In 2012, @ABIMFoundation@ConsumerReports launched #ChoosingWisely - asking professional societies to list low-value services to avoid. CW intentionally let docs set their own priorities to leverage their professional values, but some worried about unintended consequences. 2/
In our qualitative analysis of all 626 U.S. physician recs, most recs identified low-value imaging and lab studies in patients w/ chronic conditions or w/ risk factors alone. Few tackled (for example) visits/hospitalizations or services at end-of-life (missed opportunities?) 3/
Most recs (64%) were revenue-neutral for the society’s member physicians. Sometimes (2%), following the rec would even earn $ for member physicians. Meanwhile, the lowest-cost services (<$200 per unit) were the largest share of named services, and this share grew over time. 4/
The recommendations varied widely along 4 dimensions of impact: The named low-services had varying $ and size of affected populations. Promisingly, 45% of identified low-value services had high direct harm potential and 62% had high cascade potential. 5/
Of course, recs only useful if acted on (per @betsyqcliff, multi-pronged interventions work best👇). Given how hard interventions are, we hope our analyses can inform new recs + help clinical leaders/policymakers/payers prioritize services to target. 6/ milbank.org/quarterly/arti…
How common are “cascades” after incidental findings? In @JAMANetworkOpen we present our survey of US generalists (n=376 completed,RR 45%). Most had experienced cascades w/ no clinically impt outcomes yet caused harms to patients and themselves. THREAD(1/9) bit.ly/33BS7WM
Most doctors reported patient harms (incl psych, $, physical) from cascades ≥several times/year. They reported frequent harms to themselves (wasted time/effort, frustration, anxiety), especially physicians in rural settings and those reporting discomfort with uncertainty. (3/9)