David D Kim1,2, Lauren A Do3, Allan T Daly3, John B Wong4,5, James D Chambers3,4, Daniel A Ollendorf3,4, Peter J Neumann3,4. 1. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington St., Box 063, Boston, MA, 02111, USA. dkim3@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 2. Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. dkim3@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 3. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington St., Box 063, Boston, MA, 02111, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Division of Clinical Decision Making, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-value care, typically defined as health services that provide little or no benefit, has potential to cause harm, incur unnecessary costs, and waste limited resources. Although evidence-based guidelines identifying low-value care have increased, the guidelines differ in the type of evidence they cite to support recommendations against its routine use. OBJECTIVE: We examined the evidentiary rationale underlying recommendations against low-value interventions. DESIGN: We identified 1167 "low-value care" recommendations across five US organizations: the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the "Choosing Wisely" Initiative, American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). For each recommendation, we classified the reported evidentiary rationale into five groups: (1) low economic value; (2) no net clinical benefit; (3) little or no absolute clinical benefit; (4) insufficient evidence; (5) no reason mentioned. We further investigated whether any cited or otherwise available cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with conventional low economic value benchmarks (e.g., exceeding $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year). RESULTS: Of the identified low-value care recommendations, Choosing Wisely contributed the most (N=582, 50%), followed by ACC/AHA (N=250, 21%). The services deemed "low value" differed substantially across organizations. "No net clinical benefit" (N=428, 37%) and "little or no clinical benefit" (N=296, 25%) were the most commonly reported reasons for classifying an intervention as low value. Consideration of economic value was less frequently reported (N=171, 15%). When relevant cost-effectiveness studies were available, their results were mostly consistent with low-value care recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that evidentiary rationales for low-value care vary substantially, with most recommendations relying on clinical evidence. Broadening the evidence base to incorporate cost-effectiveness evidence can help refine the definition of "low-value" care to reflect whether an intervention's costs are worth the benefits. Developing a consensus grading structure on the strength and evidentiary rationale may help improve de-implementation efforts for low-value care.
BACKGROUND: Low-value care, typically defined as health services that provide little or no benefit, has potential to cause harm, incur unnecessary costs, and waste limited resources. Although evidence-based guidelines identifying low-value care have increased, the guidelines differ in the type of evidence they cite to support recommendations against its routine use. OBJECTIVE: We examined the evidentiary rationale underlying recommendations against low-value interventions. DESIGN: We identified 1167 "low-value care" recommendations across five US organizations: the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the "Choosing Wisely" Initiative, American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). For each recommendation, we classified the reported evidentiary rationale into five groups: (1) low economic value; (2) no net clinical benefit; (3) little or no absolute clinical benefit; (4) insufficient evidence; (5) no reason mentioned. We further investigated whether any cited or otherwise available cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with conventional low economic value benchmarks (e.g., exceeding $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year). RESULTS: Of the identified low-value care recommendations, Choosing Wisely contributed the most (N=582, 50%), followed by ACC/AHA (N=250, 21%). The services deemed "low value" differed substantially across organizations. "No net clinical benefit" (N=428, 37%) and "little or no clinical benefit" (N=296, 25%) were the most commonly reported reasons for classifying an intervention as low value. Consideration of economic value was less frequently reported (N=171, 15%). When relevant cost-effectiveness studies were available, their results were mostly consistent with low-value care recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that evidentiary rationales for low-value care vary substantially, with most recommendations relying on clinical evidence. Broadening the evidence base to incorporate cost-effectiveness evidence can help refine the definition of "low-value" care to reflect whether an intervention's costs are worth the benefits. Developing a consensus grading structure on the strength and evidentiary rationale may help improve de-implementation efforts for low-value care.
Authors: Carrie H Colla; Nancy E Morden; Thomas D Sequist; Alexander J Mainor; Zhonghe Li; Meredith B Rosenthal Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-02-19 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Alan Rosenberg; Abiy Agiro; Marc Gottlieb; John Barron; Peter Brady; Ying Liu; Cindy Li; Andrea DeVries Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Brian S Alper; Amy Price; Esther J van Zuuren; Zbys Fedorowicz; Allen F Shaughnessy; Peter Oettgen; Glyn Elwyn; Amir Qaseem; Ilkka Kunnamo; Urvi Gupta; Deborah D Carter; Michael Mittelman; Carla Berg-Nelson; Martin Mayer Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-11-01