PCR080: Utilization of 15 Low Value Services within Primary Care of a Southwest Virginia Health System in 2019

Michelle Rockwell, PhD, RD; John Epling, MD, MSEd; Kenan Michaels, BA; Kyle Russell; Beth Bortz, MPP

Abstract

Context: Low-value care (LVC) describes healthcare services that offer minimal or no clinical benefit and may be associated with patient harm, unnecessary costs, and wasted use of resources. Objective: To explore utilization of LVC within a SW Virginia health system (47 clinics, approx. 1 million patients) and to identify factors associated with LVC utilization over the course of one year. Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis of insurance claims using Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator (HWC) for 5 screening tests, 5 diagnostic tests, and 5 prescriptions commonly utilized in primary care. The HWC classifies service utilization as “wasteful” or “necessary” based on USPSTF, Choosing Wisely, and other professional recommendations and guidelines. Setting or Dataset: Virginia All-Payers’ Claims Database claims and internal records (demographics) for 2019. Population studied: Clinicians (n= 211) included physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician’s assistants (n=134, 53, and 24, respectively) serving in primary care for at least 9 months of 2019. Outcomes measures: For each service: total, wasteful, and necessary claims; estimated spend (average dollars paid to health system across all payers); and utilization by clinician demographics. Results: Overall, 15,726 wasteful claims (60% of total claims) for the 15 services were made in 2019, representing an estimated $3,201,434 (averaging 74.5 claims and $15,173 per clinician). Wasteful antibiotics for acute upper respiratory infection (7024 claims), PSA screening (1839 claims), and NSAIDs for patients with CKD, heart failure, or hypertension (1738 claims) were the highest utilized individual services. Although utilized at a lower rate, wasteful colorectal cancer screening ($1,113,970), low back pain imaging ($1,004,637), and imaging for uncomplicated headache ($381,976) were the costliest services utilized. Total wasteful utilization rate was associated with clinicians’ years in practice (r= 0.461, p<0.05), higher in male clinicians, and higher in family medicine physicians (compared with general internists) (p<0.05). Estimated wasteful spend per clinician was higher among general internists (p<0.05). Conclusions: The substantial LVC utilization and expense observed, along with noted variability in utilization based on clinician demographics, will inform interventions to reduce LVC within this health system.
Leave a Comment
Jack Westfall
jwestfall@aafp.org 11/20/2021

Thanks for your terrific work on this research. Hope we can connect.

Diane Harper
harperdi@med.umich.edu 11/21/2021

I do not understand how cervical and colorectal cancer screening are low-value items? These are the only two cancer screens that can be (or will soon to be) done by home based testing that will allow 80% or so of the population to not have to undergo an invasive exam.

Alison Huffstetler
alison.huffstetler@vcuhealth.org 11/22/2021

I suspect that this is overuse of colonoscopy - repeat prior to indicated to begining earlier than guidelines? Similar to cervical cancer screening? Neat poster! Milliman is a bit of a black box to me. But hopefully this gives insight into waste.

Michelle Rockwell
mrockwell@carilionclinic.org 11/22/2021

@Diane, this is a great question. I wish we had had more room on the poster to define the services! Cervical and colorectal cancer screening are both high-value and low-value services. Based on Choosing Wisely criteria, these screenings are not indicated for all patients. For example, CRC screening that is more frequent than guidelines recommend (e.g., colonoscopy more frequently than 10 years, FIT more frequently than 1/year, etc.) or in patients older than recommended is classified as "wasteful" by the health waste calculator we used. Similar for cervical cancer screening: https://www.choosingwisely.org/clinician-lists/american-college-preventive-medicine-cervical-cancer-screening/. A barrier we've heard quite a lot to reducing the low-value versions of these services is concern about sending a mixed message regarding the high-value (and underutilized) instances of the service. And...how great that we're moving toward home-based non-invasive testing!

Gillian Bartlett
gillian.bartlett@health.missouri.edu 11/23/2021

One of the other posters at NAPCRG noted that with COVID shutdown, less imaging was done for headaches - would be fascinating to see how telehealth might have impacted the prevalence of LVC. Great work.

Andy Pasternak
avpiv711@sbcglobal.net 11/26/2021

Great work- I'd be interested to see how COVID affected the Vit D. With some of the press, I had a lot of patients asking for Vit D levels.

Social Media

Address

NAPCRG
11400 Tomahawk Creek Parkway
Leawood, KS 66211
800.274.7928
Email: napcrgoffice@napcrg.org