Carlos Irwin A. Oronce, Ray Pablo, Susi Rodriguez Shapiro, Phyllis Willis, Ninez Ponce, John N. Mafi, Catherine Sarkisian
{"title":"Racial and Ethnic Differences in Low-Value Care Among Older Adults in a Large Statewide Health System","authors":"Carlos Irwin A. Oronce, Ray Pablo, Susi Rodriguez Shapiro, Phyllis Willis, Ninez Ponce, John N. Mafi, Catherine Sarkisian","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>As value-based payment models incorporate both measures of health equity and low-value care (LVC), understanding how LVC varies by race is vital for interventions. Therefore, we measured racial differences in LVC in a contemporary sample.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of claims from adults ≥ 55 years receiving care at five academic medical centers in California from 2019 to 2021. Our sample included patients who received a service that could be classified as LVC. The primary outcome was whether a service was classified as LVC. Secondary outcomes included clinical categories of LVC (preventive screening, diagnostic testing, prescription drugs, and preoperative testing). We examined associations between race/ethnicity with outcomes using multivariable regression models adjusted for patient characteristics and medical center.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Among 15,720 members who received potentially LVC, non-Hispanic White older adults comprised 59% of the sample, followed by Asian (17%), unknown race (8%), Latino (8%), non-Hispanic Black (5%), other race (2%). In adjusted models, Asian (−4.9 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI −5.9, −3.8 pp), Black (−5.4 pp; 95% CI −8.0, −2.7 pp), and Latino (−2.5 pp; 95% CI −4.6, −0.4 pp) older adults were less likely to receive LVC compared to White older adults, specifically preventive and preoperative services. Asian, Black, and Latino older adults, however, were more likely to receive low-value prescriptions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>These diverging racial patterns in LVC across different measures likely reflect differential mechanisms, underscoring the need to use clinically specific measures rather than composite measures, which obscure underlying heterogeneity and could lead to potentially harmful and inequity-producing interventions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":"73 3","pages":"900-909"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgs.19369","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19369","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
As value-based payment models incorporate both measures of health equity and low-value care (LVC), understanding how LVC varies by race is vital for interventions. Therefore, we measured racial differences in LVC in a contemporary sample.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of claims from adults ≥ 55 years receiving care at five academic medical centers in California from 2019 to 2021. Our sample included patients who received a service that could be classified as LVC. The primary outcome was whether a service was classified as LVC. Secondary outcomes included clinical categories of LVC (preventive screening, diagnostic testing, prescription drugs, and preoperative testing). We examined associations between race/ethnicity with outcomes using multivariable regression models adjusted for patient characteristics and medical center.
Results
Among 15,720 members who received potentially LVC, non-Hispanic White older adults comprised 59% of the sample, followed by Asian (17%), unknown race (8%), Latino (8%), non-Hispanic Black (5%), other race (2%). In adjusted models, Asian (−4.9 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI −5.9, −3.8 pp), Black (−5.4 pp; 95% CI −8.0, −2.7 pp), and Latino (−2.5 pp; 95% CI −4.6, −0.4 pp) older adults were less likely to receive LVC compared to White older adults, specifically preventive and preoperative services. Asian, Black, and Latino older adults, however, were more likely to receive low-value prescriptions.
Conclusions
These diverging racial patterns in LVC across different measures likely reflect differential mechanisms, underscoring the need to use clinically specific measures rather than composite measures, which obscure underlying heterogeneity and could lead to potentially harmful and inequity-producing interventions.
背景:由于基于价值的支付模式结合了卫生公平和低价值护理(LVC)的措施,了解LVC如何因种族而变化对于干预措施至关重要。因此,我们在当代样本中测量了LVC的种族差异。方法:我们对2019年至2021年在加州5个学术医疗中心接受治疗的55岁以上成年人的索赔进行了横断面分析。我们的样本包括接受可归类为LVC的服务的患者。主要结果是服务是否被归类为LVC。次要结局包括LVC的临床分类(预防性筛查、诊断性检测、处方药和术前检测)。我们使用调整了患者特征和医疗中心的多变量回归模型检验了种族/民族与结果之间的关联。结果:在15,720名接受潜在LVC的成员中,非西班牙裔白人老年人占样本的59%,其次是亚洲人(17%),未知种族(8%),拉丁裔(8%),非西班牙裔黑人(5%),其他种族(2%)。在调整后的模型中,亚洲(-4.9个百分点;95% CI -5.9, -3.8 pp),黑色(-5.4 pp;95% CI -8.0, -2.7 pp)和拉丁裔(-2.5 pp;(95% CI -4.6, -0.4 pp)与白人老年人相比,老年人接受LVC的可能性更小,特别是预防性和术前服务。然而,亚洲、黑人和拉丁裔老年人更有可能得到低价值的处方。结论:在不同的测量方法中,LVC中不同的种族模式可能反映了不同的机制,强调了使用临床特定测量方法而不是复合测量方法的必要性,这掩盖了潜在的异质性,并可能导致潜在的有害和不公平的干预措施。
期刊介绍:
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) is the go-to journal for clinical aging research. We provide a diverse, interprofessional community of healthcare professionals with the latest insights on geriatrics education, clinical practice, and public policy—all supporting the high-quality, person-centered care essential to our well-being as we age. Since the publication of our first edition in 1953, JAGS has remained one of the oldest and most impactful journals dedicated exclusively to gerontology and geriatrics.