Rising use of surveillance colonoscopy and potential impacts.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify temporal changes in colonoscopy indication and assess appropriateness of surveillance use in older adults. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal study of national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data of all patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy in 2005-2014. METHODS: After validating an electronic algorithm for classifying colonoscopy indication in VHA, we examined trends in colonoscopy indication over time and across patient characteristics. RESULTS: The proportion of colonoscopies performed for postpolypectomy surveillance increased significantly during the study period, particularly among older patients with limited life expectancy, raising concern for possible overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines should make clear recommendations about when and how to discontinue postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopy. Doing so would potentially reduce harms due to complications from low-value procedures and in turn moderate demand and thereby enhance overall procedural access for patients more likely to benefit.

Comparison of Payment Changes and Choosing Wisely Recommendations for Use of Low-Value Laboratory Tests in the United States and Canada.

Importance: Evidence comparing the consequences of Choosing Wisely recommendations across health systems or with the consequences of recommendations plus policy change is lacking. Objectives: To compare changes in the use of 2 low-value laboratory tests after the release of Choosing Wisely recommendations across 3 health care jurisdictions and changes associated with a related policy change. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was a population-based interrupted time series of adult patients (aged 18-64 years) who had primary care visits between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015, or established hypothyroidism between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2015, across 3 health care delivery jurisdictions: Ontario, Canada; the US Veterans Health Administration; and the US employer-sponsored insurance market. Data analysis was performed from March 21, 2018, to October 31, 2019. Exposures: A December 2010 payment policy change that eliminated reimbursement of vitamin D screening in Ontario, Canada, and the subsequent release of Choosing Wisely recommendations against low-value use of vitamin D tests in February 2013 and triiodothyronine tests in October 2013 in the United States and both tests in October 2014 in Canada. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative marginal effects (RMEs) comparing low-value testing rates after the release of Choosing Wisely recommendations with rates expected based on prerelease trends and the associated change in low-value vitamin D testing after the 2010 payment policy change in Ontario, Canada. Results: Of 54 223 448 total persons, 28 504 576 (52.6%) were female, with 17 895 458 persons (33.0%) aged 18 to 34 years, 11 101 985 (20.5%) aged 35 to 44 years, and 25 226 005 (46.5%) aged 45 to 64 years. The December 2010 policy eliminating reimbursement for low-value vitamin D screening in Ontario, Canada, was associated with a 92.7% (95% CI, 92.4%-93.0%) relative reduction in such screening. Corresponding Choosing Wisely recommendations were associated with smaller reductions: 4.5% (95% CI, 2.6%-6.3%) in Ontario, 13.8% (95% CI, 11.8%-15.9%) for US Veterans Health Administration, and 14.0% (95% CI, 12.8%-15.2%) for US employer-sponsored insurance. In contrast, low-value use of triiodothyronine testing did not change significantly in Ontario, Canada (RME, 0.3%; 95% CI, -1.4% to 2.0%) or the US Veterans Health Administration (RME, 0.7%; 95% CI, -4.7% to 6.4%) and increased (RME, 3.0%; 95% CI, 1.6%-4.4%) for US employer-sponsored insurance. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, marginal reductions in the use of 2 low-value laboratory tests were associated with the release of related Choosing Wisely recommendations but a greater reduction in low-value vitamin D screening was associated with a previous payment policy change implemented in Ontario, Canada. These findings suggest that recommendations alone may be insufficient to significantly reduce use of low-value services and that pairing recommendations with policy changes may be more effective.

Neuroimaging overuse is more common in Medicare compared with the VA.

OBJECTIVE: To inform initiatives to reduce overuse, we compared neuroimaging appropriateness in a large Medicare cohort with a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cohort. METHODS: Separate retrospective cohorts were established in Medicare and in VA for headache and neuropathy from 2004 to 2011. The Medicare cohorts included all patients enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) with linked Medicare claims (HRS-Medicare; n = 1,244 for headache and 998 for neuropathy). The VA cohorts included all patients receiving services in the VA (n = 93,755 for headache and 183,642 for neuropathy). Inclusion criteria were age over 65 years and an outpatient visit for incident neuropathy or a primary headache. Neuroimaging use was measured with Current Procedural Terminology codes and potential overuse was defined using published criteria for use with administrative data. Increasingly specific appropriateness criteria excluded nontarget conditions for which neuroimaging may be appropriate. RESULTS: For both peripheral neuropathy and headache, potentially inappropriate imaging was more common in HRS-Medicare compared with the VA. Forty-nine percentage of all headache patients received neuroimaging in HRS-Medicare compared with 22.1% in the VA (p < 0.001) and differences persist when analyzing more specific definitions of overuse. A total of 23.7% of all HRS-Medicare incident neuropathy patients received neuroimaging compared with 9.0% in the VA (p < 0.001), and the difference persisted after excluding nontarget conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Overuse of neuroimaging is likely less common in the VA than in a Medicare population. Better understanding the reasons for the more selective use of neuroimaging in the VA could help inform future initiatives to reduce overuse of diagnostic testing.