 years).ConclusionHere we show that oncology reversals most often involve the administration of medications, have been practiced for years, and are often identified through studies funded by non-industry organizations.

Digital health advances offer a multitude of possibilities to improve public health and individual wellbeing. Little attention has been paid, however, to digital health's potential to create low-value care - the reduction of which is increasingly appreciated as a policy priority. This commentary provides a framework to illustrate the potential for consumer-facing digital health to generate three distinct categories of low-value care; 1) ineffective care because it is underdeveloped, 2) inefficient care because it supplements rather than substitutes, or 3) unwanted care because it is not aligned with clinician and patient preferences. We offer specific policy recommendations to reduce each type of low-value care.

The ability to identify medical reversals and other low-value medical practices is an essential prerequisite for efforts to reduce spending on such practices. Through an analysis of more than 3000 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in three leading medical journals (the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine), we have identified 396 medical reversals. Most of the studies (92%) were conducted on populations in high-income counties, cardiovascular disease was the most common medical category (20%), and medication was the most common type of intervention (33%).

Quantification of benefits and harms of medical interventions should be based on high-quality evidence, which is not always the case in the endometriosis field. In many clinical circumstances, healthcare decisions in women with endometriosis are taken based on suboptimal evidence or on evidence of coexistence of benefits and harms that must be balanced. In these conditions, it is important to avoid or reduce the use of low-value care, i.e. interventions with defined harms and uncertain benefits, or whose effectiveness is comparable with less expensive alternatives. In particular, we suggest that: (i) non-surgical diagnosis based on symptoms, physical findings and transvaginal ultrasonography is possible in most women with symptomatic endometriosis. Thus, except in doubtful cases, laparoscopy should be intended for surgical treatment, not for diagnostic purposes: early diagnosis and diagnostic laparoscopy are not synonymous; (ii) future trials on new drugs for endometriosis should address those outcomes that are most important to patients, should be designed as superiority trials and should include a progestin or an estrogen-progestin as a comparator. Moreover, limitation of repetitive surgery for recurrent endometriosis is among the objectives of long-term medical treatment; (iii) indications for surgery should be the result of a balance between demonstrated benefits in terms of fertility enhancement and pain relief, specific risks associated with excision of different types of endometriotic lesions, cost-effectiveness and patient preference after detailed information; (iv) physicians, health professionals and policy makers should discriminate between screening for and diagnosis of endometriosis. Limited peritoneal foci, which are frequently observed also in asymptomatic women, regress or remain stable in about two thirds of cases. Therefore, the theoretical premises for a screening campaign are currently unclear; (v) physicians should develop the ability to effectively communicate quantitative information based on international guidelines and systematic literature reviews. This will assist a woman's understanding of the interaction between the evidence and her priorities, facilitating the transition towards value-based medicine.