Changes in Low-Value Services in Year 1 of the Medicare Pioneer Accountable Care Organization Program

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare

Importance

Compared with traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers have greater financial incentives to reduce the delivery of low-value services (LVS); however, there is limited evidence at a national level on the prevalence of LVS utilization among MA vs TM beneficiaries and whether LVS utilization rates vary among the largest MA insurers.

Objective

To determine whether there are differences in the rates of LVS delivered to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA vs TM, overall and by the 7 largest MA insurers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older residing in the US in 2018 with complete demographic information. Eligible TM beneficiaries were enrolled in Parts A, B, and D, and eligible MA beneficiaries were enrolled in Part C with Part D coverage. Data analysis was conducted between February 2022 and August 2024.

Exposures

Medicare plan type.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was utlization of 35 LVS defined by the Milliman Health Waste Calculator. An overdispersed Poisson regression model was used to calculate estimated margins comparing risk-adjusted rates of LVS in TM vs MA, overall and across the 7 largest MA insurers.

Results

The study sample included 3 671 364 unique TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.7 [7.7] years; 1 502 631 female [40.9%]) and 2 299 618 unique MA beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.3] years; 983 592 female [42.8%]). LVS utilization was lower among those enrolled in MA compared with TM (50.02 vs 52.48 services per 100 beneficiary-years; adjusted absolute difference, -2.46 services per 100 beneficiary-years; 95% CI, -3.16 to -1.75 services per 100 beneficiary-years; P < .001). Within MA, LVS utilization was lower among beneficiaries enrolled in HMOs vs PPOs (48.03 vs 52.66 services per 100 beneficiary-years; adjusted absolute difference, -4.63 services per 100 beneficiary-years; 95% CI, -5.53 to -3.74 services per 100 beneficiary-years; P < .001). While MA beneficiaries enrolled in UnitedHealth, Humana, Centene, and smaller MA insurers had lower rates of LVS compared with those in TM, beneficiaries enrolled in CVS, Cigna, and Anthem showed no differences. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association plans had higher rates of LVS compared with TM.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of nearly 6 million Medicare beneficiaries, utilization of LVS was on average lower among MA beneficiaries compared with TM beneficiaries, possibly owing to stronger financial incentives in MA to reduce LVS; however, meaningful differences existed across some of the largest MA insurers, suggesting that MA insurers may have variable ability to influence LVS reduction.

Differences in Utilization of Preventive Services for Primary Care Clinicians Participating in MIPS and ACOs

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Value-based payment programs link payments to the performance of providers on cost and quality of care to incentivize high-value care. To improve quality and lower costs, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Quality Payment Program (QPP) for clinicians in 2017. Under the Medicare QPP, most eligible clinicians participate in one of the payment models: (a) Advanced Alternative Payment Models (A-APMs) through eligible APMs like Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or (b) the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). ACO and MIPS clinicians participating in QPP differ in quality reporting requirements, and these differences are likely to affect the utilization of different quality measures, including preventive services. This study evaluated the differences in the utilization of preventive services by primary care clinicians participating in MIPS and ACOs.

METHODS

We use difference-in-difference regressions to compare preventive services in MIPS versus ACOs. Since preventive services like immunization and certain cancer screening are mandatory reporting measures for ACOs and voluntary measures for MIPS, the treatment group for this study is ACO clinicians and the comparison group is non-ACO MIPS clinicians. We obtained the rates of influenza immunization, pneumonia vaccination, tobacco use cessation intervention, depression screening, colorectal cancer screening, breast cancer screening, and wellness visits per 10 000 Medicare beneficiaries from Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Public Use File (2012-2018).

RESULTS

We had 508 144 total observations (ACO = 25.78% and MIPS = 74.22%) from 72 592 unique primary care clinicians. Compared to MIPS clinicians, ACO clinicians had significantly higher rates of pneumonia vaccination (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.43) but lower rates of colorectal cancer screening (IRR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.96). Similarly, clinicians in ACO shared savings-only models had significantly higher rates of pneumonia vaccination (IRR 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48), depression screening (IRR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09-2.71), and wellness visits (IRR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47) compared to MIPS clinicians. There were no differences between ACO and MIPS clinicians on the utilization of breast cancer screening procedures and tobacco use cessation interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

ACO clinicians may have prioritized relatively low-cost services such as pneumonia vaccination, depression screening, and wellness visits to improve their performance under QPP. Policymakers may need to alter incentives in performance-based payment programs to ensure that clinicians are improving all types of quality measures, including cancer screening.

Relationship Between Insurance Status and Receipt of Cardiac Tests and Procedures During Hospitalization: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Prior analyses of the relationship between insurance status and receipt of tests and procedures have yielded conflicting findings and have focused on outpatient care. We sought to characterize the relationship between primary payer and diagnostic and procedural intensity, comparing rates of cardiac tests and procedures in matched hospitalized Medicaid and commercially insured patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We created a propensity score-matched sample of Medicaid and commercially insured adults hospitalized at all acute care hospitals in Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, and North Carolina from 2016 to 2018. The main outcome was receipt of a cardiac test or procedure: echocardiogram, stress test, cardiac catheterization (elective, in acute coronary syndrome, in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction), and pacemaker and subcutaneous cardiac rhythm monitor implantation. Generalized linear models with a hospital-specific indicator variable were estimated to calculate the adjusted odds of a commercially insured patient receiving a given test or procedure relative to a Medicaid patient. Models controlled for race, ethnicity, and zip code income quartile. Commercially insured patients were more likely to receive each cardiac test or procedure, with adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.16 (95% CI, 1.00-1.34) for cardiac catheterization in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction to 1.40 (95% CI, 1.27-1.54) for pacemaker implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized commercially insured patients were more likely to undergo a range of cardiac tests and procedures, some of which may represent low-value care. This may be driven by a combination of physician and patient preference, financial incentives, and social determinants of health. Our findings support the need for hospital payment models focused on increasing value and reducing inequities.

Use and Cost of Low-Value Services Among Veterans Dually Enrolled in VA and Medicare

BACKGROUND

Over half of veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) are also enrolled in Medicare, potentially increasing their opportunity to receive low-value health services within and outside VA.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the use and cost of low-value services delivered to dually enrolled veterans from VA and Medicare.

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional.

PARTICIPANTS

Veterans enrolled in VA and fee-for-service Medicare (FY 2017-2018).

MAIN MEASURES

We used VA and Medicare administrative data to identify 29 low-value services across 6 established domains: cancer screening, diagnostic/preventive testing, preoperative testing, imaging, cardiovascular testing, and surgery. We determined the count of low-value services per 100 veterans delivered in VA and Medicare in FY 2018 overall, by domain, and by individual service. We applied standardized estimates to determine each service's cost.

KEY RESULTS

Among 1.6 million dually enrolled veterans, the mean age was 73, 97% were men, and 77% were non-Hispanic White. Overall, 63.2 low-value services per 100 veterans were delivered, affecting 32% of veterans; 22.9 services per 100 veterans were delivered in VA and 40.3 services per 100 veterans were delivered in Medicare. The total cost was $226.3 million (M), of which $62.6 M was spent in VA and $163.7 M in Medicare. The most common low-value service was prostate-specific antigen testing at 17.3 per 100 veterans (VA 55.9%, Medicare 44.1%). The costliest low-value service was percutaneous coronary intervention (VA $10.1 M, Medicare $32.8 M).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 1 in 3 dually enrolled veterans received a low-value service in FY18, with twice as many low-value services delivered in Medicare vs VA. Interventions to reduce low-value services for veterans should consider their substantial use of such services in Medicare.

Effect of Health Service Area on Primary Care Physician Provision of Low-Value Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Using a health systems approach to investigate low-value care (LVC) may provide insights into structural drivers of this pervasive problem.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the influence of service area practice patterns on low-value mammography and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing.

DESIGN

Retrospective study analyzing LVC rates between 2008 and 2018, leveraging physician relocation in 3-year intervals of matched physician and patient groups.

SETTING

U.S. Medicare claims data.

PARTICIPANTS

8254 physicians and 56 467 patients aged 75 years or older.

MEASUREMENTS

LVC rates for physicians staying in their original service area and those relocating to new areas.

RESULTS

Physicians relocating from higher-LVC areas to low-LVC areas were more likely to provide lower rates of LVC. For mammography, physicians staying in high-LVC areas (LVC rate, 10.1% [95% CI, 8.8% to 12.2%]) or medium-LVC areas (LVC rate, 10.3% [CI, 9.0% to 12.4%]) provided LVC at a higher rate than physicians relocating from those areas to low-LVC areas (LVC rates, 6.0% [CI, 4.4% to 7.5%] [difference, -4.1 percentage points {CI, -6.7 to -2.3 percentage points}] and 5.9% [CI, 4.6% to 7.8%] [difference, -4.4 percentage points {CI, -6.7 to -2.4 percentage points}], respectively). For PSA testing, physicians staying in high- or moderate-LVC service areas provided LVC at a rate of 17.5% (CI, 14.9% to 20.7%) or 10.6% (CI, 9.6% to 13.2%), respectively, compared with those relocating from those areas to low-LVC areas (LVC rates, 9.9% [CI, 7.5% to 13.2%] [difference, -7.6 percentage points {CI, -10.9 to -3.8 percentage points}] and 6.2% [CI, 3.5% to 9.8%] [difference, -4.4 percentage points {CI, -7.6 to -2.2 percentage points}], respectively). Physicians relocating from lower- to higher-LVC service areas were not more likely to provide LVC at a higher rate.

LIMITATION

Use of retrospective observational data, possible unmeasured confounding, and potential for relocating physicians to practice differently from those who stay.

CONCLUSION

Physicians relocating to service areas with lower rates of LVC provided less LVC than physicians who stayed in areas with higher rates of LVC. Systemic structures may contribute to LVC. Understanding which factors are contributing may present opportunities for policy and interventions to broadly improve care.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Prevalence and Cost of Routine Preoperative Care for Low-Risk Cataract Surgery a Decade after Choosing Wisely

PURPOSE

Examine the frequency and cost of procedural clearance tests and examinations in preparation for low-risk cataract surgery among members of a commercial healthcare organization in the United States. Determine what characteristics most strongly predict receipt of preoperative care and the probability that preoperative care impacts postsurgical adverse events.

DESIGN

Retrospective healthcare claims analysis and medical records review from a large, blended-health organization headquartered in Western Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

Members aged ≥ 65 years who were continuously enrolled 6 months before and after undergoing cataract surgery from 2018 to 2021 and had approved surgery claims.

METHODS

Preoperative exams or tests occurring in the 30 days before surgery were identified via procedural and diagnosis codes on claims of eligible members (e.g., Current Procedural Terminology codes for blood panels and preprocedural International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification codes). Prevalence and cost were directly estimated from claims; variables predictive of preoperative care receipt and adverse events were tested using mixed effects modeling.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total costs, prevalence, and strength of association as indicated by odds ratios.

RESULTS

Up to 42% of members undergoing cataract surgery had a physician office visit for surgical clearance, and up to 23% of members had testing performed in isolation or along with clearance visits. The combined costs for the preoperative visits and tests were $4.3 million (approximately $107-$114 per impacted member). There was little difference in member characteristics between those receiving and not receiving preoperative testing or exams. Mixed effects models showed that the most impactful determinants of preoperative care were the surgical facility and member's care teams; for preoperative testing, facilities were a stronger predictor than care teams. Adverse events were rare and unassociated with receipt of preoperative testing, exams, or a combination of the two.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of routine preoperative testing before cataract surgery appear similar to those prior to the implementation of the Choosing Wisely campaign, which was meant to reduce this use. Additionally, preoperative evaluations, many likely unnecessary, were common. Further attention to and reconsideration of current policies and practice for preoperative care may be warranted, especially at the facility level.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Discrepancies Among Hospitals and Regions in the Provision of Low-Value Care

BACKGROUND

Low-value care (LVC) is a critical issue in terms of patient safety and fiscal policy; however, little has been known in Asia. For the purpose of better understanding the extent of LVC on a national level, the utilization, costs, and associated characteristics of selected international recommendations were assessed in this study.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data during 2013-2017 to evaluate the LVC utilization. Adult beneficiaries who enrolled in the NHI program and received at least one of the low-value services in hospitals were included. We measured seven procedures derived from the international recommendations at the hospital level, and a composite measure was created by summing the total utilization of selected services to determine the overall prevalence and corresponding cost. The generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was adopted to estimate the association.

RESULTS

A total of 1 970 496 episodes of LVC was identified among 1 218 146 beneficiary-year observations and 2054 hospital-year observations. Overall, the utilization rate of the composite measure increased from 150.70 to 186.23 episodes per 10 000 beneficiaries with the growth in cost from US$ 5.40 to US$ 6.90 million. LVC utilization was proportional to the volume of outpatient visits and length of stay. Also, hospitals with a large volume of outpatient visits (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 95% CI, 2.10: 1.26 to 3.49 for Q2-Q3, 2.88: 1.45 to 5.75 for ≥Q3) and a higher proportion of older patients (aOR: 95% CI, 1.06: 1.02 to 1.11) were more likely to have high costs.

CONCLUSION

The utilization and corresponding cost of LVC appeared to increase annually despite the relatively lower prevalence compared to other countries. Multicomponent interventions such as recommendations, de-implementation policies and payment reforms are considered effective ways to reduce LVC. Repeated measurements would be needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions.

Trends in low-value cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and change in low-value cancer services.

STUDY DESIGN

In this retrospective cohort study, we used administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, a repository of medical and pharmacy data from US health plans representing more than 80 million members, between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2021.

METHODS

We used linear probability models to investigate the relation between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and 4 guideline-based metrics of low-value cancer care: (1) conventional fractionation radiotherapy instead of hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer; (2) non-guideline-based antiemetic use for minimal-, low-, or moderate- to high-risk chemotherapies; (3) off-pathway systemic therapy; and (4) aggressive end-of-life care. We identified patients with new diagnoses of breast, colorectal, and/or lung cancer. We excluded members who did not have at least 6 months of continuous insurance coverage and members with prevalent cancers.

RESULTS

Among 117,116 members (median [IQR] age, 60 [53-69] years; 72.4% women), 59,729 (51.0%) had breast cancer, 25,751 (22.0%) had colorectal cancer, and 31,862 (27.2%) had lung cancer. The payer mix was 18.7% Medicare Advantage or Medicare supplemental and 81.2% commercial non-Medicare. Rates of low-value cancer services exhibited minimal changes during the pandemic, as adjusted percentage-point differences were 3.93 (95% CI, 1.50-6.36) for conventional radiotherapy, 0.82 (95% CI, -0.62 to 2.25) for off-pathway systemic therapy, -3.62 (95% CI, -4.97 to -2.27) for non-guideline-based antiemetics, and 2.71 (95% CI, -0.59 to 6.02) for aggressive end-of-life care.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-value cancer care remained prevalent throughout the pandemic. Policy makers should consider changes to payment and incentive design to turn the tide against low-value cancer care.

ACO Clinicians Have Higher Medicare Part B Medical Services Payments Than MIPS Clinicians Under the Quality Payment Program

The Quality Payment Program (QPP) is a Medicare value-based payment program with 2 tracks: -Advanced Alternative Payment Models (A-APMs), including two-sided risk Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), and Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). In 2020, A-APM eligible ACO clinicians received an additional 5% positive, and MIPS clinicians received up to 5% negative or 2% positive performance-based adjustments to their Medicare Part B medical services payments. It is unclear whether the different payment adjustments have differential impacts on total medical services payments for ACO and MIPS participants. We compare Medicare Part B medical services payments received by primary care clinicians participating in ACO and MIPS programs using Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Public Use Files from 2014 to 2018 using difference-in-differences regressions. We have 254 395 observations from 50 879 unique clinicians (ACO = 37.86%; MIPS = 62.14%). Regression results suggest that ACO clinicians have significantly higher Medicare Part B medical services payments ($1003.88; 95% CI: [579.08, 1428.69]) when compared to MIPS clinicians. Our findings suggest that ACO clinicians had a greater increase in medical services payments when compared to MIPS clinicians following QPP participation. Increased payments for Medicare Part B medical services among ACO clinicians may be driven partly by higher payment adjustment rates for ACO clinicians for Part B medical services. However, increased Part B medical services payments could also reflect clinicians switching to increased outpatient services to prevent potentially costly inpatient services. Policymakers should examine both aspects when evaluating QPP effectiveness.

Differences in use of high- and low-value health care between immigrant and US-born adults

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.

Measuring low-value care in hospital discharge records: evidence from China

Background

Plenty of efforts have been made to reduce the use of low-value care (the care that is not expected to provide net benefits for patients) across the world, but measures of low-value care have not been developed in China. This study aims to develop hospital discharge records-based measures of low-value surgical procedures, evaluate their annual use and associated expenditure, and analyze the practice patterns by characterizing its temporal trends and correlations across rates of different low-value procedures within hospitals.

Methods

Informed by evidence-based lists including Choosing Wisely, we developed 11 measures of low-value surgical procedures. We evaluated the count and proportion of low-value episodes, as well as the proportion of expenditure and medical insurance payouts for these episodes, using hospital discharge records in Sichuan Province, China during a period of 2016-2022. We compared the count and expenditure detected by different versions of these measures, which varied in sensitivity and specificity. We characterized the temporal trends in the rate of low-value surgical procedures and estimated the annual percent change using joint-point regression. Additionally, we calculated the Spearman correlation coefficients between the risk-standardized rates of low-value procedures which were estimated by multilevel models adjusting for case mix across hospitals.

Findings

Low-value episodes detected by more specific versions of measures accounted for 3.25% (range, 0.11%-71.66%), and constituted 6.03% (range, 0.32%-84.63%) and 5.90% (range, 0.33%-82.86%) of overall expenditure and medical insurance payouts, respectively. The three figures accounted for 5.90%, 8.41%, and 8.38% in terms of more sensitive versions of measures. Almost half of the low-value procedures (five out of eleven) experienced an increase in rates during the period of 2016-2022, with four of them increasing over 20% per year. There was no significant correlation across risk-standardized rates of different low-value procedures within hospitals (mean r for pairwise, 0.03; CI, -0.02, 0.07).

Interpretation

Despite overall low-value practices detected by the 11 developed measures was modest, certain clinical specialties were plagued by widespread low-value practices which imposed heavy economic burdens for the healthcare system. Given the pervasive and significant upward trends in rates of low-value practices, it has become increasingly urgent to reduce such practices. Interventions in reducing low-value practices in China would be procedure-specific as practice patterns of low-value care varied by procedures and common drivers of low-value practices may not exist.

Funding

The National Science Foundation of China (72074163), Taikang Yicai Public Health and Epidemic Control Fund, Sichuan Science and Technology Program (2022YFS0052 and 2021YFQ0060), and Sichuan University (2018hhf-27 and SKSYL201811).

Reducing Overuse by Healthcare Systems: A Positive Deviance Analysis

BACKGROUND

Healthcare in the USA is increasingly delivered by large healthcare systems that include one or more hospitals and associated outpatient practices. It is unclear what role healthcare systems play in driving or preventing overutilization of healthcare services in the USA.

OBJECTIVE

To learn how high-value healthcare systems avoid overuse of services DESIGN: We identified "positive deviant" health systems using a previously constructed Overuse Index. These systems have much lower-than-average overuse of healthcare services. We confirmed that these health systems also delivered high-quality care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with executive leaders of these systems to validate a published framework for understanding drivers of overuse.

PARTICIPANTS

Leaders at select healthcare systems in the USA.

INTERVENTIONS

None APPROACH: We developed an interview guide and conducted semi-structured interviews. We iteratively developed a code book. Paired reviewers coded and reconciled each interview. We analyzed the interviews by applying constant comparative techniques. We mapped the emergent themes to provide the first empirical data to support a previously developed theoretical framework.

KEY RESULTS

We interviewed 15 leaders from 10 diverse healthcare systems. Consistent with important domains from the overuse framework, themes from our study support the role of clinicians and patients in avoiding overuse. The leaders described how they create a culture of professional practice and how they modify clinicians' attitudes to facilitate high-value practices. They also described how their patients view healthcare consumption and the characteristics of their patient populations allowed them to practice high-value medicine. They described the role of quality metrics, insurance plan ownership, and alternative payment model participation as encouraging avoidance of overuse.

CONCLUSIONS

Our qualitative analysis of positive deviant health systems supports the framework that is in the published literature, although health system leaders also described their financial structures as another important factor for reducing overuse and encouraging high-value care delivery.

Who's Accountable? Low-Value Care Received By Medicare Beneficiaries Outside Of Their Attributed Health Systems

Policy makers and payers increasingly hold health systems accountable for spending and quality for their attributed beneficiaries. Low-value care-medical services that offer little or no benefit and have the potential for harm in specific clinical scenarios-received outside of these systems could threaten success on both fronts. Using national Medicare data for fee-for-service beneficiaries ages sixty-five and older and attributed to 595 US health systems, we describe where and from whom they received forty low-value services during 2017-18 and identify factors associated with out-of-system receipt. Forty-three percent of low-value services received by attributed beneficiaries originated from out-of-system clinicians: 38 percent from specialists, 4 percent from primary care physicians, and 1 percent from advanced practice clinicians. Recipients of low-value care were more likely to obtain that care out of system if age 75 or older (versus ages 65-74), male (versus female), non-Hispanic White (versus other races or ethnicities), rural dwelling (versus metropolitan dwelling), more medically complex, or experiencing lower continuity of care. However, out-of-system service receipt was not associated with recipients' health systems' accountable care organization status. Health systems might improve quality and reduce spending for their attributed beneficiaries by addressing out-of-system receipt of low-value care-for example, by improving continuity.

Accountable care organizations and use of surgery among patients with Alzheimer disease and related dementias

OBJECTIVE

To understand the effects of accountable care organizations (ACOs) on use of surgery in patients with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective national cohort study of all Medicare beneficiaries identified in a 20% sample between 2010 and 2017. The primary exposure was participation in ACOs. The primary outcome was use of 1 of 6 common surgical procedures (aortic valve replacement [AVR], abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA] repair, colectomy, carotid artery repair, major joint repair, and prostatectomy).

METHODS

Multivariable logistic regression models were fit using beneficiary-year as the unit of analysis to estimate the likelihood of undergoing each procedure among patients with ADRD and without ADRD, stratified by ACO participation. Additional models were fit to determine how the relationship between ACO participation and surgery was altered based on procedure urgency and the availability of minimally invasive technology.

RESULTS

Adjusted odds for use of surgery were lower among patients with ADRD compared with patients without ADRD for all procedures. ACO participation had varying impact on patients with ADRD, with higher odds of AVR and major joint surgery and lower odds of carotid artery repair. Availability of minimally invasive technology increased the likelihood of AVR and AAA repair among patients with ADRD; however, ACO participation reduced these effects. The effect of ACO participation on the likelihood of undergoing surgery did not vary by urgency of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The likelihood of undergoing surgery is overall lower among patients with ADRD and may vary by ACO participation for specific procedures.

Effects of Medicare eligibility and enrollment at age 65 years on the use of high-value and low-value care

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of Medicare eligibility and enrollment on the use of high-value and low-value care services.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

The 2002-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

STUDY DESIGN

We employed a regression discontinuity design, which exploits the discontinuity in eligibility for Medicare at age 65 and compares individuals just before and after age 65. Our primary outcomes included the use of high-value care services (eight services) and low-value care services (seven services). To examine the effects of Medicare eligibility, we conducted a regression discontinuity analysis. To examine the effects of Medicare enrollment, we used the discontinuity in the probability of having Medicare coverage around the age eligibility cutoff and conducted an instrumental variable analysis.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

N/A.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Medicare eligibility and enrollment led to statistically significant increases in the use of only two high-value services: cholesterol measurement [2.1 percentage points (95%: 0.4-3.7) (2.2% relative change) and 2.4 percentage points (95%: 0.4-4.4)] and receipt of the influenza vaccine [3.0 percentage points (95%: 0.3-5.6) (6.0% relative change) and 3.6 percentage points (95%: 0.4-6.8)]. Medicare eligibility and enrollment led to statistically significant increases in the use of two low-value services: antibiotics for acute upper respiratory infections [6.9 percentage points (95% CI: 0.8-13.0) (24.0% relative change) and 8.2 percentage points (95% CI: 0.8-15.5)] and radiographs for back pain [4.6 percentage points (95% CI: 0.1-9.2) (36.8% relative change) and 6.2 percentage points (95% CI: 0.1-12.3)]. However, there was no significant change in the use of other high-value and low-value care services.

CONCLUSION

Medicare eligibility and enrollment at age 65 years led to increases in the use of some high-value and low-value care services, but there were no changes in the use of the majority of other services. Policymakers should consider refining the Medicare program to enhance the value of care delivered.

Assessing patient, physician, and practice characteristics predicting the use of low-value services

OBJECTIVE

To examine characteristics of beneficiaries, physicians, and their practice sites associated with greater use of low-value services (LVS) using LVS measures that reflect current care practices.

DATA SOURCES

This study was conducted in the context of a large, nationwide primary care redesign initiative (Comprehensive Primary Care Plus), using Medicare claims data in 2018.

STUDY DESIGN

We examined beneficiary-level total counts of LVS based on the existing 31 claims-based measures updated by excluding three services provided with diminishing frequency to Medicare beneficiaries and by replacing these with more recently identified LVS. We estimated hierarchical linear models with an extensive list of beneficiary, physician, and practice site characteristics to examine the contribution of characteristics at each level in predicting greater use of LVS. We also examined the proportion of variation in LVS use attributable to the set of characteristics at each level.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

The study included 5,074,642 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to 32,406 primary care physicians in 11,009 primary care practice sites.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Patients with disabilities, end-stage renal disease, and those in regions with higher poverty rates receive 10 (standard error [SE] = 3.0), 80 (SE = 14.0), and 10 (SE = 1.0) more LVS per 1000 beneficiaries across all 31 measures combined than patients without such attributes, respectively. Greater physician comprehensiveness and an increase in the number of primary care practitioners at a practice were associated with 40 (SE = 20.0) and 20 (SE = 6.0) fewer LVS per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively. Yet, the explanatory variables we examined only account for 11 percent of the variation in LVS use, with most of the variation (87 percent) being due to unobserved differences at the beneficiary level.

CONCLUSIONS

Unexplained residual variation, from underlying patient preferences and behavior of non-primary care providers, could be important determinants of LVS use.

Organizational influences on the use of low-value care in primary health care - a qualitative interview study with physicians in Sweden

AIM

The aim was (1) to explore organizational factors influencing the use of low-value care (LVC) as perceived by primary care physicians and (2) to explore which organizational strategies they believe are useful for reducing the use of LVC.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with semi-structured focus group discussions (FGDs) analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

SETTING

Six publicly owned primary health care centers in Stockholm.

SUBJECTS

The participants were 31 primary care physicians. The number of participants in each FGD varied between 3 and 7.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Categories and subcategories reporting organizational factors perceived to influence the use of LVC and organizational strategies considered useful for reducing the use of LVC.

RESULTS

Four types of organizational factors (resources, care processes, improvement activities, and governance) influenced the use of LVC. Resources involved time to care for patients, staff knowledge, and working tools. Care processes included work routines and the ways activities and resources were prioritized in the organization. Improvement activities involved performance measurement and improvement work to reduce LVC. Governance concerned organizational goals, higher-level decision making, and policies. Physicians suggested multiple strategies targeting these factors to reduce LVC, including increased patient-physician continuity, adjusted economic incentives, continuous professional development for physicians, and gatekeeping functions which prevent unnecessary appointments and guide patients to the appropriate point of care. .

CONCLUSION

The influence of multiple organizational factors throughout the health-care system indicates that a whole-system approach might be useful in reducing LVC.KEY POINTSWe know little about how organizational factors influence the use of low-value care (LVC) in primary health care.Physicians perceive organizational resources, care processes, improvement activities, and governance as influences on the use of LVC and LVC-reducing strategies.This study provides insights about how these factors influence LVC use.Strategies at multiple levels of the health-care system may be warranted to reduce LVC.

A Policy Approach to Reducing Low-Value Device-Based Procedure Use

Policy Points Low-value care is common in clinical practice, leading to patient harm and wasted spending. Much of this low-value care stems from the use of medical device-based procedures. We describe here a novel academic-policymaker collaboration in which evidence-based clinical coverage for device-based procedures is implemented through prior authorization-based policies for Louisiana's Medicaid beneficiary population. This process involves eight steps: 1) identifying low-value medical device-based procedures based on clinical evidence review, 2) quantifying utilization and reimbursement, 3) reviewing clinical coverage policies to identify opportunities to align coverage with evidence, 4) using a low-value device selection index, 5) developing an evidence synthesis and policy proposal, 6) stakeholder engagement and input, 7) policy implementation, and 8) policy evaluation. This strategy holds significant potential to reduce low-value device-based care.

Primary care physicians' participation in the Medicare shared savings program and preventive services delivery: Evidence from the first 7 years

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether primary care physicians' participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) is associated with changes in their preventive services delivery.

DATA SOURCES

Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File and MSSP Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) Provider-Level Research Identifiable File from 2012 to 2018.

STUDY DESIGN

The design was a two-way fixed effects model estimating within-provider changes in preventive services delivery over time controlling for provider time-invariant characteristics, national time trends, and characteristics of served patients. The following preventive services were evaluated: influenza vaccination, pneumococcal vaccination, clinical depression screening, colorectal cancer screening, breast cancer screening, Body Mass Index (BMI) screening and follow-up, tobacco use assessment, and annual wellness visits. Both the likelihood of providing services and the volume of services delivered were evaluated.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Secondary data linked at the provider level.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

MSSP participation was associated with an increase in the likelihood of providing influenza vaccination (0.7 percentage-points), pneumococcal vaccination (2.0 percentage-points), clinical depression screening (2.1 percentage-points), tobacco use assessment (0.3 percentage-points), and annual wellness visits (4.1 percentage-points). A similar increase was found for the volume of services delivered per 100 patients for several preventive services: influenza vaccination (0.18), pneumococcal vaccination (0.56), clinical depression screening (0.46), and annual wellness visits (1.52). MSSP participation was associated with a decrease in the likelihood (-0.4 percentage-points) and the volume of colorectal cancer screening (-0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care physicians' participation in MSSP was associated with an increase in the likelihood and the volume of several preventive services.

Comparison of Low-Value Services Among Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries

Question

Do rates of low-value care differ between traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA), and, if so, what elements of insurance design are associated with the differences?

Findings

In this cross-sectional study of 2 470 199 Medicare beneficiaries, those enrolled in MA received 9.2% fewer low-value services than those in TM (23.1 vs 25.4 total low-value services per 100 beneficiaries). The MA beneficiaries in health maintenance organizations and those in primary care organizations reimbursed within advanced value-based payment models had the lowest rates of low-value care.

Meaning

The study results suggest that low-value care is less common in MA than TM, with elements of insurance design present in MA associated with fewer low-value services.

Importance

Low-value care in the Medicare program is prevalent, costly, potentially harmful, and persistent. Although Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can use managed care strategies not available in traditional Medicare (TM), it is not clear whether this flexibility is associated with lower rates of low-value care.

Objectives

To compare rates of low-value services between MA and TM beneficiaries and explore how elements of insurance design present in MA are associated with the delivery of low-value care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study analyzed beneficiaries enrolled in MA and TM using claims data from a large, national MA insurer and a random 5% sample of TM beneficiaries. The study period was January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019. All analyses were conducted from July 2021 to March 2022.

Exposures

Enrollment in MA vs TM.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Low-value care was assessed using 26 claims-based measures. Regression models were used to estimate the association between MA enrollment and rates of low-value services while controlling for beneficiary characteristics. Stratified analyses explored whether network design, product design, value-based payment, or utilization management moderated differences in low-value care between MA and TM beneficiaries and among MA beneficiaries.

Results

Among a study population of 2 470 199 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [7.0] years; 1 346 777 [54.5%] female; 229 107 [9.3%] Black and 2 126 353 [86.1%] White individuals), 1 527 763 (61.8%) were enrolled in MA and 942 436 (38.2%) were enrolled in TM. Beneficiaries enrolled in MA received 9.2% (95% CI, 8.5%-9.8%) fewer low-value services in 2019 than TM beneficiaries (23.1 vs 25.4 total low-value services per 100 beneficiaries). Although MA beneficiaries enrolled in health management organization and preferred provider organization products received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, the difference was largest for those enrolled in health management organization products (2.6 fewer [95% CI, 2.4-2.8] vs 2.1 fewer [95% CI, 1.9-2.3] services per 100 beneficiaries, respectively). Across primary care payment arrangements, MA beneficiaries received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, with the largest difference observed for MA beneficiaries whose primary care physicians were reimbursed within 2-sided risk arrangements.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries, those enrolled in MA had lower rates of low-value care than those enrolled in TM; elements of insurance design present in the MA program and absent in TM were associated with reduction in low-value care.

Prevalence and changes of low-value care at acute care hospitals: a multicentre observational study in Japan

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine the use and factors associated with the provision of low-value care in Japan.

DESIGN

A multicentre observational study.

SETTING

Routinely 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).

PARTICIPANTS

345 564 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 MEASURES

We 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.

RESULTS

Services 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.

CONCLUSIONS

A 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.

Analysis of Affordable Health Care

BACKGROUND

Lack of affordable health care affects the uninsured, commercially insured, and Medicare beneficiaries. Yet, the wide variation in providers' prices and practice styles suggests that more affordable care already may be available and data on low value and wasteful care suggest that lower cost care need not come at the expense of better quality. Although price variation has received the most attention in the literature and legislation, total cost of care is a function of both unit prices (fees) and the quantity of services.

OBJECTIVE

To partition provider-specific variation in total annual risk-adjusted per capita expenditures on health care services into variation in unit prices (fees) versus quantities of services, and to explore the relationship between low value, avoidable, discretionary, and recommended care to total health expenditures. The analysis is important because both prices and quantities of services can affect affordability and reductions in prices versus quantities have very different effects on providers' profits.

SETTING

2018 data from the Minnesota State Employees Group Insurance Program (SEGIP) that offers a tiered cost-sharing health insurance benefit design to 130,000 State employees and their dependents (SEGIP "members").

EXPOSURE

Each year during open enrollment, SEGIP members choose a primary care clinic (PCC). The PCC can make decisions regarding both unit prices and prescribed services. PCCs are placed in one of four cost-sharing tiers based on the total annual risk-adjusted per capita health expenditures for the SEGIP members who choose their clinic. Members choosing higher cost PCCs face higher deductibles, copayments, and maximum out-of-pocket spending limits.

MEASURES

Overall prices and use of inpatient, outpatient hospital, professional, and pharmaceutical services, total and avoidable use of emergency department visits and inpatient admissions, low value care, testing for patients with pneumonia, and recommended preventive care.

RESULTS

Differences in total risk-adjusted annual per capita health expenditures across the care systems were substantial. Higher cost providers had both higher unit prices and higher use of services. Variation in the quantity of health care services explained more of the variance in total spending than variation in prices. Prices for professional services and use of inpatient, outpatient hospital, and pharmaceutical services, and ambulatory care sensitive admissions, contributed significantly to high total expenditures. Lower cost PCCs in the lowest cost-sharing tier had higher rates of low value care and lower emergency department visits per capita. Neither the number of investigations for patients with pneumonia nor the receipt of recommended mammography screening varied systematically by tier.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to identify and expand sources of affordable care, including improved information and incentives for consumers, need to account for variation in both prices and quantities of services. Efforts to encourage more efficient use of health care services by providers need to consider the effect of those efforts on the provider's internal costs and thus their profits.

Regional variation in healthcare usage for Medicare beneficiaries: a cross-sectional study based on the health and retirement study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether regional variation changes with different beneficiary health insurance coverage types.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) in 2018 was used.

SETTING

Medicare beneficiaries only covered by Medicare (group 1) are compared with those covered by Medicare and other health insurance (group 2). Outcomes included healthcare usage measures: (1) whether beneficiaries have a hospital stay and (2) the number for those with at least one stay; (3) whether beneficiaries have a doctor's visit and (4) the number for those with at least one visit. We compared healthcare usage in both groups across the five regions: (1) New England and Mid-Atlantic; (2) East North Central and West North Central; (3) South Atlantic; (4) East South Central and West South Central; (5) Mountain and Pacific. We used logistic regression for binary outcomes and negative binomial regression for count outcomes in each group.

PARTICIPANTS

We identified 8749 Medicare beneficiaries, of which 4098 in group 1 and 4651 in group 2.

RESULTS

Residents in all non-reference regions had a significantly lower probability of seeking a doctor's visit in group 1 (OR with 95% CI 0.606 (0.374 to 0.982), 0.619 (0.392 to 0.977), 0.472 (0.299 to 0.746) and 0.618 (0.386 to 0.990) in the order of above regions, respectively), which is not significant in group 2. Residents in most non-reference regions (except South Atlantic) had a significantly fewer number of seeking a hospital stay in group 2 (incident rate ratio (IRR) with 95% CI 0.797 (0.691 to 0.919), 0.740 (0.643 to 0.865), 0.726 (0.613 to 0.859) in the order of above regions, respectively), which is not significant in group 1.

CONCLUSION

Regional variation in the likelihood of having a doctor's visit was reduced in Medicare beneficiaries covered by supplemental health insurance. Regional variation in hospital stays was accentuated among Medicare beneficiaries covered by supplemental health insurance.

Use and Cost of Low-Value Health Services Delivered or Paid for by the Veterans Health Administration

Importance

Within the Veterans Health Administration (VA), the use and cost of low-value services delivered by VA facilities or increasingly by VA Community Care (VACC) programs have not been comprehensively quantified.

Objective

To quantify veterans' overall use and cost of low-value services, including VA-delivered care and VA-purchased community care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study assessed a national population of VA-enrolled veterans. Data on enrollment, sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and health care services delivered by VA facilities or paid for by the VA through VACC programs were compiled for fiscal year 2018 from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Data analysis was conducted from April 2020 to January 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

VA administrative data were applied using an established low-value service metric to quantify the use of 29 potentially low-value tests and procedures delivered in VA facilities and by VACC programs across 6 domains: cancer screening, diagnostic and preventive testing, preoperative testing, imaging, cardiovascular testing and procedures, and other procedures. Sensitive and specific criteria were used to determine the low-value service counts per 100 veterans overall, by domain, and by individual service; count and percentage of each low-value service delivered by each setting; and estimated cost of each service.

Results

Among 5.2 million enrolled veterans, the mean (SD) age was 62.5 (16.0) years, 91.7% were male, 68.0% were non-Hispanic White, and 32.3% received any service through VACC. By specific criteria, 19.6 low-value services per 100 veterans were delivered in VA facilities or by VACC programs, involving 13.6% of veterans at a total cost of $205.8 million. Overall, the most frequently delivered low-value service was prostate-specific antigen testing for men aged 75 years or older (5.9 per 100 veterans); this was also the service with the greatest proportion delivered by VA facilities (98.9%). The costliest low-value services were spinal injections for low back pain ($43.9 million; 21.4% of low-value care spending) and percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary disease ($36.8 million; 17.9% of spending).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study found that among veterans enrolled in the VA, more than 1 in 10 have received a low-value service from VA facilities or VACC programs, with approximately $200 million in associated costs. Such information on the use and costs of low-value services are essential to guide the VA's efforts to reduce delivery and spending on such care.

ACO Participation Associated With Decreased Spending For Medicare Beneficiaries With Serious Mental Illness

Serious mental illness (SMI) is a major source of suffering among Medicare beneficiaries. To date, limited evidence exists evaluating whether Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) are associated with decreased spending among people with SMI. Using national Medicare data from the period 2009-17, we performed difference-in-differences analyses evaluating changes in spending and use associated with enrollment in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) among beneficiaries with SMI. After five years, participation in MSSP ACOs was associated with small savings for beneficiaries with SMI (-$233 per person per year) in total health care spending, primarily related to savings from chronic medical conditions (excluding mental health; -$227 per person per year) and not from savings related to mental health services (-$6 per person per year). Savings were driven by reductions in acute and postacute care for medical conditions. Further work is needed to ensure that Medicare ACOs invest in strategies to reduce potentially unnecessary care related to mental health disorders and to improve health outcomes.

Identifying drivers of health care value: a scoping review of the literature

Background

As health care spending reaches unsustainable levels, improving value has become an increasingly important policy priority. Relatively little research has explored factors driving value. As a first step towards filling this gap, we performed a scoping review of the literature to identify potential drivers of health care value.

Methods

Searches of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Policy File, and SCOPUS were conducted between February and March 2020. Empirical studies that explored associations between any range of factors and value (loosely defined as quality or outcomes relative to cost) were eligible for inclusion. We created a template in Microsoft Excel for data extraction and evaluated the quality of included articles using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) quality appraisal tool. Data was synthesized using narrative methods.

Results

Twenty-two studies were included in analyses, of which 20 focused on low value service utilization. Independent variables represented a range of system-, hospital-, provider-, and patient-level characteristics. Although results were mixed, several consistent findings emerged. First, insurance incentive structures may affect value. For example, patients in Accountable Care Organizations had reduced rates of low value care utilization compared to patients in traditionally structured insurance plans. Second, higher intensity of care was associated with higher rates of low value care. Third, culture is likely to contribute to value. This was suggested by findings that recent medical school graduation and allopathic training were associated with reduced low value service utilization and that provider organizations had larger effects on value than did individual physicians.

Conclusions

System, hospital, provider, and community characteristics influence low value care provision. To improve health care value, strategies aiming to reduce utilization of low value services and promote high value care across various levels will be essential.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08225-6.

Using a mixed-effect model with a parameter-space of heterogenous dimension to evaluate whether accountable care organizations are associated with greater uniformity across constituent practices

Accountable care organization (ACO) legislation was designed to improve patient outcomes by inducing greater coordination of care and adoption of best practices. Therefore, it is of interest to assess whether greater uniformity occurs among practices comprising an ACO post ACO formation. We develop a mixed-effect model with a difference-in-difference design to evaluate the effect of a patient receiving care from an ACO on patient outcomes and adapt this model to examine whether an ACO is associated with increased uniformity across its constituent practices. The task is complicated by the organizations within an ACO forming an additional layer in the multilevel model, due to medical practices and hospitals that form an ACOs being nested within the ACO, making the number of levels of the model variable and the dimension of the parameter space time-varying. We develop the model and a procedure for testing the hypothesis that ACO formation was associated with increased uniformity among its constituent practices. We apply our procedure to a cohort of medicare beneficiaries followed over 2009-2014. Although there is extensive heterogeneity of becoming an ACOs across practices, we find that the formation of an ACO appears to be associated with greater uniformity of patient outcomes among its constituent practices.

Patient Symptoms and Stress Testing After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System

IMPORTANCE

Up to 60% of patients in the US receive a stress test within 2 years of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), prompting concerns about the possible overuse of stress testing.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the proportion of patients who underwent stress testing within 2 years of elective PCI, proportion of patients who had symptoms that were consistent with coronary artery disease (CAD), timing of stress testing, and site-level variation in stress testing among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used administrative claims data and clinical records from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking program. Patients who underwent stress testing within 2 years of elective PCI for stable CAD between November 1, 2013, and October 31, 2015, at 64 VA facilities were included in the analysis. Patients who received stress testing for staging purposes, cardiac rehabilitation evaluation, or preoperative testing before high-risk surgery were excluded. Data were analyzed from June to December 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent stress testing and had symptoms that were consistent with obstructive CAD, using definitions from the 2013 clinical practice guideline (Multimodality Appropriate Use Criteria for the Detection and Risk Assessment of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease). Secondary outcomes were the timing of stress testing (assessed using a cumulative incidence curve) and site-level variation in stress testing (assessed using multilevel logistic regression models).

RESULTS

A total of 3705 consecutive patients (mean [SD] age 66.3 [7.6] years; 3656 men [98.7%]; 437 Black individuals [11.8%], 3175 White individuals [85.7%], and 93 individuals [2.5%] of other races and ethnicities [Asian, Hispanic or Latinx, or unknown]) had elective PCI. Of these patients, 916 (24.7%) received a stress test within 2 years, among whom 730 (79.7%) had symptoms that were consistent with obstructive CAD at the time of stress testing. Visual inspection of a cumulative incidence curve for stress testing showed no rapid increases in stress testing at 6 months or 1 year after PCI, which might coincide with routine clinical visits. The proportion of symptomatic patients who underwent stress testing at each VA site ranged from 67.7% to 100%, with no significant site-level variation in stress testing.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this study suggest that most veterans who underwent stress testing within 2 years after elective PCI had symptoms that were consistent with obstructive CAD. Therefore, measuring low-value stress testing using only administrative claims data may overestimate its prevalence, and concerns about overuse of post-PCI stress testing may be overstated.

The Effect of Network-Level Payment Models on Care Network Performance: A Scoping Review of the Empirical Literature

Introduction

Traditional payment models reward volume rather than value. Moving away from reimbursing separate providers to network-level reimbursement is assumed to support structural changes in health care organizations that are necessary to improve patient care. This scoping review evaluates the performance of care networks that have adopted network-level payment models.

Methods

A scoping review of the empirical literature was conducted according to the five-step York framework. We identified indicators of performance, categorized them in four categories (quality, utilization, spending and other consequences) and scored whether performance increased, decreased, or remained stable due to the payment model.

Results

The 76 included studies investigated network-level capitation, disease-based bundled payments, pay-for-performance and blended global payments. The majority of studies stem from the USA. Studies generally concluded that performance in terms of quality and utilization increased or remained stable. Most payment models were associated with improved spending performance. Overall, our review shows that network-level payment models are moderately successful in improving network performance.

Discussion/conclusion

As health care networks are increasingly common, it seems fruitful to continue experimenting with reimbursement models for health care networks. It is also important to broaden the scope to not only scrutinize outcomes, but also the contexts and mechanisms that lead to certain outcomes.

Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are common, potentially harmful, and costly. Nearly half of the patients in the United States will receive at least 1 low-value test or procedure annually, creating risk of avoidable complications from subsequent cascades of care and excess costs to patients and society. Reducing low-value care is of particular importance to cardiovascular health given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States. This scientific statement describes the current scope and impact of low-value cardiovascular care; reviews existing literature on patient-, clinician-, health system-, payer-, and policy-level interventions to reduce low-value care; proposes solutions to achieve meaningful and equitable reductions in low-value care; and suggests areas for future research priorities.

[10 Years Accountable Care Organizations in the USA: Impulses for Health Care Reform in Germany?]

GOAL OF THE STUDY

An intent of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Acts (ACA), also know as Obama Care, was to slow the expenditure growth in the public Medicare-System by shifting the accountability for health care outcomes and costs to the provider. For this purpose, provider were allowed to form networks, which would then take accountability for a defined population - Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). Ten years after the introduction of ACOs, this paper looks at the impact of ACOs both on quality of care and costs of care to assess if ACOs can be a model of care delivery for Germany.

METHODS

In a mixed-method approach, a rapid review was conducted in Health System Evidence and PubMed. This was supported with further papers identified using the snowballing-technique. After screening the abstracts, we included articles containing information on cost- and/or quality impact of US-Medicare-ACOs. The findings of the rapid review were challenged with 16 ACO-experts and stakeholder in the USA.

RESULTS

In total, we included 60 publications which incorporated 6 reports that were either conducted directly by governmental institutions or ordered by them, along with 3 previous reviews. Among these, 31 contained information on costs of care, 18 contained information on quality of care and 11 had information on both aspects. The publications show that ACOs reduced costs of of care. Cost reductions were achieved compared to historic costs, to populations not cared for in ACOs, and counterfactuals. Quality of care stayed the same or improved.

CONCLUSION

ACOs contributed to slowing the cost growth in US Medicare without compromising quality of care. Thus, a transferal of this model of care to Germany should be considered. However, various policies have led to ACOs failing to unleash their full potential. Against this background, and against the background of stark differences between US Medicare and the German health care system, a critical reflection of the necessary policies underlying ACOs-like structures in Germany, needs to be undertaken.

Longitudinal Content Analysis of the Characteristics and Expected Impact of Low-Value Services Identified in US Choosing Wisely Recommendations

IMPORTANCE

The US Choosing Wisely campaign has had substantial reach in mobilizing efforts to reduce low-value care, achieved largely by engaging physician specialty societies in stewardship. While some early recommendations were criticized for avoiding revenue-generating services, there is limited evidence of how the composition of recommendations shifted as more societies contributed.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the characteristics and expected impact of Choosing Wisely recommendations.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study included content and trend analyses of all 626 Choosing Wisely recommendations by US physician societies as of March 1, 2021. Data were analyzed between March and May 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were proportions of identified low-value services by characteristics (society type, service type, indication, do vs avoid, and clinical context) and expected impact (effect on the revenue of society members, cost, number of individuals at risk, direct harm potential, and cascade potential).

RESULTS

Low-value services identified in the 626 Choosing Wisely recommendations largely covered imaging (168 [26.8%]) and laboratory studies (156 [24.9%]) in the context of chronic conditions (169 [27.0%]) and healthy patients with risk factors alone (126 [20.1%]). Most of the identified low-value services were revenue neutral for the recommending society (402 [64.2%]) and the plurality were low cost (<$200; 284 [45.4%]); low-cost services represented a growing share of low-value services identified by Choosing Wisely recommendations (1.2 percentage points per year; P = .001). Nearly half (280 [44.7%]) of recommendations identified services with high direct harm potential, and 388 (62.0%) identified those with high potential for cascades (ie, triggering downstream services).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this qualitative study suggest that the Choosing Wisely recommendations identified services with a range of expected impacts. Stakeholders could explicitly set priorities for future recommendations, while clinical leaders and payers might target intervention efforts on recommendations with the greatest potential for impact based on spending across populations, direct harms, and cascades.

The Utilization and Costs of Grade D USPSTF Services in Medicare, 2007-2016

BACKGROUND

Low-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.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate utilization and costs of seven USPSTF Grade D services among US Medicare beneficiaries.

DESIGN

We 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/PARTICIPANTS

NAMCS 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 MEASURES

We 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 RESULTS

During 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.

CONCLUSIONS

US 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.

DeepDRG: Performance of Artificial Intelligence Model for Real-Time Prediction of Diagnosis-Related Groups

Nowadays, the use of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) has been increased to claim reimbursement for inpatient care. The overall benefits of using DRGs depend upon the accuracy of clinical coding to obtain reasonable reimbursement. However, the selection of appropriate codes is always challenging and requires professional expertise. The rate of incorrect DRGs is always high due to the heavy workload, poor quality of documentation, and lack of computer assistance. We therefore developed deep learning (DL) models to predict the primary diagnosis for appropriate reimbursement and improving hospital performance. A dataset consisting of 81,486 patients with 128,105 episodes was used for model training and testing. Patients' age, sex, drugs, diseases, laboratory tests, procedures, and operation history were used as inputs to our multiclass prediction model. Gated recurrent unit (GRU) and artificial neural network (ANN) models were developed to predict 200 primary diagnoses. The performance of the DL models was measured by the area under the receiver operating curve, precision, recall, and F1 score. Of the two DL models, the GRU method, had the best performance in predicting the primary diagnosis (AUC: 0.99, precision: 83.2%, and recall: 66.0%). However, the performance of ANN model for DRGs prediction achieved AUC of 0.99 with a precision of 0.82 and recall of 0.57. The findings of our study show that DL algorithms, especially GRU, can be used to develop DRGs prediction models for identifying primary diagnosis accurately. DeepDRGs would help to claim appropriate financial incentives, enable proper utilization of medical resources, and improve hospital performance.

Low-Value Care at the Actionable Level of Individual Health Systems

IMPORTANCE

Low-value health care remains prevalent in the US despite decades of work to measure and reduce such care. Efforts have been only modestly effective in part because the measurement of low-value care has largely been restricted to the national or regional level, limiting actionability.

OBJECTIVES

To measure and report low-value care use across and within individual health systems and identify system characteristics associated with higher use using Medicare administrative data.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study of health system-attributed Medicare beneficiaries was conducted among 556 health systems in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Compendium of US Health Systems and included system-attributed beneficiaries who were older than 65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B for at least 12 months in 2016 or 2017, and eligible for specific low-value services. Statistical analysis was conducted from January 26 to July 15, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Use of 41 individual low-value services and a composite measure of the 28 most common services among system-attributed beneficiaries, standardized to distance from the mean value. Measures were based on the Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator and published claims-based definitions.

RESULTS

Across 556 health systems serving a total of 11 637 763 beneficiaries, the mean (SD) use of each of the 41 low-value services ranged from 0% (0.01%) to 28% (4%) of eligible beneficiaries. The most common low-value services were preoperative laboratory testing (mean [SD] rate, 28% [4%] of eligible beneficiaries), prostate-specific antigen testing in men older than 70 years (mean [SD] rate, 27% [8%]), and use of antipsychotic medications in patients with dementia (mean [SD] rate, 24% [8%]). In multivariable analysis, the health system characteristics associated with higher use of low-value care were smaller proportion of primary care physicians (adjusted composite score, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.04-0.26] for systems with less than the median percentage of primary care physicians vs -0.16 [95% CI, -0.27 to -0.05] for those with more than the median percentage of primary care physicians; P < .001), no major teaching hospital (adjusted composite, 0.10 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.20] without a teaching hospital vs -0.18 [95% CI, -0.34 to -0.02] with a teaching hospital; P = .01), larger proportion of non-White patients (adjusted composite, 0.15 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.32] for systems with >20% of non-White beneficiaries vs -0.06 [95% CI, -0.16 to 0.03] for systems with ≤20% of non-White beneficiaries; P = .04), headquartered in the South or West (adjusted composite, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.14-0.43] for the South and 0.22 [95% CI, 0.02-0.42] for the West compared with -0.09 [95% CI, -0.26 to 0.08] for the Northeast and -0.44 [95% CI, -0.60 to -0.28] for the Midwest; P < .001), and serving areas with more health care spending (adjusted composite, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.11-0.35] for areas above the median level of spending vs -0.24 [95% CI, -0.36 to -0.12] for areas below the median level of spending; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this large cohort study suggest that system-level measurement and reporting of specific low-value services is feasible, enables cross-system comparisons, and reveals a broad range of low-value care use.

The Impact of Choosing Wisely Interventions on Low-Value Medical Services: A Systematic Review

Policy Points Dissemination of Choosing Wisely guidelines alone is unlikely to reduce the use of low-value health services. Interventions by health systems to implement Choosing Wisely guidelines can reduce the use of low-value services. Multicomponent interventions targeting clinicians are currently the most effective types of interventions.

CONTEXT

Choosing Wisely aims to reduce the use of unnecessary, low-value medical services through development of recommendations related to service utilization. Despite the creation and dissemination of these recommendations, evidence shows low-value services are still prevalent. This paper synthesizes literature on interventions designed to reduce medical care identified as low value by Choosing Wisely and evaluates which intervention characteristics are most effective.

METHODS

We searched peer-reviewed and gray literature from the inception of Choosing Wisely in 2012 through June 2019 to identify interventions in the United States motivated by or using Choosing Wisely recommendations. We also included studies measuring the impact of Choosing Wisely on its own, without interventions. We developed a coding guide and established coding agreement. We coded all included articles for types of services targeted, components of each intervention, results of the intervention, study type, and, where applicable, study quality. We measured the success rate of interventions, using chi-squared tests or Wald tests to compare across interventions.

FINDINGS

We reviewed 131 articles. Eighty-eight percent of interventions focused on clinicians only; 48% included multiple components. Compared with dissemination of Choosing Wisely recommendations only, active interventions were more likely to generate intended results (65% vs 13%, p < 0.001) and, among those, interventions with multiple components were more successful than those with one component (77% vs 47%, p = 0.002). The type of services targeted did not matter for success. Clinician-based interventions were more effective than consumer-based, though there is a dearth of studies on consumer-based interventions. Only 17% of studies included a control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions built on the Choosing Wisely recommendations can be effective at changing practice patterns to reduce the use of low-value care. Interventions are more effective when targeting clinicians and using more than one component. There is a need for high-quality studies that include active controls.

Association of Low-Value Care Exposure With Health Care Experience Ratings Among Patient Panels

IMPORTANCE

Patient reviews of health care experiences are increasingly used for public reporting and alternative payment models. Critics have argued that this incentivizes physicians to provide more care, including low-value care, undermining efforts to reduce wasteful practices.

OBJECTIVE

To assess associations between rates of low-value service provision to a primary care professional (PCP) patient panel and patients' ratings of their health care experiences.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement study used Medicare fee-for-service claims from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014, for a random 20% sample of beneficiaries to identify beneficiaries for whom each of 8 low-value services could be ordered but would be considered unnecessary. The study also used health care experience reports from independently sampled beneficiaries who responded to the 2010-2015 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Medicare fee-for-service survey. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, to December 9, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were health care experience ratings from Medicare beneficiaries who responded to the CAHPS survey from 2 domains, namely "Your Health Care in the Last 6 Months" (overall health care, office wait time, timely access to nonurgent care, and timely access to urgent care) and "Your Personal Doctor" (overall personal physician and a composite score for interactions with personal physician). Beneficiaries in both samples were attributed to the PCP with whom they had the most spending. For each PCP, a composite score of low-value service exposure was constructed using the 20% sample; this score represented the adjusted relative propensity of the PCP patient panel to receive low-value care. The association between low-value service exposure and health care experience ratings reported by the CAHPS respondents in the PCP patient panel was estimated using regression analysis.

RESULTS

The final sample had 100 743 PCPs, with a mean of approximately 258 patients per PCP. Only 1 notable association was found; more low-value care exposure was associated with more frequent reports of having to wait more than 15 minutes after the scheduled time of an appointment (a mean of 0.448 points lower CAHPS score on a 10-point scale for PCP patient panels who received the most low-value care vs the least low-value care). Although some other associations were statistically significant, their magnitudes were substantially smaller than those typically considered meaningful in other CAHPS literature and were inconsistent in direction across levels of low-value service exposure.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This quality improvement study found that more low-value care exposure for a PCP patient panel was not associated with more favorable patient ratings of their health care experiences.

The Impact of Medicare's Alternative Payment Models on the Value of Care

Over the past decade, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have led the nationwide shift toward value-based payment. A major strategy for achieving this goal has been to implement alternative payment models (APMs) that encourage high-value care by holding providers financially accountable for both the quality and the costs of care. In particular, the CMS has implemented and scaled up two types of APMs: population-based models that emphasize accountability for overall quality and costs for defined patient populations, and episode-based payment models that emphasize accountability for quality and costs for discrete care. Both APM types have been associated with modest reductions in Medicare spending without apparent compromises in quality. However, concerns about the unintended consequences of these APMs remain, and more work is needed in several important areas. Nonetheless, both APM types represent steps to build on along the path toward a higher-value national health care system.

Trends in Use of Low-Value Care in Traditional Fee-for-Service Medicare and Medicare Advantage

IMPORTANCE

Decreasing use of low-value care is a major goal for Medicare given the potential to decrease costs and harms. Compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) is more strongly financially incentivized to decrease use of low-value care.

OBJECTIVES

To compare use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA overall and to examine trends in use of low-value care in both programs from 2006 to 2015.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study analyzed individuals enrolled in TM and MA using data from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To account for differences in characteristics between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA, a propensity score-based approach was used. Data were analyzed from August 2020 through January 2021.

EXPOSURES

Being enrolled in MA or TM.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Binary measures of use were collected for 13 low-value services in 4 categories (ie, [1] cancer screening: cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in older adults; [2] antibiotic use: antibiotic for acute upper respiratory infection and antibiotic for influenza; [3] medication: anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic in an adult older than 65 years; benzodiazepine for depression; opioid for headache; opioid for back pain; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] for hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease; and [4] imaging: magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] for back pain, radiograph for back pain, and MRI or CT for headache) and 4 low-value composites corresponding to the categories (ie, cancer screening composite, antibiotic use composite, medication composite, and imaging composite).

RESULTS

Among 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, 9429 (56.0%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.3) years. Of 13 low-value services and 4 low-value composites, statistically significant differences were found in 2 measures. For the low-value medication composite, 2054 of 11 636 eligible individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 17.6%; 95% CI, 16.8%-18.3%) received the care, and 981 of 5141 eligible individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 19.7%; 95% CI, 18.3%-21.2%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-3.8 percentage points; P = .02). For the NSAID use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease metric, 807 of 7832 individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 10.0%; 95% CI, 9.2%-10.8%) received the care, and 447 of 3566 individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 12.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-27.1%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.3-4.6 percentage points; P = .001). Overall, there were no decreases in use of low-value care in TM or MA over time.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cross-sectional study found that use of low-value care was similarly prevalent in MA and TM, suggesting that MA enrollment was not associated with decreased provision of low-value care compared with TM.

Effects of employer-offered high-deductible plans on low-value spending in the privately insured population

Enrollment in plans with high deductibles has increased more than seven-fold in the last decade. Proponents of these plans argue that high deductibles could reduce wasteful spending by providing patients with incentives to limit use of low-value services that offer little or no clinical benefit. Others are concerned that patients may respond to these incentives by reducing their use of medical services indiscriminately and regardless of clinical benefit, which may negatively impact health outcomes. This study uses individual-level insurance claims data (2008-2013) and plausibly exogenous changes in plan offerings within firms over time to estimate the intent-to-treat and local-average treatment effects of high-deductible plan offerings on spending on 24 low-value services received in the outpatient setting. We find that firm offer of a high-deductible plan leads to a 13.7% ($5.23) reduction in average enrollee spending on low-value outpatient services and a 5.2% ($105.77) reduction in overall outpatient spending. We also find reductions in spending on measures of low-value imaging and laboratory services. We find some evidence that offering high-deductible plans disproportionately reduces low-value spending relative to overall spending, indicating that deductibles may be a way to incentivize value-based decision making.

Trends in Low-Value Health Service Use and Spending in the US Medicare Fee-for-Service Program, 2014-2018

Importance

Low-value care, defined as care offering no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is associated with harmful outcomes in patients and wasteful spending. Despite a national education campaign and increasing attention on reducing health care waste, recent trends in low-value care delivery remain unknown.

Objective

To assess national trends in low-value care use and spending.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, analyses of low-value care use and spending from 2014 to 2018 were conducted using 100% Medicare fee-for-service enrollment and claims data. Included individuals were aged 65 years or older and continuously enrolled in Medicare parts A, B, and D during each measurement year and the previous year. Data were analyzed from September 2019 through December 2020.

Exposure

Being enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for a period of time, in years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator was used to assess 32 claims-based measures of low-value care associated with Choosing Wisely recommendations and other professional guidelines. The calculator designates services as wasteful, likely wasteful, or not wasteful based on an absence of indication of appropriate use in the claims history; calculator-designated wasteful services were defined as low-value care. Spending was calculated as claim-line level (ie, spending on the low-value service) and claim level (ie, spending on the low-value service plus associated services), adjusting for inflation.

Results

Among 21 045 759 individuals with fee-for-service Medicare (mean [SD] age, 77.4 [7.9] years; 12 515 915 [59.5%] women), the percentage receiving any of 32 low-value services decreased from 36.3% (95% CI, 36.3%-36.4%) to 33.6% (95% CI, 33.6%-33.6%) from 2014 to 2018. Uses of low-value services per 1000 individuals decreased from 677.8 (95% CI, 676.2-679.5) to 632.7 (95% CI, 632.6-632.8) from 2014 to 2018. Three services comprised approximately two-thirds of uses among 32 low-value services per 1000 individuals: preoperative laboratory testing decreased from 213.8 (95% CI, 213.4-214.2) to 166.2 (95% CI, 166.2-166.2), while opioids for back pain increased from 154.4 (95% CI, 153.6-155.2) to 182.1 (95% CI, 182.1-182.1) and antibiotics for upper respiratory infections increased from 75.0 (95% CI, 75.0-75.1) to 82 (95% CI, 82.0-82.0). Spending per 1000 individuals on low-value care also decreased, from $52 765.5 (95% CI, $51 952.3-$53 578.6) to $46 921.7 (95% CI, $46 593.7-$47 249.7) at the claim-line level and from $160 070.4 (95% CI, $158 999.8-$161 141.0) to $144 741.1 (95% CI, $144 287.5-$145 194.7) at the claim level.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study found that among individuals with fee-for-service Medicare receiving any of 32 measured services, low-value care use and spending decreased marginally from 2014 to 2018, despite a national education campaign in collaboration with clinician specialty societies and increased attention on low-value care. While most use of low-value care came from 3 services, 1 of these was opioid prescriptions, which increased over time despite the harms associated with their use. These findings may represent several opportunities to prevent patient harm and lower spending.

The impact of global budget payment reform on systemic overuse in Maryland

BACKGROUND

Medical overuse is a leading contributor to the high cost of the US health care system and is a definitive misuse of resources. Elimination of overuse could improve health care efficiency. In 2014, the State of Maryland placed the majority of its hospitals under an all-payer, annual, global budget for inpatient and outpatient hospital services. This program aims to control hospital use and spending.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the Maryland global budget program was associated with a reduction in the broad overuse of health care services.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of deidentified claims for 18-64 year old adults from the IBM MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. We matched 2 Maryland Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) to 6 out-of-state comparison MSAs. In a difference-in-differences analysis, we compared changes in systemic overuse in Maryland vs the comparison MSAs before (2011-2013) and after implementation (2014-2015) of the global budget program. Systemic overuse was measured using a semiannual Johns Hopkins Overuse Index.

RESULTS

Global budgets were not associated with a reduction in systemic overuse. Over the first 1.5 years of the program, we estimated a nonsignificant differential change of -0.002 points (95%CI, -0.372 to 0.369; p = 0.993) relative to the comparison group. This result was robust to multiple model assumptions and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence that Maryland hospitals met their revenue targets by reducing systemic overuse. Global budgets alone may be too blunt of an instrument to selectively reduce low-value care.

Effects of Monetary Incentives in Physician Groups: A Systematic Review of Reviews

BACKGROUND

Reimbursement systems that contribute to the cooperation and integration of providers have become increasingly important within the healthcare sector. Reimbursement systems not only serve as payment mechanisms but also provide control and incentive functions. Thus, the design of reimbursement systems is extremely important.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this systematic review were to describe and gain a better understanding of the effects of monetary incentives in the setting of physician groups.

METHODS

In January 2020, we searched the MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, and ISI Web of Science databases as well as the gray literature and authors' personal collections.

RESULTS

We included 21 reviews containing seven different incentive schemes/initiatives. The study settings and outcome measures varied considerably, as did the results within the incentive schemes and initiatives. However, we found positive effects on process quality for two types of incentives: pay-for-performance and accountable care organizations. The main limitations of this review were the variations in study settings and outcome measures of the studies included.

CONCLUSIONS

Monetary incentives in healthcare are often implemented as a control measure and are supposed to increase quality of care and reduce costs. The heterogeneity of the study results indicates that this is not always successful. The results reveal a need for research into the effects of monetary incentives in healthcare.