N E Morden1, W L Schpero, R Zaha, T D Sequist, C H Colla. 1. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, 35 Centerra Parkway, Lebanon, NH, 03766, USA, nancy.e.morden@dartmouth.edu.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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