Impact of Self-Reported Patient-Provider Communication on the Use of High- and Low-Value Care Among U.S. Adults.

To quantify the additional health care spending associated with Medigap coverage among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and assess whether this spending is disproportionately allocated to high-value versus low-value services. We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study. We analyzed TM beneficiaries with and without Medigap from the 2013-2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to balance observed covariates between TM beneficiaries with and without Medigap. Our sample comprised 16,619 TM beneficiaries with and without Medigap. After applying IPTW, TM beneficiaries with and without Medigap were well balanced across observed covariates. TM beneficiaries with Medigap had $1062 (346-1779) higher annual Medicare spending than TM beneficiaries without Medigap. Higher spending among Medigap enrollees was primarily driven by outpatient visits ($453 [148-758]) and prescription drugs ($572 [223-921]). However, Medigap coverage was not consistently associated with greater use of either high-value or low-value services. Among high-value services, TM beneficiaries with Medigap had higher utilization of age-appropriate colorectal cancer screening (1.4 [0.7-2.0] percentage points) and influenza vaccination (1.5 [0.3-2.6]), but lower use of HbA1c measurement (-2.8 [-4.7, -1.0]). Among low-value services, TM beneficiaries with Medigap had greater use of prostate cancer screening (6.4 [0.5-12.2]) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease (3.2 [2.1-4.4]), but lower use of age-appropriate colorectal cancer screening (-4.2 [-5.1, -3.3]) and opioid prescriptions for back pain (-6.2 [-8.3, -4.2]). No significant differences were observed in the remaining services. Medigap coverage is associated with higher health care spending among TM beneficiaries, but does not consistently promote high- or low-value care. These findings highlight the need for policy reforms that provide incentives to supplemental insurance plans to encourage evidence-based service use and discourage spending on unnecessary care.

To examine the effects of Medicare eligibility and enrollment on the use of high-value and low-value care services. The 2002-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. 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. N/A. 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. 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.

Specialty societies in the United States identified low-value tests and procedures that contribute to waste and poor health care quality via implementation of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative. To develop claims-based algorithms, to use them to estimate the prevalence of select Choosing Wisely services and to examine the demographic, health and health care system correlates of low-value care at a regional level. Using Medicare data from 2006 to 2011, we created claims-based algorithms to measure the prevalence of 11 Choosing Wisely-identified low-value services and examined geographic variation across hospital referral regions (HRRs). We created a composite low-value care score for each HRR and used linear regression to identify regional characteristics associated with more intense use of low-value services. Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries over age 65. Prevalence of selected Choosing Wisely low-value services. The national average annual prevalence of the selected Choosing Wisely low-value services ranged from 1.2% (upper urinary tract imaging in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia) to 46.5% (preoperative cardiac testing for low-risk, non-cardiac procedures). Prevalence across HRRs varied significantly. Regional characteristics associated with higher use of low-value services included greater overall per capita spending, a higher specialist to primary care ratio and higher proportion of minority beneficiaries. Identifying and measuring low-value health services is a prerequisite for improving quality and eliminating waste. Our findings suggest that the delivery of wasteful and potentially harmful services may be a fruitful area for further research and policy intervention for HRRs with higher per-capita spending. These findings should inform action by physicians, health systems, policymakers, payers and consumer educators to improve the value of health care by targeting services and areas with greater use of potentially inappropriate care.

Healthcare reform in the United States has focused on improving the value of health care, but there are some concerns about the inequitable delivery of value-based care. We examine whether the receipt of high- and low-value care differs by education levels. We employed a repeated cross-sectional study design using data from the 2010-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Our outcomes included 8 high-value services across 3 categories and 9 low-value services across 3 categories. Our primary independent variable was education level: (i) no degree, (ii) high school diploma, and (iii) college graduate. We conducted a linear probability model while adjusting for individual-level characteristics and estimated the adjusted values of the outcomes for each education group. In almost all services, the use of high-value care was greater among more educated adults than less educated adults. Compared to those with no degree, those with a college degree were significantly more likely to receive all high-value services except for HbA1c measurement, ranging from blood pressure measurement (4.5 percentage points [95% CI: 3.9-5.1]) to colorectal cancer screening (15.6 percentage points [95% CI: 13.9-17.3]). However, there were no consistent patterns of the use of low-value care by education levels. Our findings suggest that more educated adults were more likely to receive high-value cancer screening, high-value diagnostic and preventive testing, and high-value diabetes care than less educated adults. These findings highlight the importance of implementing tailored policies to address education-based inequities in the delivery of high-value services in the United States.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant disruption, then recovery, of health care services use. Prior research has not examined the relative rates of resumption of high-value and low-value care. We examined the use of 6 common low-value services that received a D grade from the US Preventive Services Task Force compared with clinically comparable high-value services in a large commercially insured population nationwide from before the pandemic to April 1, 2021. We found that, overall, low-value services and high-value services were disrupted similarly. In aggregate, low-value care declined to 56.2% and high-value care to 53.2% in the initial month of the pandemic (April 2020) relative to baseline (number of visits in 2019 normalized by relevant enrolled population), then rebounded to 83.1% of baseline for low-value services and 95.0% of baseline for high-value services by January 2021. Substantial heterogeneity appeared across clinical contexts, such as prostate cancer screening for men 70 years and older rebounding to 111.8% of baseline and asymptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease screening remaining at 38.5% of baseline in January 2021. This suggests that although, on average, resuming lower-value services may have been perceived to be a lesser priority by providers and patients, the pandemic may have had heterogeneous effects on consumer and provider decision-making along the dimension of clinical value. This enhances our understanding of how disruptions affect the relationship between clinical value and usage of different services and suggests the need for more targeted interventions to reduce low-value care.

MP72-19 DECREASED UTILIZATION OF LOW-VALUE HEALTH CARE SERVICES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

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. To characterize the use and cost of low-value services delivered to dually enrolled veterans from VA and Medicare. Retrospective cross-sectional. Veterans enrolled in VA and fee-for-service Medicare (FY 2017-2018). 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. 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 $62.6M was spent in VA and $163.7M 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 $10.1M, Medicare $32.8M). 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.

Reducing low value services in surgical inpatients in Taiwan: Does diagnosis-related group payment work?

Low-value care refers to medical services whose benefits do not outweigh the costs and potential harm. This study estimates the prevalence, distribution, and associated costs of 24 low-value care services within the German public healthcare system. This study was designed as a large-scale retrospective observational study using statutory health insurance data provided by the Techniker Krankenkasse, spanning from 2018 to 2021, covering approximately 11.1 million insured individuals annually. The prevalence of 24 low-value service indicators, which were identified through a systematic review and expert consultations, was calculated. To address uncertainties in distinguishing between appropriate and low-value care, both broad (potential overestimation) and narrow definitions (potential underestimation) were applied to all suitable indicators, providing a range within which the true extent of low-value care is expected to lie. Between 2019 and 2021, 1.6 million patients were identified as having received at least 1 low-value service using the 24 indicators. Of all 10.6 million delivered services (cases) evaluated, on average per year, 1.1 million cases (broad definition) and 0.43 million cases (narrow definition) were classified as low-value care, corresponding to 10.4% and 4.0%, respectively. The costs incurred by the identified services were approximately euros €15.5 million (broad definition) and €9.9 million (narrow definition) annually. Despite the limitations of German statutory health insurance data, considerable low-value care was found within several of the 24 low-value indicators. The findings highlight the necessity for targeted interventions to mitigate low-value care in Germany, guiding healthcare policy and practice to enhance quality and safety effectively.

Evidence is limited regarding the physician characteristics associated with the provision of low-value services in primary care, especially outside of the US. To measure physician-level use of 10 low-value care services that provide no net clinical benefit and to investigate the characteristics of primary care physicians who frequently provide low-value care in Japan. This cross-sectional analysis used a nationwide electronic health record database linked with claims data in Japan to assess visits by adult patients (age ≥18 years) to a solo-practice primary care physician from October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023. Data analysis was performed from June 2024 to February 2025. Multivariable-adjusted composite rate of low-value care services delivered per 100 patients per year, aggregated across 10 low-value measures, after accounting for case mix and other characteristics. Among 2 542 630 patients (mean [SD] age, 51.6 [19.8] years; 58.2% female) treated by 1019 primary care physicians (mean [SD] age 56.4 [10.2] years; 90.4% male), 436 317 low-value care services were identified (17.2 cases per 100 patients overall). Nearly half of these low-value care services were provided by 10% of physicians. After accounting for patient case mix, older physicians (age ≥60 years) delivered 2.1 per 100 patients (95% CI, 1.0-3.3) more low-value care services than those younger than 40 years; not board-certified physicians delivered 0.8 per 100 patients (95% CI, 0.2-1.5) more than general internal medicine board-certified physicians; physicians with higher patient volumes delivered 2.3 per 100 patients (95% CI, 1.5-3.2) more than those with low patient volumes; and physicians practicing in Western Japan delivered 1.0 per 100 patients (95% CI, 0.5-1.5) more than those in Eastern Japan. The findings of this cross-sectional analysis suggest that low-value care services were common and concentrated among a small number of primary care physicians in Japan, with older physicians and not board-certified physicians being more likely to provide low-value care. Policy interventions targeting at a small number of certain types of physicians providing large quantities of low-value care may be more effective and efficient than those targeting all physicians uniformly.

6594 Background: Low-value services, which provide minimal patient benefit while entailing costs and risks, are prevalent in cancer care. Shifts in cancer care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimize exposure provided opportunities for health systems and clinicians to prioritize higher-value over low-value oncology services. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the association between the COVID-19 pandemic period and low-value cancer care practices using administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, consisting of ̃65 million members managed by 14 health plans across the US. We identified commercial or Medicare Advantage members diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer between January 2015 and March 2021. Low-value cancer care practices were identified from peer-reviewed medical literature, including ASCO and ASTRO Choosing Wisely campaigns and evidence-based pathways. Five low-value practices were studied: (1) conventional fractionation instead of hypofractionation for early-stage breast cancer; (2) off-pathway systemic therapy; (3) non-guideline-based antiemetic use for minimal-, low-, or moderate-to-high-risk chemotherapies; (4) Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) instead of conventional CT for staging; and (5) aggressive end-of-life care (chemotherapy ≤14 days, multiple emergency department visits ≤30 days, ICU utilization ≤30 days, hospice initiation ≤3 days, and/or no hospice before death). We used linear probability models to evaluate the association between the COVID-19 period (March to December 2020) and the 5 outcomes, adjusting for patient, facility, geographic and temporal characteristics. Results: Among 204,581 members (mean age 63.1, 139,488 [68.1%] female), 83,593 (40.8%) had breast cancer, 56,373 (27.5%) had colon cancer, and 64,615 (31.5%) had lung cancer. Rates of low-value care were similar in pre-COVID vs. COVID periods: conventional radiotherapy: 22.1% vs. 9.4%; off-pathway systemic therapy: 36.7% vs. 43.2%; non-guideline-based antiemetics: 61.2% vs. 58.1%; PET/CT imaging: 39.9% vs. 41.3%; aggressive end-of-life care: 75.8% vs. 73.3%. In adjusted analyses, the COVID-19 period was associated with no changes in off-pathway therapy (adjusted percentage point difference [aPPD] 0.82, SD 0.08, p = 0.33), PET/CT imaging (aPPD 0.10, SD 0.005, p = 0.83), and aggressive end-of-life care (aPPD 2.71, SD 0.02, p = 0.16). Small changes in conventional radiotherapy (aPPD 3.93, SD 0.01, p < 0.01) and non-guideline-based antiemetics (aPPD -3.62, SD 0.006, p < 0.01), were noted. Conclusions: The shock of the COVID-19 pandemic did not meaningfully change several metrics of low-value cancer care. Broader changes to payment and incentive design should be considered to turn the tide toward higher-value cancer care.

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

Low-value care offers little clinical benefit and contributes to inefficient healthcare utilization. Although socioeconomic disparities in healthcare access are well documented, data on low-value care among disadvantaged inpatients remain limited. To examine the association between neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) and the proportion of low-value care services in Japanese inpatient settings using the area deprivation index (ADI) as a proxy for SES. We conducted a cross-sectional study using a nationwide inpatient database from 920 hospitals in Japan between April 2022 and March 2023. Hospitalizations of patients aged ≥18 years receiving one of 12 selected low-value care services were included. The outcome was whether a service provided during hospitalization was classified as low-value based on established algorithms. Patients from deprived areas (top 10 % ADI) were compared with those from non-deprived areas, adjusting for patient case-mix and hospital fixed effects. Among 524,705 hospitalizations (42.3 % female; mean age, 69.9 ± 15.5 years), 33,271 (6.3 %) were classified as low-value care. After adjustment, patients from deprived areas had a higher proportion of low-value care than those from non-deprived areas (6.6 % vs. 6.3 %; adjusted difference, +0.2 percentage points; 95 % CI, 0.03 to 0.5; P = 0.02). Subgroup analyses showed stronger associations among patients aged ≥65, females, and those treated in non-academic hospitals. Results remained consistent after accounting for hospital fixed effects. Patients from disadvantaged areas are slightly more likely to receive low-value inpatient care than are those from non-disadvantaged areas. Older adults, women, and patients treated in non-academic hospitals appeared more affected.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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 US health care system is typically organized around hospitals and specialty care. The value of primary care remains unclear and debated. To determine whether an association exists between receipt of primary care and high-value services, low-value services, and patient experience. This is a nationally representative analysis of noninstitutionalized US adults 18 years or older who participated in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Propensity score-weighted quality and experience of care were compared between 49 286 US adults with and 21 133 adults without primary care from 2012 to 2014. Temporal trends were also analyzed from 2002 to 2014. Patient-reported receipt of primary care, determined by the 4 "Cs" of primary care: first-contact care that is comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated. Thirty-nine clinical quality measures and 7 patient experience measures aggregated into 10 clinical quality composites (6 high-value and 4 low-value services), an overall patient experience rating, and 2 experience composites. From 2002 to 2014, the mean annual survey response rate was 58% (range, 49%-65%). Between 2012 and 2014, compared with respondents without primary care (before adjustment), those with primary care were older (50 [95% CI, 50-51] vs 38 [95% CI, 38-39] years old), more often female (55% [95% CI, 54%-55%] vs 42% [95% CI, 41%-43%]), and predominately white individuals (50% [95% CI, 49%-52%] vs 43% [95% CI, 41%-45%]). After propensity score weighting, US adults with or without primary care had the same mean numbers of outpatient (6.7 vs 5.9; difference, 0.8 [95% CI, -0.2 to 1.8]; P = .11), emergency department (0.2 for both; difference, 0.0 [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.0]; P = .17), and inpatient (0.1 for both; difference, 0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.0]; P = .92) encounters annually, but those with primary care filled more prescriptions (mean, 14.1 vs 10.7; difference, 3.4 [95% CI, 2.0-4.7]; P < .001) and were more likely to have a routine preventive visit in the past year (mean, 72.2% vs 57.5%; difference, 14.7% [95% CI, 12.3%-17.1%]; P < .001). From 2012 to 2014, Americans with primary care received more high-value care in 4 of 5 composites. For example, 78% of those with primary care received high-value cancer screening compared with 67% without primary care (difference, 10.8% [95% CI, 8.5%-13.0%]; P < .001). Americans with or without primary care received low-value care with similar frequencies on 3 of 4 composites, although Americans with primary care received more low-value antibiotics (59% vs 48%; difference, 11.0% [95% CI, 2.8%-19.3%] P < .001). Respondents with primary care also reported significantly better health care access and experience. For example, physician communication was highly rated for a greater proportion of those with (64%) vs without (54%) primary care (difference, 10.2%; 95% CI, 7.2%-13.1%; P < .001). Differences in quality and experience between Americans with or without primary care were essentially stable between 2002 and 2014. Receipt of primary care was associated with significantly more high-value care, slightly more low-value care, and better health care experience. Policymakers and health system leaders seeking to improve value should consider increasing investments in primary care.