EJ Rourke. NEJM 2022; 386: 1293-1295. Open Access: Ten Years of Choosing Wisely to Reduce Low-Value Care
Key points from this commentary:
- “Let me say at the outset that in my primary care clinic I practice low-value care. Not every day, but often enough. Probably every week”
- “Choosing Wisely was an immediate public relations win for the medical profession in 2012, demonstrating that doctors were stepping up to address low value and high costs in medicine. Ten years later, however, it’s clear that making lists and publicizing them are not sufficient to reduce low-value care.1 “
- “In the years since Choosing Wisely lists were first released, researchers have noted that specialty societies rarely select income-generating treatments provided by their members for inclusion on the lists.4“
- “In short, Choosing Wisely has allowed doctors (and medical societies) to look like they are addressing low-value care without actually being forced to make any substantive changes.”
- “My experience mirrors the findings of a 2015 study that used surveys, interviews, and focus groups to assess how patients understood low-value care. The study found ‘quite powerfully” that patients favored “replacing excessive tests with time for clinicians to talk, listen and personalize'”
- “If Choosing Wisely is to continue, the specialty societies that have participated in it should celebrate its 10th anniversary by coming together to rethink and reinvent it.”
My take: While there are many factors that make it hard to eliminate low-value care, much is related to Upton Sinclair’s maxim: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Related blog posts:
- Do you know about the “Choosing Wisely Campaign?”
- Healthcare: “Where the Frauds Are Legal”
- Trying to make Cents out of Value Care | gutsandgrowth
- The Costs of Unnecessary Care –What’s Wrong with “I want everything ruled out?”
- Why Are So Many “Low Value” Endoscopies Performed?
- What Does Richard Thaler’s Work Mean for Medicine?