BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy often requires expensive copayments from patients. The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandated elimination of copayments for CRC screening, including colonoscopy, but little is known about the effects of copayment elimination on use. The University of Texas employee, retiree, and dependent health plan instituted and promoted a waiver of copayments for screening colonoscopies in fiscal year (FY) 2009; we examined the effects of removing cost sharing on colonoscopy use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 59,855 beneficiaries of the University of Texas employee, retiree, and dependent health plan, associated with 16 University of Texas health and nonhealth campuses, ages 50-64 years at any point in FYs 2002-2009 (267,191 person-years of follow-up evaluation). The primary outcome was colonoscopy incidence among individuals with no prior colonoscopy. We compared the age- and sex-standardized incidence ratios for colonoscopy in FY 2009 (after the copayment waiver) with the expected incidence for FY 2009, based on secular trends from years before the waiver. RESULTS: The annual incidence of colonoscopy increased to 9.5% after the copayment was waived, compared with an expected incidence of 8.0% (standardized incidence ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.23; P < .001). After adjusting for age, sex, and beneficiary status, the copayment waiver remained significantly associated with greater use of colonoscopy, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Waiving copayments for colonoscopy screening results in a statistically significant, but modest (1.5%), increase in use. Additional strategies beyond removing financial disincentives are needed to increase use of CRC screening.
BACKGROUND & AIMS:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy often requires expensive copayments from patients. The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandated elimination of copayments for CRC screening, including colonoscopy, but little is known about the effects of copayment elimination on use. The University of Texas employee, retiree, and dependent health plan instituted and promoted a waiver of copayments for screening colonoscopies in fiscal year (FY) 2009; we examined the effects of removing cost sharing on colonoscopy use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 59,855 beneficiaries of the University of Texas employee, retiree, and dependent health plan, associated with 16 University of Texas health and nonhealth campuses, ages 50-64 years at any point in FYs 2002-2009 (267,191 person-years of follow-up evaluation). The primary outcome was colonoscopy incidence among individuals with no prior colonoscopy. We compared the age- and sex-standardized incidence ratios for colonoscopy in FY 2009 (after the copayment waiver) with the expected incidence for FY 2009, based on secular trends from years before the waiver. RESULTS: The annual incidence of colonoscopy increased to 9.5% after the copayment was waived, compared with an expected incidence of 8.0% (standardized incidence ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.23; P < .001). After adjusting for age, sex, and beneficiary status, the copayment waiver remained significantly associated with greater use of colonoscopy, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Waiving copayments for colonoscopy screening results in a statistically significant, but modest (1.5%), increase in use. Additional strategies beyond removing financial disincentives are needed to increase use of CRC screening.
Authors: Susan H Busch; Colleen L Barry; Sally J Vegso; Jody L Sindelar; Mark R Cullen Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Jaroslaw Regula; Maciej Rupinski; Ewa Kraszewska; Marcin Polkowski; Jacek Pachlewski; Janina Orlowska; Marek P Nowacki; Eugeniusz Butruk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Gerald F Riley; Margaret T Mandelson; Paul S Frame; Martin L Brown Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: R H Brook; J E Ware; W H Rogers; E B Keeler; A R Davies; C A Donald; G A Goldberg; K N Lohr; P C Masthay; J P Newhouse Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1983-12-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel E Jonas; Louise B Russell; Robert S Sandler; Jon Chou; Michael Pignone Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-06-29 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Elisabeth F P Peterse; Reinier G S Meester; Andrea Gini; Chyke A Doubeni; Daniel S Anderson; Franklin G Berger; Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Laurie E Steffen; Kenneth M Boucher; Barbara H Damron; Lisa M Pappas; Scott T Walters; Kristina G Flores; Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat; Sally W Vernon; Antoinette M Stroup; Marc D Schwartz; Sandra L Edwards; Wendy K Kohlmann; Jan T Lowery; Charles L Wiggins; Deirdre A Hill; John C Higginbotham; Randall Burt; Rebecca G Simmons; Anita Y Kinney Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Erica G Bromley; Folasade P May; Lisa Federer; Brennan M R Spiegel; Martijn G H van Oijen Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Gregory S Cooper; Tzuyung D Kou; Mark D Schluchter; Avi Dor; Siran M Koroukian Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-12-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Shivan J Mehta; Daniel Polsky; Jingsan Zhu; James D Lewis; Jonathan T Kolstad; George Loewenstein; Kevin G Volpp Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Michael A Preston; Levi Ross; Askar Chukmaitov; Sharla A Smith; Michelle L Odlum; Bassam Dahman; Vanessa B Sheppard Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-09-11