Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30842110›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Measuring 21 low-value hospital procedures: claims analysis of Australian private health insurance data (2010-2014).

Kelsey Chalmers, Sallie-Anne Pearson, Tim Badgery-Parker, Jonathan Brett, Ian A Scott, Adam G Elshaug

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A Taxonomy for Health Information Systems.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Measuring low-value care in hospital discharge records: evidence from China.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Developing a How-to-Guide for Health Technology Reassessment: "The HTR Playbook".International journal of health policy and management · 2022
    Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kelsey ChalmersMenzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7291-8898
Sallie-Anne PearsonMedicines Policy Research Unit, University of New South Wales, UNSW, New South Wales, Australia.
Tim Badgery-ParkerMenzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1275-1130
Jonathan BrettMedicines Policy Research Unit, University of New South Wales, UNSW, New South Wales, Australia.
Ian A ScottDepartment of Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7596-0837
Adam G ElshaugMenzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the prevalence, costs and trends (2010-2014) for 21 low-value inpatient procedures in a privately insured Australian patient cohort.

designWe developed indicators for 21 low-value procedures from evidence-based lists such as Choosing Wisely, and applied them to a claims data set of hospital admissions. We used narrow and broad indicators where multiple low-value procedure definitions exist. SETTING AND

participantsA cohort of 376 354 patients who claimed for an inpatient service from any of 13 insurance funds in calendar years 2010-2014; approximately 7% of the privately insured Australian population.

main outcome measuresCounts and proportions of low-value procedures in 2014, and relative change between 2010 and 2014. We also report both the Medicare (Australian government) and the private insurance financial contributions to these low-value admissions.

resultsOf the 14 662 patients with admissions for at least 1 of the 21 procedures in 2014, 20.8%-32.0% were low-value using the narrow and broad indicators, respectively. Of the 21 procedures, admissions for knee arthroscopy were highest in both the volume and the proportion that were low-value (1607-2956; 44.4%-81.7%).Seven low-value procedures decreased in use between 2010 and 2014, while admissions for low-value percutaneous coronary interventions and inpatient intravitreal injections increased (51% and 8%, respectively).For this sample, we estimated 2014 Medicare contributions for admissions with low-value procedures to be between $A1.8 and $A2.9 million, and total charges between $A12.4 and $A22.7 million.

conclusionsThe Australian federal government is currently reviewing low-value healthcare covered by Medicare and private health insurers. Estimates from this study can provide crucial baseline data and inform design and assessment of policy strategies within the Australian private healthcare sector aimed at curtailing the high volume and/or proportions of low-value procedures.

Indexed as

AustraliaElective Surgical ProceduresHealth PolicyHealth Services ResearchHospitalizationHumansInsurance Claim ReviewInsurance, HealthPrivate Sectorchoosing wiselyinappropriate carelow-value carequality in health care

Identifiers

PMID30842110
PMCPMC6429894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.