Literature DB >> 23303200

The cost of breast cancer screening in the Medicare population.

Cary P Gross1, Jessica B Long, Joseph S Ross, Maysa M Abu-Khalaf, Rong Wang, Brigid K Killelea, Heather T Gold, Anees B Chagpar, Xiaomei Ma.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the cost to Medicare of breast cancer screening or whether regional-level screening expenditures are associated with cancer stage at diagnosis or treatment costs, particularly because newer breast cancer screening technologies, like digital mammography and computer-aided detection (CAD), have diffused into the care of older women.
METHODS: Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, we identified 137 274 women ages 66 to 100 years who had not had breast cancer and assessed the cost to fee-for-service Medicare of breast cancer screening and workup during 2006 to 2007. For women who developed cancer, we calculated initial treatment cost. We then assessed screening-related cost at the Hospital Referral Region (HRR) level and evaluated the association between regional expenditures and workup test utilization, cancer incidence, and treatment costs.
RESULTS: In the United States, the annual costs to fee-for-service Medicare for breast cancer screening-related procedures (comprising screening plus workup) and treatment expenditures were $1.08 billion and $1.36 billion, respectively. For women 75 years or older, annual screening-related expenditures exceeded $410 million. Age-standardized screening-related cost per beneficiary varied more than 2-fold across regions (from $42 to $107 per beneficiary); digital screening mammography and CAD accounted for 65% of the difference in screening-related cost between HRRs in the highest and lowest quartiles of cost. Women residing in HRRs with high screening costs were more likely to be diagnosed as having early-stage cancer (incidence rate ratio, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.40-2.26]). There was no significant difference in the cost of initial cancer treatment per beneficiary between the highest and lowest screening cost HRRs ($151 vs $115; P = .20).
CONCLUSIONS: The cost to Medicare of breast cancer screening exceeds $1 billion annually in the fee-for-service program. Regional variation is substantial and driven by the use of newer and more expensive technologies; it is unclear whether higher screening expenditures are achieving better breast cancer outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23303200      PMCID: PMC3638736          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1397

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  34 in total

1.  Core-needle and surgical breast biopsy: comparison of three methods of assessing cost.

Authors:  J H Burkhardt; J H Sunshine
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  How widely is computer-aided detection used in screening and diagnostic mammography?

Authors:  Vijay M Rao; David C Levin; Laurence Parker; Barbara Cavanaugh; Andrea J Frangos; Jonathan H Sunshine
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 5.532

3.  Screening mammography: costs and use of screening-related services.

Authors:  Steven P Poplack; Patricia A Carney; Julia E Weiss; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; Martha E Goodrich; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Limits on Medicare's ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs.

Authors:  Peter B Bach
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program.

Authors:  Mette Kalager; Hans-Olov Adami; Michael Bretthauer; Rulla M Tamimi
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Information on radiation treatment in patients with breast cancer: the advantages of the linked medicare and SEER data. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results.

Authors:  X Du; J L Freeman; J S Goodwin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Costs of treatment for elderly women with early-stage breast cancer in fee-for-service settings.

Authors:  Joan L Warren; Martin L Brown; Michael P Fay; Nicola Schussler; Arnold L Potosky; Gerald F Riley
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-01-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

Authors:  Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Lawrence J Moss; Pamela K Isaacs; Andrew Karellas; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Medicare payments from diagnosis to death for elderly cancer patients by stage at diagnosis.

Authors:  G F Riley; A L Potosky; J D Lubitz; L G Kessler
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  29 in total

1.  Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.

Authors:  Cristina O'Donoghue; Martin Eklund; Elissa M Ozanne; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Screening Mammography Among Older Women: A Review of United States Guidelines and Potential Harms.

Authors:  Deborah S Mack; Kate L Lapane
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Estimating the cost of skin cancer detection by dermatology providers in a large health care system.

Authors:  Martha Matsumoto; Aaron Secrest; Alyce Anderson; Melissa I Saul; Jonhan Ho; John M Kirkwood; Laura K Ferris
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 11.527

4.  Association between hospital case volume and the use of bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy during head and neck cancer diagnostic evaluation.

Authors:  Gordon H Sun; Oluseyi Aliu; Nicholas M Moloci; Joshua K Mondschein; James F Burke; Rodney A Hayward
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Computer-aided detection in mammography: downstream effect on diagnostic testing, ductal carcinoma in situ treatment, and costs.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Christoph I Lee; Guibo Xing; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 21.873

6.  Offering lung cancer screening to high-risk medicare beneficiaries saves lives and is cost-effective: an actuarial analysis.

Authors:  Bruce S Pyenson; Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; Rowena Yip; Ellynne Dec
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2014-08

7.  Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Guibo Xing; Joann G Elmore; Heejung Bang; Steven L Chen; Karen K Lindfors; Laura-Mae Baldwin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  To screen or not to screen older women for breast cancer: a conundrum.

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.404

9.  Comparison of Treatment Costs for Breast Cancer, by Tumor Stage and Type of Service.

Authors:  Helen Blumen; Kathryn Fitch; Vincent Polkus
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2016-02

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.