Racial differences in low value care among older adult Medicare patients in US health systems: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To characterize racial differences in receipt of low value care (services that provide little to no benefit yet have potential for harm) among older Medicare beneficiaries overall and within health systems in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study SETTING: 100% Medicare fee-for-service administrative data (2016-18).

PARTICIPANTS

Black and White Medicare patients aged 65 or older as of 2016 and attributed to 595 health systems in the United States.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Receipt of 40 low value services among Black and White patients, with and without adjustment for patient age, sex, and previous healthcare use. Additional models included health system fixed effects to assess racial differences within health systems and separately, racial composition of the health system's population to assess the relative contributions of individual patient race and health system racial composition to low value care receipt.

RESULTS

The cohort included 9 833 304 patients (6.8% Black; 57.9% female). Of 40 low value services examined, Black patients had higher adjusted receipt of nine services and lower receipt of 20 services than White patients. Specifically, Black patients were more likely to receive low value acute diagnostic tests, including imaging for uncomplicated headache (6.9% v 3.2%) and head computed tomography scans for dizziness (3.1% v 1.9%). White patients had higher rates of low value screening tests and treatments, including preoperative laboratory tests (10.3% v 6.5%), prostate specific antigen tests (31.0% v 25.7%), and antibiotics for upper respiratory infections (36.6% v 32.7%; all P<0.001). Secondary analyses showed that these differences persisted within given health systems and were not explained by Black and White patients receiving care from different systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients were more likely to receive low value acute diagnostic tests and White patients were more likely to receive low value screening tests and treatments. Differences were generally small and were largely due to differential care within health systems. These patterns suggest potential individual, interpersonal, and structural factors that researchers, policy makers, and health system leaders might investigate and address to improve care quality and equity.

Sources of Low-Value Care Received by Medicare Beneficiaries and Associated Spending Within US Health Systems

This cross-sectional study examines referrals for low-value health care services and associated spending by ordering clinician among Medicare beneficiaries.

Who's Accountable? Low-Value Care Received By Medicare Beneficiaries Outside Of Their Attributed Health Systems

Policy makers and payers increasingly hold health systems accountable for spending and quality for their attributed beneficiaries. Low-value care-medical services that offer little or no benefit and have the potential for harm in specific clinical scenarios-received outside of these systems could threaten success on both fronts. Using national Medicare data for fee-for-service beneficiaries ages sixty-five and older and attributed to 595 US health systems, we describe where and from whom they received forty low-value services during 2017-18 and identify factors associated with out-of-system receipt. Forty-three percent of low-value services received by attributed beneficiaries originated from out-of-system clinicians: 38 percent from specialists, 4 percent from primary care physicians, and 1 percent from advanced practice clinicians. Recipients of low-value care were more likely to obtain that care out of system if age 75 or older (versus ages 65-74), male (versus female), non-Hispanic White (versus other races or ethnicities), rural dwelling (versus metropolitan dwelling), more medically complex, or experiencing lower continuity of care. However, out-of-system service receipt was not associated with recipients' health systems' accountable care organization status. Health systems might improve quality and reduce spending for their attributed beneficiaries by addressing out-of-system receipt of low-value care-for example, by improving continuity.

Low-Value Care at the Actionable Level of Individual Health Systems

IMPORTANCE

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.

OBJECTIVES

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.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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.

A nationwide study of the risk of all-cause, sudden death, and cardiovascular mortality among antipsychotic-treated patients with schizophrenia in Taiwan

INTRODUCTION

Studies have reported higher risks of mortality for patients with schizophrenia, compared to the general population. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of all-cause, sudden death, and cardiovascular mortality among patients with schizophrenia in terms of types of antipsychotics.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study assessed the risk of mortality among antipsychotic-treated patients with schizophrenia. The study linked the Taiwan National Health Insurance (NHI) claims and National Register of Death databases from 2001 to 2015. Patients were hierarchically assigned to the following index antipsychotic treatment groups: atypical long acting injection (LAI), typical LAI, atypical oral, and typical oral.

RESULTS

A total of 68,159 antipsychotic-treated patients with schizophrenia were analyzed. Under the hierarchical grouping, the largest percentages of patients were on atypical oral antipsychotic regimens (65.51%), followed by typical oral (14.00%), typical LAI (12.84%), and atypical LAI (7.65%). Typical oral patients had the highest incidence of all-cause mortality of 27.48 per 1000 patient-years and the atypical LAI group had the lowest incidence (13.95 per 1000 patient-years). Compared to typical oral users, there were lower risks of all-cause mortality for users of atypical LAI (aHR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.47-0.81), typical LAI (aHR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.55-0.78), and atypical orals (aHR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.49-0.62).

CONCLUSION

Compared to typical oral users, we found a lower risk of all-cause mortality, sudden death, and cardiovascular mortality among schizophrenia users of LAIs and oral atypicals. Further research is warranted to characterize the risk of mortality among users of more recently available LAIs in the Asia Pacific region and elsewhere.