Literature DB >> 24980877

Colorectal testing utilization and payments in a large cohort of commercially insured US adults.

Uri Ladabaum1, Zachary Levin2, Ajitha Mannalithara1, Joel V Brill3, M Kate Bundorf4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Screening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality. The national press has scrutinized colonoscopy charges. Little systematic evidence exists on colorectal testing and payments among commercially insured persons. Our aim was to characterize outpatient colorectal testing utilization and payments among commercially insured US adults.
METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of outpatient colorectal test utilization rates, indications, and payments among 21 million 18-64-year-old employees and dependants with noncapitated group health insurance provided by 160 self-insured employers in the 2009 Truven MarketScan Databases.
RESULTS: Colonoscopy was the predominant colorectal test. Among 50-64-year olds, 12% underwent colonoscopy in 1 year. Most fecal tests and colonoscopies were associated with screening/surveillance indications. Testing rates were higher in women, and increased with age. Mean payments for fecal occult blood and immunochemical tests were $5 and $21, respectively. Colonoscopy payments varied between and within sites of service. Mean payments for diagnostic colonoscopy in an office, outpatient hospital facility, and ambulatory surgical center were $586 (s.d. $259), $1,400 (s.d. $681), and $1,074 (s.d. $549), respectively. Anesthesia and pathology services accompanied 35 and 52% of colonoscopies, with mean payments of $494 (s.d. $354) and $272 (s.d. $284), respectively. Mean payments for the most prevalent colonoscopy codes were 1.4- to 1.9-fold the average Medicare payments.
CONCLUSIONS: Most outpatient colorectal testing among commercially insured adults was associated with screening or surveillance. Payments varied widely across sites of service, and payments for anesthesia and pathology services contributed substantially to total payments. Cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening have relied on Medicare payments as proxies for costs, but cost-effectiveness may differ when analyzed from the perspectives of Medicare or commercial insurers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24980877     DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.64

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  12 in total

1.  Cost-Effectiveness and National Effects of Initiating Colorectal Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Persons at Age 45 Years Instead of 50 Years.

Authors:  Uri Ladabaum; Ajitha Mannalithara; Reinier G S Meester; Samir Gupta; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Variation in Adenoma Detection Rate and the Lifetime Benefits and Cost of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Microsimulation Model.

Authors:  Reinier G S Meester; Chyke A Doubeni; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Christopher D Jensen; Miriam P van der Meulen; Theodore R Levin; Virginia P Quinn; Joanne E Schottinger; Ann G Zauber; Douglas A Corley; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Cross-sectional survey study of primary care clinics on evidence-based colorectal cancer screening intervention use.

Authors:  Shinobu Watanabe-Galloway; Jungyoon Kim; Frantzlee LaCrete; Kaeli Samson; Jason Foster; Paraskevi A Farazi; Tricia LeVan; Krishtee Napit
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2021-11-16       Impact factor: 5.667

4.  Contrasting Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Under Commercial Insurance vs. Medicare.

Authors:  Uri Ladabaum; Ajitha Mannalithara; Joel V Brill; Zachary Levin; Kate M Bundorf
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 5.  Sedation in the Endoscopy Suite.

Authors:  Katherine B Hagan; Selvi Thirumurthi; Raju Gottumukkala; John Vargo
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-06

6.  Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Era of the Affordable Care Act.

Authors:  Ilana Richman; Steven M Asch; Jay Bhattacharya; Douglas K Owens
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Cost Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy Depends on Adequate Bowel Preparation Rates - A Modeling Study.

Authors:  James Kingsley; Siddharth Karanth; Frances Lee Revere; Deepak Agrawal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Using Social Media to Characterize Public Sentiment Toward Medical Interventions Commonly Used for Cancer Screening: An Observational Study.

Authors:  Omar Metwally; Seth Blumberg; Uri Ladabaum; Sidhartha R Sinha
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 9.  Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Basavana Gouda; Gowri Gouda; Anuradha Borle; Akash Singh; Ashish Sinha; Preet M Singh
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.485

10.  Clinical and Budget Impact of Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening by Blood- and Stool-Based Testing.

Authors:  Joshua A Roth; Theo deVos; Scott D Ramsey
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2019-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.