Barriers to Choosing Wisely® in Primary Care: It's Not Just About "the Money"

Changing Health-Related Behaviors 2: On Improving the Value of Health Spending

The quantity of health spending does not equate directly to the quality of healthcare. Social spending and nonmedical determinants of health impact on health outcomes. The value of health spending in the United States is limited by the high cost of goods and labor, and administrative costs, high use of low-level care, and lack of basic healthcare coverage in a substantial minority of the population. There are additional reasons for differences in the value of health spending as revealed by a comparison of Canada and Australia, where similar spending per capita results in better health system performance in Australia than in Canada. Within Canada, there are large differences between provinces in the value of health spending. Overutilization of health resources occurs when an intervention is not indicated, or of low value, or is provided at the wrong time. The Choosing Wisely Initiative is a solution for overutilization of low-value care. Recognition of the reality that effective treatments are often applied inconsistently and inappropriately has spurred the development of a science concerned with improvement of quality of care.

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 lesser of two evils: a qualitative study of quetiapine prescribing by family physicians

BACKGROUND

Quetiapine is an antipsychotic that is widely prescribed off-label by family physicians despite evidence that safer alternatives exist. The aim of this research was to explore, in-depth, family physicians' reasons for this behaviour.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with 15 urban family physicians in Alberta between October 2015 and April 2016. Participants were purposively selected based on sex, years of experience and practice type. Interviews explored participants' experiences prescribing quetiapine. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded with the use of thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A wish to support day-to-day function of patients with complex psychosocial needs without causing benzodiazepine addiction motivated participants to prescribe quetiapine. The indications were varied and included incomplete symptom resolution, unclear or multiple mental health diagnoses, and complicated psychosocial problems. Family physicians benchmarked their prescribing against peers and were reluctant to stop medication started by colleagues. Limited knowledge of quetiapine's adverse effects led prescribers to choose low dosages.

INTERPRETATION

Quetiapine helped family physicians treat patients with complex mental health problems without prescribing benzodiazepines, but awareness of quetiapine's adverse effects was poor. Education about quetiapine should combine psychopharmacology with multidisciplinary educational initiatives that focus on symptom resolution, comorbidity and nondrug options to promote more appropriate prescribing.