Care for low back pain: can health systems deliver?

Low back pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability globally. In 2018, an international working group called on the World Health Organization to increase attention on the burden of low back pain and the need to avoid excessively medical solutions. Indeed, major international clinical guidelines now recognize that many people with low back pain require little or no formal treatment. Where treatment is required the recommended approach is to discourage use of pain medication, steroid injections and spinal surgery, and instead promote physical and psychological therapies. Many health systems are not designed to support this approach. In this paper we discuss why care for low back pain that is concordant with guidelines requires system-wide changes. We detail the key challenges of low back pain care within health systems. These include the financial interests of pharmaceutical and other companies; outdated payment systems that favour medical care over patients' self-management; and deep-rooted medical traditions and beliefs about care for back pain among physicians and the public. We give international examples of promising solutions and policies and practices for health systems facing an increasing burden of ineffective care for low back pain. We suggest policies that, by shifting resources from unnecessary care to guideline-concordant care for low back pain, could be cost-neutral and have widespread impact. Small adjustments to health policy will not work in isolation, however. Workplace systems, legal frameworks, personal beliefs, politics and the overall societal context in which we experience health, will also need to change

Rates of Low-Value Service in Australian Public Hospitals and the Association With Patient Insurance Status.

Importance: Low-value services have limited or no benefit to patients. Rates of low-value service in public hospitals may vary by patient insurance status, given that there may be different financial incentives for treatment of privately insured patients. Objective: To assess the variation in rates of 5 low-value services performed in Australian public hospitals according to patient funding status (ie, private or public). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed New South Wales public hospital data from January 2013 to June 2018. Patients included in the sample were over age 18 years and eligible to receive low-value services based on diagnoses and concomitant procedures. Data analysis was conducted from June to December 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital-specific rates of low-value knee arthroscopic debridement, vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, oophorectomy with hysterectomy, and laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation for chronic pelvic pain were measured. For each measure, rates within each public hospital were compared by patient funding status descriptively and using multilevel models. Results: A total of 219 862 inpatients were included in analysis from 58 public hospitals across the 5 measures. A total of 38 365 (22 904 [59.7%] women; 12 448 [32.4%] aged 71-80 years) were eligible for knee arthroscopic debridement for osteoarthritis; 2520 (1924 [76.3%] women; 662 [26.3%] aged 71-80 years), vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures; 162 285 (82 046 [50.6%] women; 28 255 [17.4%] aged 61-70 years), hyperbaric oxygen therapy; 15 916 (7126 [44.8%] aged 41-50 years), oophorectomy with hysterectomy; and 776 (327 [42.1%] aged 18-30 years), uterine nerve ablation for chronic pelvic pain. Overall rates of low-value services varied considerably between measures, with the lowest rate for hyperbaric oxygen therapy (0.3 procedures per 1000 inpatients [47 of 158 220 eligible inpatients]) and the highest for vertebroplasty (30.8 procedures per 1000 eligible patients [77 of 2501 eligible inpatients]). There was significant variation in rates between hospitals, with a few outlying hospitals (ie, <10), particularly for knee arthroscopy (range from 1.8 to 21.0 per 1000 eligible patients) and vertebroplasty (range from 13.1 to 70.4 per 1000 eligible patients), with higher numerical rates of low-value services among patients with private insurance than for those without. However, there was no association overall between patient insurance status and low-value services. Overall differences in rates among those with and without private insurance by individual procedure type were not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: There was significant variation in rates of low-value services in public hospitals. While there was no overall association between private insurance and rate of low-value services, private insurance may be associated with low-value service rates in some hospitals. Further exploration of factors specific to local hospitals and practices are needed to reduce this unnecessary care

Managing healthcare budgets in times of austerity: the role of program budgeting and marginal analysis

Given limited resources, priority setting or choice making will remain a reality at all levels of publicly funded healthcare across countries for many years to come. The pressures may well be even more acute as the impact of the economic crisis of 2008 continues to play out but, even as economies begin to turn around, resources within healthcare will be limited, thus some form of rationing will be required. Over the last few decades, research on healthcare priority setting has focused on methods of implementation as well as on the development of approaches related to fairness and legitimacy and on more technical aspects of decision making including the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Recently, research has led to better understanding of evaluating priority setting activity including defining ‘success’ and articulating key elements for high performance. This body of research, however, often goes untapped by those charged with making challenging decisions and as such, in line with prevailing public sector incentives, decisions are often reliant on historical allocation patterns and/or political negotiation. These archaic and ineffective approaches not only lead to poor decisions in terms of value for money but further do not reflect basic ethical conditions that can lead to fairness in the decision-making process. The purpose of this paper is to outline a comprehensive approach to priority setting and resource allocation that has been used in different contexts across countries. This will provide decision makers with a single point of access for a basic understanding of relevant tools when faced with having to make difficult decisions about what healthcare services to fund and what not to fund. The paper also addresses several key issues related to priority setting including how health technology assessments can be used, how performance can be improved at a practical level, and what ongoing resource management practice should look like. In terms of future research, one of the most important areas of priority setting that needs further attention is how best to engage public members

Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices

Background Internationally, many health care interventions were diffused prior to the standard use of assessments of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Disinvestment from ineffective or inappropriately applied practices is a growing priority for health care systems for reasons of improved quality of care and sustainability of resource allocation. In this paper we examine key challenges for disinvestment from these interventions and explore potential policy-related avenues to advance a disinvestment agenda. Results We examine five key challenges in the area of policy driven disinvestment: 1) lack of resources to support disinvestment policy mechanisms; 2) lack of reliable administrative mechanisms to identify and prioritise technologies and/or practices with uncertain clinical and cost-effectiveness; 3) political, clinical and social challenges to removing an established technology or practice; 4) lack of published studies with evidence demonstrating that existing technologies/practices provide little or no benefit (highlighting complexity of design) and; 5) inadequate resources to support a research agenda to advance disinvestment methods. Partnerships are required to involve government, professional colleges and relevant stakeholder groups to put disinvestment on the agenda. Such partnerships could foster awareness raising, collaboration and improved health outcome data generation and reporting. Dedicated funds and distinct processes could be established within the Medical Services Advisory Committee and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to, a) identify technologies and practices for which there is relative uncertainty that could be the basis for disinvestment analysis, and b) conduct disinvestment assessments of selected item(s) to address existing practices in an analogous manner to the current focus on new and emerging technology. Finally, dedicated funding and cross-disciplinary collaboration is necessary to build health services and policy research capacity, with a focus on advancing disinvestment research methodologies and decision support tools. Conclusion The potential over-utilisation of less than effective clinical practices and the potential under-utilisation of effective clinical practices not only result in less than optimal care but also fragmented, inefficient and unsustainable resource allocation. Systematic policy approaches to disinvestment will improve equity, efficiency, quality and safety of care, as well as sustainability of resource allocation.Adam G Elshaug, Janet E Hiller, Sean R Tunis and John R Mos

The ASTUTE Health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment

BACKGROUND Governments and other payers are yet to determine optimal processes by which to review the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of technologies and procedures that are in active use within health systems, and rescind funding (partially or fully) from those that display poor profiles against these parameters. To further progress a disinvestment agenda, a model is required to support payers in implementing disinvestment in a transparent manner that may withstand challenge from vested interests and concerned citizens. Combining approaches from health technology assessment and deliberative democratic theory, this project seeks to determine if and how wide stakeholder engagement can contribute to improved decision-making processes, wherein the views of both vested and non-vested stakeholders are seen to contribute to informing policy implementation within a disinvestment context. METHODS/DESIGN Systematic reviews pertaining to illustrative case studies were developed and formed the evidence base for discussion. Review findings were presented at a series of deliberative, evidence-informed stakeholder engagements, including partisan (clinicians and consumers) and non-partisan (representative community members) stakeholders. Participants were actively facilitated towards identifying shared and dissenting perspectives regarding public funding policy for each of the case studies and developing their own funding models in response to the evidence presented. Policy advisors will subsequently be invited to evaluate disinvestment options based on the scientific and colloquial evidence presented to them, and to explore the value of this information to their decision-making processes with reference to disinvestment. DISCUSSION Analysis of the varied outputs of the deliberative engagements will contribute to the methodological development around how to best integrate scientific and colloquial evidence for consideration by policy advisors. It may contribute to the legitimization of broad and transparent stakeholder engagement in this context. It is anticipated that decision making will benefit from the knowledge delivered through informed deliberation with engaged stakeholders, and this will be explored through interviews with key decision makers.Amber M Watt, Janet E Hiller, Annette J Braunack-Mayer, John R Moss, Heather Buchan, Janet Wale, Dagmara E Riitano, Katherine Hodgetts, Jackie M Street and Adam G Elshaug, for the ASTUTE Health study grou

Are low-value care measures up to the task? A systematic review of the literature

Background Reducing low-value care is a core component of healthcare reforms in many Western countries. A comprehensive and sound set of low-value care measures is needed in order to monitor low-value care use in general and in provider-payer contracts. Our objective was to review the scientific literature on low-value care measurement, aiming to assess the scope and quality of current measures. Methods A systematic review was performed for the period 2010–2015. We assessed the scope of low-value care recommendations and measures by categorizing them according to the Classification of Health Care Functions. Additionally, we assessed the quality of the measures by 1) analysing their development process and the level of evidence underlying the measures, and 2) analysing the evidence regarding the validity of a selected subset of the measures. Results Our search yielded 292 potentially relevant articles. After screening, we selected 23 articles eligible for review. We obtained 115 low-value care measures, of which 87 were concentrated in the cure sector, 25 in prevention and 3 in long-term care. No measures were found in rehabilitative care and health promotion. We found 62 measures from articles that translated low-value care recommendations into measures, while 53 measures were previously developed by institutions as the National Quality Forum. Three measures were assigned the highest level of evidence, as they were underpinned by both guidelines and literature evidence. Our search yielded no information on coding/criterion validity and construct validity for the included measures. Despite this, most measures were already used in practice. Conclusion This systematic review provides insight into the current state of low-value care measures. It shows that more attention is needed for the evidential underpinning and quality of these measures. Clear information about the level of evidence and validity helps to identify measures that truly represent low-value care and are sufficiently qualified to fulfil their aims through quality monitoring and in innovative payer-provider contracts. This will contribute to creating and maintaining the support of providers, payers, policy makers and citizens, who are all aiming to improve value in health care