Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands

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.

Presenting a Comprehensive Definition of Unnecessary Healthcare Services and Their Drivers: A Systematic Review and Meta-synthesis

Background

Providing unnecessary healthcare services is a major common problem in every health system. The scope and cause of healthcare services must be identified in order to be managed and controlled. Finding the most complete definition of the problem and its causes are the goals of this meta-synthesis.

Methods

A comprehensive search strategy was performed using a wide range of keywords and databases. Based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 22 articles were selected for content analysis and meta-synthesis. The Graneheim and Lundman method was used for content analysis. The MAXQDA software Version 18.2.0 was used for the first round of content analysis. Content analysis and meta-synthesis were used to comprehensively define the term "unnecessary healthcare services" and find the etiologic factors driving healthcare providers to unnecessary healthcare services.

Results

The term "unnecessary healthcare services" is defined as "overproviding healthcare services that could be harmful, low-value, insufficient, and inappropriate." The etiologic pattern of unnecessary healthcare services shows intrinsic and extrinsic factors as a driving force for unnecessary healthcare services.

Conclusion

A multilayer strategy for efficient management and prevention of unnecessary healthcare services is appropriate due to the multifaceted character of these services. This approach consists of the modification of the intrinsic factors and extrinsic drivers.

Drivers for low-value imaging: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives in Norway

BACKGROUND

One kind of overutilization of diagnostic imaging is low-value imaging, i.e., imaging that does not lead to altered clinical pathways or improved health outcomes. Despite having well-documented extension and consequences, low-value imaging is still widespread. The objective of this study was to identify the drivers for the use of low-value imaging in the Norwegian healthcare services.

METHODS

We conducted individual, semi-structured interviews among representatives from the health authorities, general practitioners, specialists working in hospitals, radiologists, radiographers, and managers of imaging departments. Data analysis was carried out in line with framework analysis consisting of five steps: Familiarization, indexing, charting, mapping, and interpretation.

RESULTS

The analysis included 27 participants and resulted in two themes. The stakeholders identified drivers in the healthcare system and in the interaction between radiologists, referrers, and patients. The identified drivers were categorized in sub-themes, such as organization, communication, competence, expectations, defensive medicine, roles and responsibilities, and referral quality and time constraints. The drivers interact with each other and may strengthen the effect of other drivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Several drivers for low-value imaging in Norway were identified at all levels of the healthcare system. The drivers work simultaneously and synergistically. To free resources for high-value imaging, drivers should be targeted by appropriate measures at several levels to reduce low-value imaging.

Low-Value Care: Convergence and Challenges Comment on "Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands"

Interest has increased in the topic of de-implementation, ie, reducing so-called low-value care (LVC). The article "Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands" by Verkerk and colleagues identifies national-level factors affecting LVC use in those three countries. This commentary raises three critical points regarding the study. First, the study does not clearly define the national level. Secondly, national-level factors might not be relevant for all types of LVCs and thirdly, the study's rather limited sample makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. We also include some critical comments related to some of the study's findings in relation to results of our recently published scoping review of the international literature on de-implementation and use of LVC and an interview study with primary care physicians on LVC use. Finally, we provide some suggestions for further research that we believe is needed to improve understanding of LVC use and facilitate its de-implementation.

Reducing Low-Value Care: Uncertainty as Crucial Cross-Cutting Theme Comment on "Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands"

Low-value care is increasingly recognized as a global problem that places strain on healthcare systems and has no quick fix. Verkerk et al have identified key factors promoting low-value care on a national level, proposed strategies to address these and create a healthcare system facilitating delivery of high-value care. In this commentary, we reflect on the results of Verkerk et al and argue that uncertainty has a crucial role when it comes to reducing low-value care. This uncertainty is reflected in lack of a shared view between stakeholders, with clear criteria and thresholds on what constitutes low-value care, and as cross-cutting theme related to the key factors identified. We suggest to work on such a shared view of low-value care and - different from implementation efforts - to explicitly address uncertainty and its driving cognitive biases grounded in human decision-making psychology, to reduce low-value care.

Beyond Microsystem Fixes: Targeting National Drivers of Low-Value Care Comment on "Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands"

Low-value care drivers and interventions are often focused on a microsystem (eg, clinic or inpatient ward) or within a health system. Identification of national drivers such as payment structure and medical culture of overuse can help identify regional approaches to reducing low-value care. However, these approaches in isolation are insufficient and require additional strategies. These can include policy and payment changes and adopting shared decision-making (SDM). SDM has the potential to move medical culture away from the 'more is better' paternalistic and physician-centric culture to one that actively engages patients as full partners in managing their care.

Tools to Reduce Low-Value Care: Lessons From COVID-19 Pandemic Comment on "Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands"

Based on a summary of interviews with 18 experts, Verkerk et al defined the seven key factors that promoted low-value care, which included system, social, and knowledge factors. During the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, these key factors have been influential due to the uncertainty of the disease at the beginning of the pandemic. Globally, several measures have been implemented to reduce low-value care practices and promote high-value care for COVID-19 patients. From huge multicenter, non-industry sponsored or multiplatform trials, to the use of social networks sites is an indispensable and effective way to disseminate medical information. Thanks to these measures, we have transformed a scenario of ignorance into an evidence-based medical scenario in less than a year. Verkerk and colleagues' proposed key factors are an excellent framework for characterizing and highlighting the lessons that can be learnt from how we have fought against the pandemic and low-value practices.

National governance of de-implementation of low-value care: a qualitative study in Sweden

BACKGROUND

The de-implementation of low-value care (LVC) is important to improving patient and population health, minimizing patient harm and reducing resource waste. However, there is limited knowledge about how the de-implementation of LVC is governed and what challenges might be involved. In this study, we aimed to (1) identify key stakeholders' activities in relation to de-implementing LVC in Sweden at the national governance level and (2) identify challenges involved in the national governance of the de-implementation of LVC.

METHODS

We used a purposeful sampling strategy to identify stakeholders in Sweden having a potential role in governing the de-implementation of LVC at a national level. Twelve informants from nine stakeholder agencies/organizations were recruited using snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four potential activities for governing the de-implementation of LVC at a national level were identified: recommendations, health technology assessment, control over pharmaceutical products and a national system for knowledge management. Challenges involved included various vested interests that result in the maintenance of LVC and a low overall priority of working with the de-implementation of LVC compared with the implementation of new evidence. Ambiguous evidence made it difficult to clearly determine whether a practice was LVC. Unclear roles, where none of the stakeholders perceived that they had a formal mandate to govern the de-implementation of LVC, further contributed to the challenges involved in governing that de-implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Various activities were performed to govern the de-implementation of LVC at a national level in Sweden; however, these were limited and had a lower priority relative to the implementation of new methods. Challenges involved relate to unfavourable change incentives, ambiguous evidence, and unclear roles to govern the de-implementation of LVC. Addressing these challenges could make the national-level governance of de-implementation more systematic and thereby help create favourable conditions for reducing LVC in healthcare.

Context, Culture, and the Complexity of De-Implementing Low-Value Care Comment on "Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands"

Low-value care contributes to poor quality of care and wasteful spending in healthcare systems. In Verkerk and colleagues' recent qualitative study, interviews with low-value care experts from Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands identified a broad range of nationally relevant social, system, and knowledge factors that promote ongoing use of low-value care. These factors highlight the complexity of the problem that is persistent use of low-value care and how it is heavily influenced by public and medical culture as well as healthcare system features. This commentary discusses how these findings integrate within current low-value care and de-implementation literature and uses specific low-value care examples to highlight the importance of considering context, culture, and clinical setting when considering how to apply these factors to future de-implementation initiatives.

Overview of the Drivers of Low-Value Care Comment on "Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands"

Verkerk and colleagues explored the key drivers of low-value care from the perspective of 18 policy-makers and researchers who had led and evaluated at least one initiative to reduce low-value care or had been responsible for reducing low-value care in an organisation. They identified several drivers of low-value care presented in the 2017 Lancet Right Care Series (eg, fee for service payment systems, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, fear of malpractice litigation, issues with research conduct and reporting, a culture of 'more is better' and 'new technology is better') but did not discuss some other important ones. In this commentary, we aim to extend the work of Verkerk and colleagues and provide some additional perspectives on the drivers of low-value care within the following categories: Economic incentives; Money, finance, and organisation; Knowledge beliefs, assumptions, bias and uncertainty; and Power and human relationships.