Joan M Neuner1,2,3,4, Ann B Nattinger5,6,7, Tina Yen8,6,9, Emily McGinley5,6,7, Michael Nattinger5,6,7, Liliana E Pezzin5,6,7. 1. Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. jneuner@mcw.edu. 2. Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. jneuner@mcw.edu. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. jneuner@mcw.edu. 4. Department of Medicine, Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 WWatertown Plank Rd., Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. jneuner@mcw.edu. 5. Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 6. Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 8. Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 9. Division of Surgical Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Since 2012, about 80 specialty societies have released Choosing Wisely (CW) recommendations aimed at reducing the use of low-value, unproven, or ineffective medical services. The extent to which these recommendations have influenced the behavior of physicians and patients remains largely unknown. METHODS: Using MarketScan Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits databases, we identified annual cohorts of women with incident, early-stage breast cancer and estimated the prevalence of four initial treatment and six surveillance metrics deemed as low-value breast cancer care by CW. Multivariable logistic regressions were subsequently used to estimate temporal trends and regional variation in the use of these metrics, with a special focus on the year of CW's publication. RESULTS: There were 122,341 women identified as undergoing treatment for incident breast cancer between 2010 and 2014. Two of the four low-value initial treatment metrics and four of the six low-value surveillance metrics declined significantly over time. The temporal trend of declining use, however, preceded the release of CW's guidelines. Declines ranged from 11.0% for follow-up mammography to 40.6% for receipt of surgical biopsy without an attempted needle biopsy. There were marked regional differences in use of low-value breast cancer care for all metrics, much of which persisted after publication of CW. CONCLUSIONS: With two notable exceptions, use of low-value breast cancer care has declined steadily since 2010. The declines, however, were not accelerated by the publication of CW recommendations.
PURPOSE: Since 2012, about 80 specialty societies have released Choosing Wisely (CW) recommendations aimed at reducing the use of low-value, unproven, or ineffective medical services. The extent to which these recommendations have influenced the behavior of physicians and patients remains largely unknown. METHODS: Using MarketScan Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits databases, we identified annual cohorts of women with incident, early-stage breast cancer and estimated the prevalence of four initial treatment and six surveillance metrics deemed as low-value breast cancer care by CW. Multivariable logistic regressions were subsequently used to estimate temporal trends and regional variation in the use of these metrics, with a special focus on the year of CW's publication. RESULTS: There were 122,341 women identified as undergoing treatment for incident breast cancer between 2010 and 2014. Two of the four low-value initial treatment metrics and four of the six low-value surveillance metrics declined significantly over time. The temporal trend of declining use, however, preceded the release of CW's guidelines. Declines ranged from 11.0% for follow-up mammography to 40.6% for receipt of surgical biopsy without an attempted needle biopsy. There were marked regional differences in use of low-value breast cancer care for all metrics, much of which persisted after publication of CW. CONCLUSIONS: With two notable exceptions, use of low-value breast cancer care has declined steadily since 2010. The declines, however, were not accelerated by the publication of CW recommendations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Choosing Wisely; Disparities; Low-value care
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Armando E Giuliano; Mark R Somerfield; Al B Benson; Diane C Bodurka; Harold J Burstein; Alistair J Cochran; Hiram S Cody; Stephen B Edge; Sharon Galper; James A Hayman; Theodore Y Kim; Cheryl L Perkins; Donald A Podoloff; Visa Haran Sivasubramaniam; Roderick R Turner; Richard Wahl; Donald L Weaver; Antonio C Wolff; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Susan Boolbol; Amy Degnim; Henry Kuerer; A Marilyn Leitch; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-06-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sharon H Giordano; Zhigang Duan; Yong-Fang Kuo; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; James S Goodwin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shervin M Shirvani; I-Wen Pan; Thomas A Buchholz; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Karen E Hoffman; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: James L Khatcheressian; Antonio C Wolff; Thomas J Smith; Eva Grunfeld; Hyman B Muss; Victor G Vogel; Francine Halberg; Mark R Somerfield; Nancy E Davidson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ann B Nattinger; Purushottam W Laud; Ruta Bajorunaite; Rodney A Sparapani; Jean L Freeman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Julie M Legler; Joan L Warren; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Deborah Schrag Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Hely Shah; Julian Surujballi; Arif Ali Awan; Brian Hutton; Angel Arnaout; Risa Shorr; Lisa Vandermeer; Mashari Jemaan Alzahrani; Mark Clemons Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 4.872