Comparative Effectiveness Research, Technological Abandonment, and Health Care Spending

Frequency of low-value care in Alberta, Canada: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine how frequently 10 low-value services highlighted by Choosing Wisely are done and what factors influence their provision.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected health data from five linked data sets from 2012 to 2015 in the Canadian province of Alberta to determine the frequency with which 10 low-value services were provided.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2015, 162 143 people (4% of all 3 814 536 adult Albertans and 5% of the 3  423 135 who saw a physician at least once in that time frame) received at least one of the 10 low-value services, including 29.8% of Albertans older than 75 years (57 811 of 194 068). The proportion of adults receiving low-value services ranged from carotid artery imaging in 0.1% of asymptomatic adults without cerebrovascular disease, to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in 55.5% of men 75 years or older without a history of prostate cancer. Although age, Charlson scores and frequency of primary care visits were associated with low-value service provision, the directions of the association differed across services; however, higher socioeconomic status, increased frequency of specialist contact and higher ratio of specialists to primary care physicians in the patient's region were associated with an increased risk of receiving all of the low-value services we examined. The low-value services which resulted in the greatest costs to the healthcare system were cervical cancer screening in women older than 65 without history of cervical dysplasia or genital cancer, PSA testing in men older than 75 without history of prostate cancer and preoperative stress testing/cardiac imaging before non-cardiac surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Even within a universal coverage healthcare system, the proportion of patients receiving low-value services varied widely (from <0.1% to 56%). Increased use was associated with higher socioeconomic status, increased frequency of specialist contact and higher ratio of specialists to primary care physicians.

Opportunity cost in the economic evaluation of da Vinci robotic assisted surgery

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to demonstrate the importance of the opportunity cost in using da Vinci robotic surgery, assisted by a comprehensive review of the literature to determine the differences in the total cost of surgery and operative time in traditional laparoscopic surgery and da Vinci robotic surgery.

METHODOLOGY

We identified the studies comparing the use of traditional laparoscopic surgery with robotics during the period 2002-2012 in the electronic economic evaluation databases, and another electronic search was performed for publications by Spanish hospitals in the same period to calculate the opportunity cost. A meta-analysis of response variables considering the total cost of the intervention and surgical time was completed using the items selected in the first revision, and their differences were analyzed. We then calculated the opportunity cost represented by these time differences using the data obtained from the studies in the second review of the literature.

RESULTS

Nine items were selected in the first review and three in the second. Traditional laparoscopic surgery has a lower cost than the da Vinci (p < 0.00001). Robotic surgery takes longer (8.0-65.5 min) than traditional surgery (p < 0.00001), and this difference represents an average opportunity cost for robot use of € 489.98, with a unit cost factor/time which varies according to the pathology dealt with, from € 8.2 to 18.7/min.

CONCLUSIONS

The opportunity cost is a quantity that must be included in the total cost of using a surgical technology within an economic cost analysis in the context of an economic evaluation.

DISINVESTING FROM INEFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: LESSONS LEARNED FROM CURRENT PROGRAMS

OBJECTIVES

Many of the currently used health technologies have never been systematically assessed or are misused, overused or superseded. Therefore, they may be ineffective. Active identification of ineffectiveness in health care is gaining importance to facilitate best care for patients and optimal use of limited resources. The present research analyzed processes and experiences of programs for identifying ineffective health technologies. The goal of this study was to elucidate factors that facilitate implementation.

METHODS

Based on an overview article, a systematic literature search and unsystematic hand-search were conducted. Further information was gained from international experts.

RESULTS

Seven programs were identified that include identification, prioritization and assessment of ineffective health technologies and dissemination of recommendations. The programs are quite similar regarding their goals, target groups and criteria for identification and prioritization. Outputs, mainly HTA reports or lists, are mostly disseminated by means of the internet. Top-down and bottom-up programs both have benefits in terms of implementation of recommendations, either as binding guidelines and decisions or as nonbinding information for physicians and other stakeholders. Crucial facilitators of implementation are political will, transparent processes and broad stakeholder involvement focusing on physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

All programs can improve the quality of health care and enable cost reduction in supportive surrounding conditions. Physicians and patients must be continuously involved in the process of evaluating health technologies. Additionally, decision makers must support programs and translate recommendations into concrete actions.

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

IMPORTANCE

Wasteful practices are widespread in the US health care system. It is unclear if payment models intended to improve health care efficiency, such as the Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) programs, discourage the provision of low-value services.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the first year of the Medicare Pioneer ACO program was associated with a reduction in use of low-value services.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In a difference-in-differences analysis, we compared use of low-value services between Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to health care provider groups that entered the Pioneer program (ACO group) and beneficiaries attributed to other health care providers (control group) before (2009-2011) vs after (2012) Pioneer ACO contracts began. Data analysis was conducted from December 1, 2014, to June 27, 2015. Comparisons were adjusted for beneficiaries' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics as well as for geography. We decomposed estimates according to service characteristics (clinical category, price, and sensitivity to patient preferences) and compared estimates between subgroups of ACOs with higher vs lower baseline use of low-value services.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Use of, and spending on, 31 services in instances that provide minimal clinical benefit, measured as annual service counts per 100 beneficiaries and price-standardized annual service spending per 100 beneficiaries.

RESULTS

During the precontract period, trends in the use of low-value services were similar for the ACO and control groups. The first year of ACO contracts was associated with a differential reduction (95% CI) of 0.8 low-value services per 100 beneficiaries for the ACO group (-1.2 to -0.4; P < .001), corresponding to a 1.9% differential reduction in service quantity (-2.9% to -0.9%) and a 4.5% differential reduction in spending on low-value services (-7.5% to -1.4%; P = .004). Differential reductions were similar for services less sensitive vs more sensitive to patient preferences and for higher- vs lower-priced services. The ACOs with higher than their markets' mean baseline levels of low-value service use experienced greater service reductions (-1.2 services per 100 beneficiaries; -1.7 to -0.7; P < .001) than did ACOs with use below the mean (-0.2 services per 100 beneficiaries, -0.6 to -0.2; P = .41; P = .003 for test of difference between subgroups).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

During its first year, the Pioneer ACO program was associated with modest reductions in low-value services, with greater reductions for organizations providing more low-value care. Accountable care organization-like risk contracts may be able to discourage use of low-value services even without specifying services to target.

Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Low-value clinical practices are common in healthcare, yet the optimal approach to de-adopting these practices is unknown. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on de-adoption, document current terminology and frameworks, map the literature to a proposed framework, identify gaps in our understanding of de-adoption, and identify opportunities for additional research.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, and CINAHL Plus were searched from 1 January 1990 to 5 March 2014. Additional citations were identified from bibliographies of included citations, relevant websites, the PubMed 'related articles' function, and contacting experts in implementation science. English-language citations that referred to de-adoption of clinical practices in adults with medical, surgical, or psychiatric illnesses were included. Citation selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate.

RESULTS

From 26,608 citations, 109 were included in the final review. Most citations (65%) were original research with the majority (59%) published since 2010. There were 43 unique terms referring to the process of de-adoption-the most frequently cited was "disinvest" (39% of citations). The focus of most citations was evaluating the outcomes of de-adoption (50%), followed by identifying low-value practices (47%), and/or facilitating de-adoption (40%). The prevalence of low-value practices ranged from 16% to 46%, with two studies each identifying more than 100 low-value practices. Most articles cited randomized clinical trials (41%) that demonstrate harm (73%) and/or lack of efficacy (63%) as the reason to de-adopt an existing clinical practice. Eleven citations described 13 frameworks to guide the de-adoption process, from which we developed a model for facilitating de-adoption. Active change interventions were associated with the greatest likelihood of de-adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified a large body of literature that describes current approaches and challenges to de-adoption of low-value clinical practices. Additional research is needed to determine an ideal strategy for identifying low-value practices, and facilitating and sustaining de-adoption. In the meantime, this study proposes a model that providers and decision-makers can use to guide efforts to de-adopt ineffective and harmful practices.

Trends in PCI volume after negative results from the COURAGE trial

OBJECTIVE

To describe trends in the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following the COURAGE trial, which found that medical therapy is as effective as PCI for patients with stable angina.

DATA SOURCES

We used the National Hospital Discharge Survey; inpatient and outpatient discharge data from Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey; and the English Hospital Episode Statistics database.

STUDY DESIGN

We report trends in PCI volume by diagnosis (stable angina vs. unstable angina or AMI) before and after publication of the COURAGE trial.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The number of PCIs in patients without a diagnosis of AMI or unstable angina in Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey declined from 48,000 in 2006 to 40,000 in 2008 (-17 percent). There was no change in the number of PCIs in patients with a diagnosis of AMI. We observed similar patterns in U.S. community hospitals. PCI volume did not decline in England.

CONCLUSIONS

PCI volume declined after publication of the COURAGE trial. The experience of the COURAGE trial suggests that comparative effectiveness research can lead to cost-saving changes in medical practice patterns. However, there are many patients with stable coronary disease who continue to receive PCI post-COURAGE.