Literature DB >> 20706161

Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammograms.

Jessica Chubak1, Denise M Boudreau, Paul A Fishman, Joann G Elmore.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the direct cost, from the perspective of the health insurer or purchaser, of breast-care services in the year following a false positive screening mammogram compared with a true negative examination.
DESIGN: We identified 21,125 women aged 40 to 80 years enrolled in an integrated healthcare delivery system in Washington State, who participated in screening mammography between January 1, 1998 and July 30, 2002. Pathology and cancer registry data were used to identify breast cancer diagnoses in the year following the screening mammogram. A positive examination was defined as a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment of 0, 4, or 5. Women with a positive screening mammogram but no breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year were classified as false positives. We used diagnostic and procedure codes in automated health plan data to identify services received in the year following the screening mammogram. Medicare reimbursement rates were applied to all services. We used ordinary least-squares linear regression to estimate the difference in costs following a false positive versus true negative screening mammogram.
RESULTS: False positive results occurred in 9.9% of women; most false positives (87.3%) were followed by breast imaging only. The mean cost of breast-care following a false positive mammogram was $527. This was $503 (95% confidence interval, $490-$515) more than the cost of breast-care services for true negative women.
CONCLUSIONS: The direct costs for breast-related procedures following false positive screening mammograms may contribute substantially to US healthcare spending.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20706161      PMCID: PMC3079487          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e57918

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  30 in total

Review 1.  An overview of the development and refinement of the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. The foundation for reform of U.S. physician payment.

Authors:  W C Hsiao; P Braun; D L Dunn; E R Becker; D Yntema; D K Verrilli; E Stamenovic; S P Chen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Chronic disease, functional health status, and demographics: a multi-dimensional approach to risk adjustment.

Authors:  M C Hornbrook; M J Goodman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  False-positive mammograms--can the USA learn from Europe?

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Jan 1-7       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  Managed care data and public health: the experience of Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound.

Authors:  P A Fishman; E H Wagner
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 21.981

5.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  A chronic disease score with empirically derived weights.

Authors:  D O Clark; M Von Korff; K Saunders; W M Baluch; G E Simon
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Reliability of Group Health Cooperative automated pharmacy data by drug benefit status.

Authors:  Denise M Boudreau; Mark P Doescher; Barry G Saver; J Elizabeth Jackson; Paul A Fishman
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.890

8.  Revisions in the risk-based Breast Cancer Screening Program at Group Health Cooperative.

Authors:  S H Taplin; R S Thompson; F Schnitzer; C Anderman; V Immanuel
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1990-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  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

10.  Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial.

Authors:  E Lidbrink; J Elfving; J Frisell; E Jonsson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-02-03
View more
  19 in total

1.  How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?

Authors:  Özlem Demircioğlu; Meral Uluer; Erkin Arıbal
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2017-01-01

2.  Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Firas M Dabbous; Therese A Dolecek; Michael L Berbaum; Sarah M Friedewald; Wm Thomas Summerfelt; Kent Hoskins; Garth H Rauscher
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Recall Rate Reduction with Tomosynthesis During Baseline Screening Examinations: An Assessment From a Prospective Trial.

Authors:  Jules H Sumkin; Marie A Ganott; Denise M Chough; Victor J Catullo; Margarita L Zuley; Dilip D Shinde; Christiane M Hakim; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Facility characteristics do not explain higher false-positive rates in diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; And Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 5.  Emerging molecular biomarkers--blood-based strategies to detect and monitor cancer.

Authors:  Samir M Hanash; Christina S Baik; Olli Kallioniemi
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 66.675

6.  Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip Yamartino; Jianing Yang; Mirar Bristol; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 7.  Unleashing the power of proteomics to develop blood-based cancer markers.

Authors:  Ayumu Taguchi; Samir M Hanash
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 8.327

8.  Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Ruslan Horblyuk; Leah Karliner; Brian L Sprague; Louise Henderson; David Lee; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Alison Sweet
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.

Authors:  Margarita C Posso; Teresa Puig; Ma Jesus Quintana; Judit Solà-Roca; Xavier Bonfill
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Evolution of breast cancer screening in the Medicare population: clinical and economic implications.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.