2016
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2086
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Low-Value Care in Medicaid vs Commercially Insured Populations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
71
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(72 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
71
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, higher socioeconomic status, increased frequency of specialist contact and higher ratio of specialists to primary care physicians in the patient’s home region were all associated with an increased risk of receiving these low-value services in Alberta. Although our finding that 5% of adults who had seen a physician at least once received low-value care seems lower than the 8%6 to 11%5 reported in the USA, we only examined 10 services (compared with 165 and 286 in the US studies). Our finding that low-value care was provided at least once to 30% of Albertans over age 75 mirrors reports from the USA of 25%–42% in Medicare beneficiaries—again we only examine 10 services while the Medicare studies included another 16 services, which we could not reliably extract from administrative records 2 3…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…However, higher socioeconomic status, increased frequency of specialist contact and higher ratio of specialists to primary care physicians in the patient’s home region were all associated with an increased risk of receiving these low-value services in Alberta. Although our finding that 5% of adults who had seen a physician at least once received low-value care seems lower than the 8%6 to 11%5 reported in the USA, we only examined 10 services (compared with 165 and 286 in the US studies). Our finding that low-value care was provided at least once to 30% of Albertans over age 75 mirrors reports from the USA of 25%–42% in Medicare beneficiaries—again we only examine 10 services while the Medicare studies included another 16 services, which we could not reliably extract from administrative records 2 3…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…The similar prevalence of overuse nationally of each service, comparable patterns of regional variation, and high correlation within HRRs between the two populations suggest a place or health system effect, and little influence of payer differences, driving, or deterring overuse. Previous work compared low-value care among Medicaid and commercially insured populations at the state level (Charlesworth et al 2016) and similarly found no consistent association between insurance type and provision of low-value care. Work by others (Arora and True 2012;Chen et al 2014) also suggests local norms of care may develop through training and peer interactions, and these norms may have profound cumulative effects on the costs and quality of care from HRR to HRR.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Previous work compared low‐value care among Medicaid and commercially insured populations at the state level (Charlesworth et al. ) and similarly found no consistent association between insurance type and provision of low‐value care. Work by others (Arora and True ; Chen et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…10 We also analyzed performance on five measures of appropriateness or “low-value” care (appropriate medications for people with asthma; testing for children with pharyngitis; imaging studies for low back pain; imaging for uncomplicated headache; and avoidance of unnecessary cervical cancer screening), hypothesizing that these services might be areas of focus for organizations seeking to reduce spending and improve quality. 11,12 …”
Section: Study Data and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%