Literature DB >> 24809808

Overuse of short-interval bone densitometry: assessing rates of low-value care.

N E Morden1, W L Schpero, R Zaha, T D Sequist, C H Colla.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: We evaluated the prevalence and geographic variation of short-interval (repeated in under 2 years) dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry tests (DXAs) among Medicare beneficiaries. Short-interval DXA use varied across regions (coefficient of variation = 0.64), and unlike other DXAs, rates decreased with payment cuts.
INTRODUCTION: The American College of Rheumatology, through the Choosing Wisely initiative, identified measuring bone density more often than every 2 years as care "physicians and patients should question." We measured the prevalence and described the geographic variation of short-interval (repeated in under 2 years) DXAs among Medicare beneficiaries and estimated the cost of this testing and its responsiveness to payment change.
METHODS: Using 100 % Medicare claims data, 2006-2011, we identified DXAs and short-interval DXAs for female Medicare beneficiaries over age 66. We determined the population rate of DXAs and short-interval DXAs, as well as Medicare spending on short-interval DXAs, nationally and by hospital referral region (HRR).
RESULTS: DXA use was stable 2008-2011 (12.4 to 11.5 DXAs per 100 women). DXA use varied across HRRs: in 2011, overall DXA use ranged from 6.3 to 23.0 per 100 women (coefficient of variation = 0.18), and short-interval DXAs ranged from 0.3 to 8.0 per 100 women (coefficient of variation = 0.64). Short-interval DXA use fluctuated substantially with payment changes; other DXAs did not. Short-interval DXAs, which represented 10.1 % of all DXAs, cost Medicare approximately US$16 million in 2011.
CONCLUSIONS: One out of ten DXAs was administered in a time frame shorter than recommended and at a substantial cost to Medicare. DXA use varied across regions. Short-interval DXA use was responsive to reimbursement changes, suggesting carefully designed policy and payment reform may reduce this care identified by rheumatologists as low value.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24809808      PMCID: PMC4210629          DOI: 10.1007/s00198-014-2725-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  14 in total

1.  Monitoring skeletal changes by radiological techniques.

Authors:  C C Glüer
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  Medicare payment cuts for osteoporosis testing reduced use despite tests' benefit in reducing fractures.

Authors:  Alison B King; Donna M Fiorentino
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Central DXA utilization shifts from office-based to hospital-based settings among medicare beneficiaries in the wake of reimbursement changes.

Authors:  Jie Zhang; Elizabeth Delzell; Hong Zhao; Andrew J Laster; Kenneth G Saag; Meredith L Kilgore; Michael A Morrisey; Nicole C Wright; Huifeng Yun; Jeffrey R Curtis
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Change in hip bone mineral density and risk of subsequent fractures in older men.

Authors:  Peggy M Cawthon; Susan K Ewing; Dawn C Mackey; Howard A Fink; Steven R Cummings; Kristine E Ensrud; Marcia L Stefanick; Doug C Bauer; Jane A Cauley; Eric S Orwoll
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Rate of bone density change does not enhance fracture prediction in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  William D Leslie; Suzanne N Morin; Lisa M Lix
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 6.  Aromatase inhibitors and bone health in women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Amy Jo Chien; Paul E Goss
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-11-20       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Clinical use of bone densitometry: scientific review.

Authors:  Steven R Cummings; David Bates; Dennis M Black
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Effect of Medicare reimbursement reduction for imaging services on osteoporosis screening rates.

Authors:  Carrie McAdam-Marx; Sudhir Unni; Xiangyang Ye; Scott Nelson; Nancy A Nickman
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  Repeat bone mineral density screening and prediction of hip and major osteoporotic fracture.

Authors:  Sarah D Berry; Elizabeth J Samelson; Michael J Pencina; Robert R McLean; L Adrienne Cupples; Kerry E Broe; Douglas P Kiel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women.

Authors:  J A Kanis; A Oden; O Johnell; H Johansson; C De Laet; J Brown; P Burckhardt; C Cooper; C Christiansen; S Cummings; J A Eisman; S Fujiwara; C Glüer; D Goltzman; D Hans; M-A Krieg; A La Croix; E McCloskey; D Mellstrom; L J Melton; H Pols; J Reeve; K Sanders; A-M Schott; A Silman; D Torgerson; T van Staa; N B Watts; N Yoshimura
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-02-24       Impact factor: 4.507

View more
  10 in total

1.  Variations in Radiographic Procedure Use for Medicare Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Authors:  Gabriela Schmajuk; Chris Tonner; Laura Trupin; Jinoos Yazdany
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 4.794

2.  Incidence and Predictors of Repeat Bone Mineral Densitometry: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Authors:  Emily C White VanGompel; Peter Franks; John A Robbins; Joshua J Fenton
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Has Choosing Wisely® affected rates of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry use?

Authors:  E C Lasser; E R Pfoh; H Y Chang; K S Chan; J C Bailey; H Kharrazi; J P Weiner; S M Dy
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  DXA Utilization Between 2006 and 2012 in Commercially Insured Younger Postmenopausal Women.

Authors:  Robert A Overman; Joel F Farley; Jeffrey R Curtis; Jie Zhang; Margaret L Gourlay; Chad L Deal
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 2.617

5.  Reverse engineering the FRAX algorithm: Clinical insights and systematic analysis of fracture risk.

Authors:  Jules D Allbritton-King; Julia K Elrod; Philip S Rosenberg; Timothy Bhattacharyya
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 4.626

6.  Intervals between bone mineral density testing with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans in clinical practice.

Authors:  H Lyu; K Yoshida; S K Tedeschi; S Zhao; C Xu; S U Nigwekar; B Z Leder; D H Solomon
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Understanding Referral Patterns for Bone Mineral Density Testing among Family Physicians: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.

Authors:  Sarah E P Munce; Sonya Allin; Leslie Carlin; Joanna Sale; Gillian Hawker; Sandra Kim; Debra A Butt; Irene Polidoulis; Karen Tu; Susan B Jaglal
Journal:  J Osteoporos       Date:  2016-01-19

Review 8.  Are low-value care measures up to the task? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Eline F de Vries; Jeroen N Struijs; Richard Heijink; Roy J P Hendrikx; Caroline A Baan
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Reassessment Intervals for Transition From Low to High Fracture Risk Among Adults Older Than 50 Years.

Authors:  William D Leslie; Suzanne N Morin; Lisa M Lix; Patrick Martineau; Mark Bryanton; Eugene V McCloskey; Helena Johansson; Nicholas C Harvey; John A Kanis
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-01-03

Review 10.  Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review.

Authors:  Elin Kjelle; Eivind Richter Andersen; Arne Magnus Krokeide; Lesley J J Soril; Leti van Bodegom-Vos; Fiona M Clement; Bjørn Morten Hofmann
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 2.795

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.