Longitudinal Content Analysis of the Characteristics and Expected Impact of Low-Value Services Identified in US Choosing Wisely Recommendations.

Abstract

The US Choosing Wisely campaign has had substantial reach in mobilizing efforts to reduce low-value care, achieved largely by engaging physician specialty societies in stewardship. While some early recommendations were criticized for avoiding revenue-generating services, there is limited evidence of how the composition of recommendations shifted as more societies contributed. To analyze the characteristics and expected impact of Choosing Wisely recommendations. This qualitative study included content and trend analyses of all 626 Choosing Wisely recommendations by US physician societies as of March 1, 2021. Data were analyzed between March and May 2021. Primary outcomes were proportions of identified low-value services by characteristics (society type, service type, indication, do vs avoid, and clinical context) and expected impact (effect on the revenue of society members, cost, number of individuals at risk, direct harm potential, and cascade potential). Low-value services identified in the 626 Choosing Wisely recommendations largely covered imaging (168 [26.8%]) and laboratory studies (156 [24.9%]) in the context of chronic conditions (169 [27.0%]) and healthy patients with risk factors alone (126 [20.1%]). Most of the identified low-value services were revenue neutral for the recommending society (402 [64.2%]) and the plurality were low cost (<$200; 284 [45.4%]); low-cost services represented a growing share of low-value services identified by Choosing Wisely recommendations (1.2 percentage points per year; P = .001). Nearly half (280 [44.7%]) of recommendations identified services with high direct harm potential, and 388 (62.0%) identified those with high potential for cascades (ie, triggering downstream services). The results of this qualitative study suggest that the Choosing Wisely recommendations identified services with a range of expected impacts. Stakeholders could explicitly set priorities for future recommendations, while clinical leaders and payers might target intervention efforts on recommendations with the greatest potential for impact based on spending across populations, direct harms, and cascades.