Low-value medical services in the safety-net population

Michael L. Barnett*, Jeffrey A. Linder, Cheryl R. Clark, Benjamin D. Sommers

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

35 Scopus citations


IMPORTANCE: National patterns of low-value and high-value care delivered to patients without insurance or with Medicaid could inform public policy but have not been previously examined. OBJECTIVE: To measure rates of low-value care and high-value care received by patients without insurance or with Medicaid, compared with privately insured patients, and provided by safety-net physicians vs non-safety-net physicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multiyear cross-sectional observational study included all patients ages 18 to 64 years from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2005-2013) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2005-2011) eligible for any of the 21 previously defined low-value or high-value care measures. All measures were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression and adjusted for patient and physician characteristics. EXPOSURES Comparison of patients by insurance status (uninsured/Medicaid vs privately insured) and safety-net physicians (seeing >25% uninsured/Medicaid patients) vs non-safety-net physicians (seeing 1%-10%). MAIN OUTCOMESAND MEASURES: Delivery of 9 low-value or 12 high-value care measures, based on previous research definitions, and composite measures for any high-value or low-value care delivery during an office visit. RESULTS: Overall, 193 062 office visits were eligible for at least 1 measure. Mean (95% CI) age for privately insured patients (n = 94 707) was 44.7 (44.5-44.9) years; patients on Medicaid (n = 45 123), 39.8 (39.3-40.3) years; and uninsured patients (n = 19 530), 41.9 (41.5-42.4) years. Overall, low-value and high-value care was delivered in 19.4% (95% CI, 18.5%-20.2%) and 33.4% (95% CI, 32.4%-34.3%) of eligible encounters, respectively. Rates of low-value and high-value care delivery were similar across insurance types for the majority of services examined. Among Medicaid patients, adjusted rates of use were no different for 6 of 9 low-value and 9 of 12 high-value services compared with privately insured beneficiaries, whereas among the uninsured, rates were no different for 7 of 9 low-value and 9 of 12 high-value services. Safety-net physicians provided similar care compared with non-safety-net physicians, with no difference for 8 out of 9 low-value and for all 12 high-value services. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Overuse oflow-value careiscommon among patients without insurance or with Medicaid. Rates of low-value and high-value care were similar among physicians serving vulnerable patients and other physicians. Overuse of low-value care is a potentially important focus for state Medicaid programs and safety-net institutions to pursue cost savings and improved quality of health care delivery.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)829-837
Number of pages9
JournalJAMA internal medicine
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 2017

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Low-value medical services in the safety-net population'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this