James D Chambers1, Mark N Salem2, Brittany N D'Cruz2, Prasun Subedi3, Sachin J Kamal-Bahl3, Peter J Neumann2. 1. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: jchambers@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 2. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Global Health and Value, Innovation Center, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disinvesting in low-value health care services provides opportunities for investment in higher value care and thus an increase in health care efficiency. OBJECTIVES: To identify international experience with disinvestment initiatives and to review empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives. METHODS: We performed a literature search using the PubMed database to identify international experience with disinvestment initiatives. We also reviewed empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives. RESULTS: We identified 26 unique disinvestment initiatives implemented across 11 countries. Nineteen addressed multiple intervention types, six addressed only drugs, and one addressed only devices. We reviewed 18 empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives: 7 reported that the initiative was successful, 8 reported that the initiative was unsuccessful, and 3 reported that findings were mixed; that is, the study considered multiple services and reported a decrease in the use of some but not others. Thirty-seven low-value services were evaluated across the 18 empirical analyses, for 14 (38%) of which the disinvestment initiative led to a decline in use. Six of the seven studies that reported the disinvestment initiative to be successful included an attempt to promote the disinvestment initiative among participating clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The success of disinvestment initiatives has been mixed, with fewer than half the identified empirical studies reporting that use of the low-value service was reduced. Our findings suggest that promotion of the disinvestment initiative among clinicians is a key component to the success of the disinvestment initiative.
BACKGROUND: Disinvesting in low-value health care services provides opportunities for investment in higher value care and thus an increase in health care efficiency. OBJECTIVES: To identify international experience with disinvestment initiatives and to review empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives. METHODS: We performed a literature search using the PubMed database to identify international experience with disinvestment initiatives. We also reviewed empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives. RESULTS: We identified 26 unique disinvestment initiatives implemented across 11 countries. Nineteen addressed multiple intervention types, six addressed only drugs, and one addressed only devices. We reviewed 18 empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives: 7 reported that the initiative was successful, 8 reported that the initiative was unsuccessful, and 3 reported that findings were mixed; that is, the study considered multiple services and reported a decrease in the use of some but not others. Thirty-seven low-value services were evaluated across the 18 empirical analyses, for 14 (38%) of which the disinvestment initiative led to a decline in use. Six of the seven studies that reported the disinvestment initiative to be successful included an attempt to promote the disinvestment initiative among participating clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The success of disinvestment initiatives has been mixed, with fewer than half the identified empirical studies reporting that use of the low-value service was reduced. Our findings suggest that promotion of the disinvestment initiative among clinicians is a key component to the success of the disinvestment initiative.
Authors: Toshihiko Takada; Pauline Heus; Sander van Doorn; Christiana A Naaktgeboren; Jan-Willem Weenink; Simone A van Dulmen; Lotty Hooft Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: David D Kim; Lauren A Do; Allan T Daly; John B Wong; James D Chambers; Daniel A Ollendorf; Peter J Neumann Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 5.128