Siran M Koroukian1, Fang Xu, Avi Dor, Gregory S Cooper. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-4945, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening between elderly dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees (or duals), the most vulnerable subgroup of the Medicare population, and nonduals. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: The 1999 Medicare Denominator File, the Medicare Outpatient Standard Analytic Files, and Physician Supplier Part B files. In addition, the 1998 Area Resource File was used as a source for county-level attributes. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: CRC screening procedures for 1999-fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FLEX), colonoscopy with FOBT and/or FLEX (COL-WFF), and colonoscopy only (COL-ONLY)-were extracted from claim records, using diagnostic and procedure codes. Duals (n = 2.5 million) and nonduals (n = 20.2 million) receiving their care through the fee-for-service system were identified from the Denominator file. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis was conducted to adjust for individual- and county-level characteristics. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared with nonduals, duals were disproportionately represented by female, older-old, and minority individuals (respectively 74.4 versus 58.5 percent; 19.3 versus 10.8 percent; 35.7 versus 8.0 percent), and CRC screening was significantly lower in duals than in nonduals (5.1 versus 12.2 percent for FOBT adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.48, 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-0.51); 0.7 versus 1.9 percent for FLEX, (AOR: 0.55, 95 percent CI: 0.49-0.61); 0.4 versus 0.8 percent for COL-WFF (AOR: 0.60, 95 percent CI: 0.54-0.67); and 1.8 versus 2.5 percent for COL-ONLY (AOR: 0.85, 95 percent CI: 0.80-0.89); p < .001 for all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Duals are significantly less likely than nonduals to undergo CRC screening, even after adjusting for individual- and county-level covariates. Future studies should evaluate the contribution of comorbidity and low socioeconomic status to these disparities.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening between elderly dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees (or duals), the most vulnerable subgroup of the Medicare population, and nonduals. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: The 1999 Medicare Denominator File, the Medicare Outpatient Standard Analytic Files, and Physician Supplier Part B files. In addition, the 1998 Area Resource File was used as a source for county-level attributes. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: CRC screening procedures for 1999-fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FLEX), colonoscopy with FOBT and/or FLEX (COL-WFF), and colonoscopy only (COL-ONLY)-were extracted from claim records, using diagnostic and procedure codes. Duals (n = 2.5 million) and nonduals (n = 20.2 million) receiving their care through the fee-for-service system were identified from the Denominator file. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis was conducted to adjust for individual- and county-level characteristics. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared with nonduals, duals were disproportionately represented by female, older-old, and minority individuals (respectively 74.4 versus 58.5 percent; 19.3 versus 10.8 percent; 35.7 versus 8.0 percent), and CRC screening was significantly lower in duals than in nonduals (5.1 versus 12.2 percent for FOBT adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.48, 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-0.51); 0.7 versus 1.9 percent for FLEX, (AOR: 0.55, 95 percent CI: 0.49-0.61); 0.4 versus 0.8 percent for COL-WFF (AOR: 0.60, 95 percent CI: 0.54-0.67); and 1.8 versus 2.5 percent for COL-ONLY (AOR: 0.85, 95 percent CI: 0.80-0.89); p < .001 for all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Duals are significantly less likely than nonduals to undergo CRC screening, even after adjusting for individual- and county-level covariates. Future studies should evaluate the contribution of comorbidity and low socioeconomic status to these disparities.
Authors: R G Roetzheim; N Pal; E C Gonzalez; J M Ferrante; D J Van Durme; J Z Ayanian; J P Krischer Journal: J Fam Pract Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 0.493
Authors: Mitchell T Heflin; Eugene Z Oddone; Carl F Pieper; Bruce M Burchett; Harvey Jay Cohen Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Angela C Young; Carrie N Klabunde; George Reed; Terry S Field; Robert H Fletcher Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Lisa M Lines; Julia Cohen; Michael T Halpern; Ashley Wilder Smith; Erin E Kent Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-08-17 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Stephanie B Wheeler; Jennifer Leeman; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Florence K L Tangka; Melinda M Davis; Lisa C Richardson Journal: Cancer J Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Stephanie B Wheeler; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Ravi K Goyal; Anne-Marie Meyer; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Emily M Gillen; Seth Tyree; Carmen L Lewis; Trisha M Crutchfield; Christa E Martens; Florence Tangka; Lisa C Richardson; Michael P Pignone Journal: Health Place Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; John Bainbridge; Anne Marie Meyer; Keith D Amos; Bryan J Weiner; Paul A Godley; William R Carpenter Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 4.872