Literature DB >> 25247382

The patient burden of screening mammography recall.

Matthew Alcusky1, Liane Philpotts, Machaon Bonafede, Janice Clarke, Alexandria Skoufalos.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to evaluate the burden of direct and indirect costs borne by recalled patients after a false positive screening mammogram.
METHODS: Women aged 40-75 years undergoing screening mammography were identified from a U.S. commercial claims database. Women were required to have 12 months pre- and 6 months post-index enrollment to identify utilization and exclude patients with subsequent cancer diagnoses. Recall was defined as the use of diagnostic mammography or breast ultrasound during 6 months post-index. Descriptive statistics were presented for recalled and non-recalled patients; differences were compared using the chi square test. Out-of-pocket costs were totaled by utilization type and in aggregate for all recall utilization.
RESULTS: Of 1,723,139 patients with a mammography screening that were not diagnosed with breast cancer, 259,028 (15.0%) were recalled. Significant demographic differences were observed between recalled and non-recalled patients. The strongest drivers of patient costs were image-guided biopsy (mean $351 among 11.8% utilizing), diagnostic mammography ($50; 80.1%), and ultrasound ($58; 65.7%), which accounted for 29.9%, 29.0%, and 27.5% of total recall costs, respectively. For many patients the entire cost of recall utilization was covered by the health plan. Total costs were substantially greater among patients with biopsy; one-third of all patients experienced multiple days of recall utilization.
CONCLUSION: After a false positive screening mammography, recalled women incurred both direct medical costs and indirect time costs. The cost burden for women with employer-based insurance was dependent upon the type of utilization and extent of health plan coverage. Additional research and technologies are needed to address the entirety of the recall burden in diverse populations of women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25247382     DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2014.1511

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  14 in total

1.  Listening to Women: Expectations and Experiences in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Susan Harvey; Aimee M Gallagher; Martha Nolan; Christine M Hughes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 2.  Imaging-based screening: maximizing benefits and minimizing harms.

Authors:  Jessica C Germino; Joann G Elmore; Ruth C Carlos; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 1.605

3.  Non-normal Screening Mammography Results, Lumpectomies, and Breast Cancer Reported by California Women, 2001-2009.

Authors:  Veronica L Irvin; Nancy Breen; Helen I Meissner; Benmei Liu; Robert M Kaplan
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2015-06-09

4.  Breast Cancer Screening in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Lung and Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study of Utilization.

Authors:  Gelareh Sadigh; Ruth C Carlos; Kevin C Ward; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Renjian Jiang; Kimberly E Applegate; Richard Duszak
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 5.532

5.  Automated Breast Ultrasound: Dual-Sided Compared with Single-Sided Imaging.

Authors:  Eric D Larson; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mitchel M Goodsitt; Chris Lashbrook; Fouzaan Zafar; Oliver D Kripfgans; Kai Thomenius; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Breast Cancer Screening Among Medically Underserved Women in New Mexico: Potential for Lower Recall Rates with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Martha T Manda-Mapalo; Stephanie G Fine; Sarah Safadi; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ruofei Du; Andrew L Sussman; Shiraz Mishra; Reed G Selwyn; Jennifer L Saline; Wendy L Hine; Ursa A Brown-Glaberman
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 2.681

7.  Value analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in a commercially-insured US population.

Authors:  Machaon M Bonafede; Vivek B Kalra; Jeffrey D Miller; Laurie L Fajardo
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2015-01-12

8.  On a fractional order calculus model in diffusion weighted breast imaging to differentiate between malignant and benign breast lesions detected on X-ray screening mammography.

Authors:  Sebastian Bickelhaupt; Franziska Steudle; Daniel Paech; Anna Mlynarska; Tristan Anselm Kuder; Wolfgang Lederer; Heidi Daniel; Martin Freitag; Stefan Delorme; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Frederik Bernd Laun
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Overview of artificial intelligence in medicine.

Authors:  Paras Malik; Monika Pathania; Vyas Kumar Rathaur
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2019-07

Review 10.  Four Principles to Consider Before Advising Women on Screening Mammography.

Authors:  John D Keen; Karsten J Jørgensen
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 2.681

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.