Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 2;25(1):783.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12948-7.

Estimating the societal costs and benefits of de-implementation of low-value care: developing a modelling approach through case assessment

Adriënne Henderika Rotteveel  1 , Petrus Paulus Franciscus Klein  2 , Marlous Joyann Rodriguez  2 , Marleen Elizabeth Jansen  3 , Meike M Klaassen  3
Affiliations

Estimating the societal costs and benefits of de-implementation of low-value care: developing a modelling approach through case assessment

Adriënne Henderika Rotteveel et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Previous estimates of potential costs savings from de-implementation of low-value care have been calculated with simple modelling approaches, focused on direct medical costs and did not take substitution into account. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a modelling approach to calculate a more realistic estimate of societal costs and benefits of de-implementation of low-value care.

Methods: The modelling approach was developed and evaluated in three steps: (1) review of reviews to identify aspects that may affect the costs and benefits of de-implementation, (2) selection of three cases of low-value care, (3) development and evaluation of the modelling approach for each case. Desk research and interviews with actors were used in step 3 to define input parameters.

Results: The modelling approach was build and evaluated for the following cases: (1) surgery for achilles tendon rupture, (2) mammography for women < 30 years with focal breast complaints, and (3) imaging for non-specific low back pain. From the interviews, it appeared that case 2 had already been fully disinvested. Hence, calculating the societal costs and benefits for this case was not considered valuable. For case 1 and 3 it was considered valuable and feasible to calculate the societal costs and benefits. Compared to the adapted societal business case approach used in case 1, the adapted societal cost-benefit analysis approach used for case 3 provided a more realistic and better estimate.

Conclusions: It is feasible to calculate a more elaborate and realistic estimate of societal costs and benefits of the de-implementation of low-value care than previous estimates. Nevertheless, it was not feasible to include the costs of de-implementation itself as these are highly reliant on the specific de-implementation strategy employed, which is context specific. Furthermore, the time needed to calculate a more elaborate and realistic estimate stresses the need to carefully select low-value care cases for which the value of calculating such an elaborate and realistic estimate outweighs the effort required to do so.

Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-025-12948-7.

Keywords: Cost savings; De-implementation; Low-value care; Modelling approach; Societal costs and benefits.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The research project has been assessed by the Centre for Clinical Expertise (CCE) at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) in the Netherlands (study number: VPZ-605). The CCE concluded that the research project is exempted from further review by a medical ethics committee as it does not fulfil the specific conditions as stated in the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. At the start of the interviews, participants were asked oral informed consent for participation in this study. The authors complied with the European ALLEA code of conduct for research integrity and the Dutch code of conduct on scientific integrity. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Stepwise approach to develop and evaluate the modelling approach
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Vonk R, Hilderink H, Plasmans M, Kommer G, Polder J. Health care expenditures foresight 2015–2060: quantitative preliminary study at the request of the scientific Council for government policy (WRR). Part 1: future projections. Bilthoven: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu; 2020.
    1. Zorginstituut Nederland. Totale zorgkosten Zorgverzekeringswet Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2024.Available from: https://www.zorgcijfersdatabank.nl/. Accessed 4 June 2024.
    1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health expenditure and financing. 2024. Available from: https://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/index.aspx. Accessed 4 June 2024.
    1. van der Woude D, Heida JP, van der Erf S. Geschat potentieel effectieve Zorg: Schatting opbrengst focus op effectieve Zorg in basispakket. Strategies in Regulated Markets; 2021.
    1. ActiZ, De Nederlandse ggz et al. Federatie Medisch Specialisten, InEen, Nederlandse Federatie van Universitair Medische Centra, Nederlandse Vereniging van Ziekenhuizen,. Integraal Zorg Akkoord: Samen werken aan gezonde zorg. Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport; 2022.

LinkOut - more resources