Literature DB >> 24819824

Measuring low-value care in Medicare.

Aaron L Schwartz1, Bruce E Landon2, Adam G Elshaug3, Michael E Chernew1, J Michael McWilliams4.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: 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.
OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: 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. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: 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.
RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24819824      PMCID: PMC4241845          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1541

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  40 in total

Review 1.  Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing to screen for cervical cancer: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Evelyn P Whitlock; Kimberly K Vesco; Michelle Eder; Jennifer S Lin; Caitlyn A Senger; Brittany U Burda
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  The value of screening preoperative chest x-rays: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hwan S Joo; Jean Wong; Viren N Naik; Georges L Savoldelli
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2005 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 5.063

3.  Expected and unanticipated consequences of the quality and information technology revolutions.

Authors:  Robert M Wachter
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-06-21       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Octaplas compared with fresh frozen plasma to reduce the risk of transmitting lipid-enveloped viruses: an economic analysis and budget impact analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  CADTH Technol Overv       Date:  2010-03-01

5.  Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study.

Authors: 
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2005-07-11       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

Authors:  Larry B Goldstein; Cheryl D Bushnell; Robert J Adams; Lawrence J Appel; Lynne T Braun; Seemant Chaturvedi; Mark A Creager; Antonio Culebras; Robert H Eckel; Robert G Hart; Judith A Hinchey; Virginia J Howard; Edward C Jauch; Steven R Levine; James F Meschia; Wesley S Moore; J V Ian Nixon; Thomas A Pearson
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2010-12-02       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of acute vertebral compression fractures: 2-year results from a randomized trial.

Authors:  Steven Boonen; Jan Van Meirhaeghe; Leonard Bastian; Steven R Cummings; Jonas Ranstam; John B Tillman; Richard Eastell; Karen Talmadge; Douglas Wardlaw
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  Cardiologists' use of percutaneous coronary interventions for stable coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Grace A Lin; R Adams Dudley; Rita F Redberg
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2007 Aug 13-27

Review 9.  Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer in long-term dialysis patients.

Authors:  Jean L Holley
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2007-03-14       Impact factor: 8.237

Review 10.  Screening for carotid artery stenosis: an update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Tracy Wolff; Janelle Guirguis-Blake; Therese Miller; Michael Gillespie; Russell Harris
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-12-18       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  145 in total

1.  [Overtreatment: Initiatives to identify ineffective and inappropriate medical interventions].

Authors:  Claudia Wild; Julia Mayer
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2016-02-16

2.  Analysis of Physician Variation in Provision of Low-Value Services.

Authors:  Aaron L Schwartz; Anupam B Jena; Alan M Zaslavsky; J Michael McWilliams
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  An E-learning Module on Chronic Low Back Pain in Older Adults: Effect on Medical Resident Attitudes, Confidence, Knowledge, and Clinical Skills.

Authors:  Zachary G Jacobs; D Michael Elnicki; Subashan Perera; Debra K Weiner
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 3.750

4.  Frequency of and variation in low-value care in primary care: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Ciara Pendrith; Meghan Bhatia; Noah M Ivers; Graham Mecredy; Karen Tu; Gillian A Hawker; Susan B Jaglal; Lynn Wilson; Kimberly Wintemute; Richard H Glazier; Wendy Levinson; R Sacha Bhatia
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2017-01-20

5.  Stress testing before low-risk surgery: so many recommendations, so little overuse.

Authors:  Eve A Kerr; Jersey Chen; Jeremy B Sussman; Mandi L Klamerus; Brahmajee K Nallamothu
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 21.873

6.  Overuse and insurance plan type in a privately insured population.

Authors:  Meredith B Rosenthal; Carrie H Colla; Nancy E Morden; Thomas D Sequist; Alexander J Mainor; Zhonghe Li; Kevin H Nguyen
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 2.229

7.  Medicare Accountable Care Organizations Are Not Associated With Reductions in the Use of Low-Value Coronary Revascularization.

Authors:  John M Hollingsworth; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Phyllis Yan; Sarah Ward; Sunny Lin; Carrie H Colla; Valerie A Lewis; John Z Ayanian; Brent K Hollenbeck; Andrew M Ryan
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2018-06

8.  Use of non-indicated cardiac testing in low-risk patients: Choosing Wisely.

Authors:  Carrie H Colla; Thomas D Sequist; Meredith B Rosenthal; William L Schpero; Daniel J Gottlieb; Nancy E Morden
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 7.035

9.  Use of Low-Value Pediatric Services Among the Commercially Insured.

Authors:  Kao-Ping Chua; Aaron L Schwartz; Anna Volerman; Rena M Conti; Elbert S Huang
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 7.124

10.  Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Low-Value Cancer Screenings and Distributional Effects in Medicare.

Authors:  Wendy Yi Xu; Jeah Kyoungrae Jung
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.