Literature DB >> 17610433

The effect of immediate reading of screening mammograms on medical care utilization and costs after false-positive mammograms.

Kate A Stewart1, Peter J Neumann, Suzanne W Fletcher, Mary B Barton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether decreased anxiety associated with immediate reading of screening mammograms resulted in lower downstream utilization and costs among women with false-positive mammograms. DATA SOURCES/STUDY
SETTING: We identified 1,140 women, > or =age 40, with false-positive mammograms and 12-month follow-up after participating in a trial of immediate versus batch mammographic reading between February 1999 and January 2001 in a multispecialty group managed care practice in Massachusetts. STUDY
DESIGN: We determined downstream utilization and costs for study participants by immediate and batch reading status. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
METHODS: Demographic, comorbidity, and medical care utilization data were obtained from survey data and computerized medical record databases. Costs included direct medical costs, patient time, travel and copayments, and additional professional time costs associated with immediate reading. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Immediate reading cost an additional $4.40 per screening mammogram. Women with immediate readings had more follow-up mammograms (781 versus 750, p=.018) and fewer diagnostic ultrasounds (176 versus 219, p=.016) than women with batch readings. Costs to the health plan for breast care were approximately 10 percent higher for immediate readings in multivariable analyses (p=.046), but no significant difference was seen in total societal costs (p=.072).
CONCLUSIONS: Immediate mammogram reading was associated with increased costs to the health plan and changes in follow-up radiology procedures. These costs must be examined alongside beneficial effects of immediate reading.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17610433      PMCID: PMC1955276          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00660.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  22 in total

1.  Lessons learned from electronic medical record implementations.

Authors:  A Hajra
Journal:  NAHAM Manage J       Date:  1998

Review 2.  Short-term impact of cancer prevention and screening activities on quality of life.

Authors:  Jennifer Cullen; Marc D Schwartz; William F Lawrence; Joe V Selby; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-03-01       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Psychologic distress in women with abnormal findings in mass mammography screening.

Authors:  J B Lowe; K P Balanda; C Del Mar; E Hawes
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1999-03-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits.

Authors:  M B Barton; S Moore; S Polk; E Shtatland; J G Elmore; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures.

Authors:  M L Brown; F Houn; E A Sickles; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Ways of measuring rates of recurrent events.

Authors:  R J Glynn; J E Buring
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-02-10

Review 7.  The application of computer-based medical-record systems in ambulatory practice.

Authors:  G O Barnett
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1984-06-21       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Decreasing women's anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial.

Authors:  Mary B Barton; Debra S Morley; Sara Moore; Jennifer D Allen; Ken P Kleinman; Karen M Emmons; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-04-07       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Assessing comorbidity using claims data: an overview.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Joan L Warren; Julie M Legler
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  2 in total

1.  Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Elisabeth F Beaber; Martha Goodrich; Anne Marie McCarthy; Sally D Herschorn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Tory O Harrington; Berta Geller
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 2.  Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Elisabeth F Beaber; Brian L Sprague; William E Barlow; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Marilyn M Schapira; Berta Geller; Donald L Weaver; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.