Trends in Low-Value Care Following a Payer-Initiated Audit and Feedback Intervention: A Retrospective Analysis in Hospitals With Varying Payment Models

De Weerdt, Vera; Koolman, Xander; Willems, Hanna C.; Repping, Sjoerd; Stam, Piet A.; Van Limbeek, Jacques; Van Der Hijden, Eric J.E.

doi:10.34172/ijhpm.9060

Trends in Low-Value Care Following a Payer-Initiated Audit and Feedback Intervention: A Retrospective Analysis in Hospitals With Varying Payment Models

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Vera de Weerdt ¹^{, 2}

Xander Koolman ¹

Hanna C. Willems ³^{, 4}

Sjoerd Repping ²^{, 5}

Piet A. Stam ¹

Jacques van Limbeek ⁶

Eric J.E. van der Hijden ¹^{, 7}

¹ Department of Health Economics, School of Business and Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

² Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

³ Department of Geriatrics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

⁴ Leading the Change, Zorgevaluatie Nederland, The Netherlands

⁵ National Healthcare Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands

⁶ ONVZ Health Insurance, Houten, The Netherlands

⁷ Zilveren Kruis Health Insurance, Zeist, The Netherlands

10.34172/ijhpm.9060

Abstract

Background
Reducing low-value care (LVC) remains a significant challenge in healthcare systems, despite efforts for de-implementation. To facilitate de-implementation payers may use provider Audit & Feedback (A&F). This study aims to examine trends in LVC following a payer-initiated A&F program, and to explore whether this association varies across hospital payment models.

Methods
Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine the trend in LVC in hospitals, its correlation with an A&F intervention, and whether this varied with payment models including fee-for-service (FFS), global budget (GB), cost ceiling (CC) and gradual tariff (GT). To assess this, we used hospital level claims data from a large nationwide Dutch health insurer on 70 hospitals in the period 2017-2022. The primary outcome was the yearly proportion of LVC per hospital. Independent variables were time, market share and payment models. We hypothesized that payer-initiated A&F had a stronger impact in hospitals were the payer had a larger market share, and that the effect would be stronger still for hospitals with financial incentives to reduce production.

Results
LVC showed a small, but significant decline over time (odds ratio [OR]: 0.98; 95% confidence level [CI]: 0.98-0.99). LVC tended to be higher in hospitals where the payer had a higher market share (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.00-1.05). The CC model was associated with an increase in LVC (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.99–1.03). The other payment models were associated with a decrease in LVC. The FFS model exhibited the smallest reduction in LVC (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.98-0.99), and the GT model (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.99-1.03) showed similar patterns in LVC. The GB model was associated with the largest reduction in LVC (OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91-0.97).

Conclusion
By itself A&F did not clearly contribute to the decline of the proportion of LVC; combined with volumeconstraining financial incentives, it was associated with larger reductions.

Keywords

Low-Value Care

Appropriate Care

Quality Improvement

Audit &‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ Feedback

Payment Models

Financial Incentives

1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). List of OECD Member countries - Ratification of the Convention on the OECD. https://www.oecd.org/about/document/ratification-oecd-convention.htm. Accessed January 15, 2024.

2. Kjelle E, Andersen ER, Krokeide AM, et al. Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review. BMC Med Imaging. 2022;22(1):1-28. doi:10.1186/s12880-022-00798-2

3. Mafi JN, Reid RO, Baseman LH, et al. Trends in low-value health service use and spending in the US Medicare fee-for-service program, 2014-2018. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):E2037328. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37328

4. Mafi JN, Parchman M. Low-value care: an intractable global problem with no quick fix. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(5):333-336. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007477

5. Shrank WH, Rogstad TL, Parekh N. Waste in the US Health Care System: Estimated Costs and Potential for Savings. JAMA. 2019;322(15):1501-1509. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.13978

6. Ganguli I, Thakore N, Rosenthal MB, Korenstein D. Longitudinal content analysis of the characteristics and expected impact of low-value services identified in US Choosing Wisely Recommendations. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(2):127-133. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.6911

7. Kool RB, Verkerk EW, Meijs J, et al. Assessing volume and variation of low-value care practices in the Netherlands. Eur J Public Health. 2021;30(2):236-240. doi:10.1093/EURPUB/CKZ245

8. Sypes EE, De Grood C, Clement FM, et al. Understanding the public’s role in reducing low-value care: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):1-13. doi:10.1186/s13012-020-00986-0

9. Sharp AL, Klau MH, Keschner D, et al. Low-value care for acute sinusitis encounters. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(7):479-485.

10. Kim DD, Daly AT, Koethe BC, et al. Low-value prostate-specific antigen test for prostate cancer screening and subsequent health care utilization and spending. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(11):e2243449. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.43449

11. Pham T, Devries A, Bailly E, Raina D. Cross-sectional trends in potentially low-value services for commercially insured patients with chronic low back pain. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;15:2020-2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.47178

12. Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, et al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet. 2017;390(10090):156-168. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32585-5

13. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: Effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225-1230. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14546-1

14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Tackling Wasteful Spending on Health. Tackling Wasteful Spending on Health; 2017. doi:10.1787/9789264266414-en

15. de Meijer C, Wouterse B, Polder J, Koopmanschap M. The effect of population aging on health expenditure growth: A critical review. Eur J Ageing. 2013;10(4):353-361. doi:10.1007/s10433-013-0280-x

16. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2012(6):CD000259. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3

17. Ivers NM, Desveaux L. De-implementation of low-value care: use audit and feedback wisely. Healthcare Papers. 2019;18(1):41-47. doi:10.12927/hcpap.2019.25869

18. Gajadien CS, Dohmen PJG, Eijkenaar F, Schut FT, van Raaij EM, Heijink R. Financial risk allocation and provider incentives in hospital–insurer contracts in The Netherlands. European Journal of Health Economics. 2023;24(1):125-138. doi:10.1007/s10198-022-01459-5

19. Oakes AH, Sen AP, Segal JB. The impact of global budget payment reform on systemic overuse in Maryland. Healthcare. 2020;8(4):100475. doi:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100475

20. Gaspar K, Portrait F, van der Hijden E, Koolman X. Global budget versus cost ceiling: a natural experiment in hospital payment reform in the Netherlands. European Journal of Health Economics. 2020;21(1):105-114. doi:10.1007/s10198-019-01114-6

21. Zilveren Kruis. MSZ-declaratiedata. Accessed October 2024.

22. Zorgwijzer. Cijfers zorgverzekering. https://www.zorgwijzer.nl/faq/cijfers-zorgverzekering. Published November 28, 2024. Accessed January 27, 2025.

23. Basu S, Phillips RS, Song Z, Bitton A, Landon BE. High levels of capitation payments needed to shift primary care toward proactive team and nonvisit care. Health Aff (Millwood).. 2017;36(9):1599-1605. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0367

24. Koning M. CPB Document - Concurrentie in de Zorg. 2001. https://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/download/concurrentie-de-zorg.pdf.

25. van der Veer SN, de Keizer NF, Ravelli ACJ, Tenkink S, Jager KJ. Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(5):305-323. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.01.011

26. De Bekker PJGM, De Weerdt V, Vink MDH, Van Der Kolk AB, Donker MH, Van Der Hijden EJE. “Give me something meaningful”: GPs perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers - an exploratory qualitative study. BMJ Open Qual. 2022;11(4):1-9. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2022-002006

27. Payne VL, Hysong SJ. Model depicting aspects of audit and feedback that impact physicians’ acceptance of clinical performance feedback. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):1-12. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1486-3

28. Kini V, Viragh T, Magid D, Masoudi FA, Moghtaderi A, Black B. Trends in High- And Low-Value Cardiovascular Diagnostic Testing in Fee-for-Service Medicare, 2000-2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):1-12. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13070

29. Schwartz AL, Landon BE, Elshaug AG, Chernew ME, McWilliams JM. Measuring low-value care in medicare. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(7):1067-1076. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1541

30. Bouck Z, Ferguson J, Ivers NM, et al. Physician characteristics associated with ordering 4 low-value screening tests in primary care. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(6):e183506. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3506

31. Quinn AE, Trachtenberg AJ, McBrien KA, et al. Impact of payment model on the behaviour of specialist physicians: A systematic review. Health Policy (New York). 2020;124(4):345-358. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.02.007

32. OECD. Better Ways to Pay for Health Care. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/better-ways-to-pay-for-health-care_9789264258211-en.html. 2016.

33. Ellison JE, Kumar S, Steingrimsson JA, et al. Comparison of Low-Value Care Among Commercial and Medicaid Enrollees. J Gen Intern Med. 2023;38(4):954-960. doi:10.1007/s11606-022-07823-8