J H Burkhardt1, J H Sunshine. 1. Research Department, American College of Radiology, Reston, VA 20191-4397, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare and evaluate the measures of costs for core-needle and surgical breast biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three measures of costs were evaluated: (a) input resources, (b) actual payments, and (c) billed charges. A combination of methods were used for data collection from 10 sites enrolled in a large-scale, multiinstitutional, randomized controlled clinical trial. RESULTS: Input resource cost data (42 core-needle and eight surgical biopsies) were the most difficult to obtain. Actual payments and billed charges data collection (32 core-needle and 44 surgical biopsies) was hampered by the difficulty of obtaining data from all providers involved in the procedures. Average direct input resource costs for surgical biopsy (including needle localization) were almost three times as high as those for core-needle biopsy ($698 vs $243). Actual payments ($2,398 vs $799) and billed charges ($3,764 vs $1,496) for surgical biopsy averaged two and a half to three times higher than those for core biopsy (P < .001). CONCLUSION: There was remarkable consistency in relative costs. Input resource costs were much more difficult to obtain than were either actual payments or billed charges. However, input resource costs present a more reliable indication of the actual costs of a procedure than do the other measures. Given the difficulty in obtaining input resource costs, analyses by using actual payments may be preferred.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare and evaluate the measures of costs for core-needle and surgical breast biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three measures of costs were evaluated: (a) input resources, (b) actual payments, and (c) billed charges. A combination of methods were used for data collection from 10 sites enrolled in a large-scale, multiinstitutional, randomized controlled clinical trial. RESULTS: Input resource cost data (42 core-needle and eight surgical biopsies) were the most difficult to obtain. Actual payments and billed charges data collection (32 core-needle and 44 surgical biopsies) was hampered by the difficulty of obtaining data from all providers involved in the procedures. Average direct input resource costs for surgical biopsy (including needle localization) were almost three times as high as those for core-needle biopsy ($698 vs $243). Actual payments ($2,398 vs $799) and billed charges ($3,764 vs $1,496) for surgical biopsy averaged two and a half to three times higher than those for core biopsy (P < .001). CONCLUSION: There was remarkable consistency in relative costs. Input resource costs were much more difficult to obtain than were either actual payments or billed charges. However, input resource costs present a more reliable indication of the actual costs of a procedure than do the other measures. Given the difficulty in obtaining input resource costs, analyses by using actual payments may be preferred.
Authors: C A Pistolese; A Ciarrapico; T Perretta; E Cossu; F della Gatta; S Giura; C Caramanica; G Simonetti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: C A Pistolese; A M Ciarrapico; F Della Gatta; T Perretta; E Cossu; F Bolacchi; E Bonanno; G Simonetti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-05-30 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Terrence Metz; Amer Heider; Ranjith Vellody; Marcus D Jarboe; Joseph J Gemmete; Jason J Grove; Ethan A Smith; Rajen Mody; Erika A Newman; Jonathan R Dillman Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-02-25
Authors: Ashish A Deshmukh; Scott B Cantor; Melissa A Crosby; Wenli Dong; Yu Shen; Isabelle Bedrosian; Susan K Peterson; Patricia A Parker; Abenaa M Brewster Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Brigid K Killelea; Jessica B Long; Anees B Chagpar; Xiaomei Ma; Rong Wang; Joseph S Ross; Cary P Gross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Joan L Warren; K Robin Yabroff; Angela Meekins; Marie Topor; Elizabeth B Lamont; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-06-10 Impact factor: 13.506