An Evidence Review of Low-Value Care Recommendations: Inconsistency and Lack of Economic Evidence Considered

Background Low-value care, typically defined as health services that provide little or no benefit, has potential to cause harm, incur unnecessary costs, and waste limited resources. Although evidence-based guidelines identifying low-value care have increased, the guidelines differ in the type of evidence they cite to support recommendations against its routine use. Objective We examined the evidentiary rationale underlying recommendations against low-value interventions. Design We identified 1167 low-value care recommendations across five US organizations: the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the Choosing Wisely Initiative, American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). For each recommendation, we classified the reported evidentiary rationale into five groups: (1) low economic value; (2) no net clinical benefit; (3) little or no absolute clinical benefit; (4) insufficient evidence; (5) no reason mentioned. We further investigated whether any cited or otherwise available cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with conventional low economic value benchmarks (e.g., exceeding $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year). Results Of the identified low-value care recommendations, Choosing Wisely contributed the most (N=582, 50%), followed by ACC/AHA (N=250, 21%). The services deemed low value differed substantially across organizations. No net clinical benefit (N=428, 37%) and little or no clinical benefit (N=296, 25%) were the most commonly reported reasons for classifying an intervention as low value. Consideration of economic value was less frequently reported (N=171, 15%). When relevant cost-effectiveness studies were available, their results were mostly consistent with low-value care recommendations. Conclusions Our study found that evidentiary rationales for low-value care vary substantially, with most recommendations relying on clinical evidence. Broadening the evidence base to incorporate cost-effectiveness evidence can help refine the definition of low-value care to reflect whether an intervention's costs are worth the benefits. Developing a consensus grading structure on the strength and evidentiary rationale may help improve de-implementation efforts for low-value care.

Automated summary

The study found substantial variability in the evidentiary rationales for low-value care recommendations across different organizations, with clinical evidence being the most commonly relied upon. Broadening the evidence base to include cost-effectiveness evidence can help determine whether the costs of an intervention are justified by the benefits. Developing a consensus grading structure for the strength and evidentiary rationale may improve efforts to reduce low-value care.