Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many of the strategies designed to reduce "low-value care" have been implemented without a consensus on the definition of the term "value". Most "low value care" lists are based on the comparative effectiveness of the interventions. MAIN TEXT: Defining the value of an intervention based on its effectiveness may generate an inefficient use of resources, as a very effective intervention is not necessarily an efficient intervention, and a low effective intervention is not always an inefficient intervention. The cost-effectiveness plane may help to differentiate between high and low value care interventions. Reducing low value care should include three complementary strategies: eliminating ineffective interventions that entail a cost; eliminating interventions whose cost is higher and whose effectiveness is lower than that of other options (quadrant IV); and eliminating interventions whose incremental or decremental cost-effectiveness is unacceptable in quadrants I and III, respectively. Defining low-value care according to the efficiency of the interventions, ideally at the level of subgroups and individuals, will contribute to develop true value-based health care systems. CONCLUSION: Cost-effectiveness rather than effectiveness should be the main criterion to assess the value of health care services and interventions. Payment-for-value strategies should be based on the definition of high and low value provided by the cost-effectiveness plane.