Joshua A Roth1, Sean D Sullivan2, Bernardo H L Goulart2, Arliene Ravelo2, Joanna C Sanderson2, Scott D Ramsey2. 1. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; University of Washington, Seattle; VeriTech, Mercer Island, WA; and Genentech, South San Francisco, CA jroth@fhcrc.org. 2. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; University of Washington, Seattle; VeriTech, Mercer Island, WA; and Genentech, South San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently issued a national coverage determination that provides reimbursement for low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening for enrollees age 55 to 77 years with ≥ 30-pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or quit in the last 15 years. The clinical, resource use, and fiscal impacts of this change in screening coverage policy remain uncertain. METHODS: We developed a simulation model to forecast the 5-year health outcome impacts of the CMS low-dose CT screening policy in Medicare compared with no screening. The model used data from the National Lung Screening Trial, CMS enrollment statistics and reimbursement schedules, and peer-reviewed literature. Outcomes included counts of screening examinations, patient cases of lung cancer detected, stage distribution, and total and per-enrollee per-month fiscal impact. RESULTS: Over 5 years, we project that low-dose CT screening will result in 10.7 million more low-dose CT scans, 52,000 more lung cancers detected, and increased overall expenditure of $6.8 billion ($2.22 per Medicare enrollee per month). The most fiscally impactful factors were the average cost-per-screening episode, proportion of enrollees eligible for screening, and cost of treating stage I lung cancer. CONCLUSION: Low-dose CT screening is expected to increase lung cancer diagnoses, shift stage at diagnosis toward earlier stages, and substantially increase Medicare expenditures over a 5-year time horizon. These projections can inform planning efforts by Medicare administrators, contracted health care providers, and other stakeholders.
PURPOSE: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently issued a national coverage determination that provides reimbursement for low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening for enrollees age 55 to 77 years with ≥ 30-pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or quit in the last 15 years. The clinical, resource use, and fiscal impacts of this change in screening coverage policy remain uncertain. METHODS: We developed a simulation model to forecast the 5-year health outcome impacts of the CMS low-dose CT screening policy in Medicare compared with no screening. The model used data from the National Lung Screening Trial, CMS enrollment statistics and reimbursement schedules, and peer-reviewed literature. Outcomes included counts of screening examinations, patient cases of lung cancer detected, stage distribution, and total and per-enrollee per-month fiscal impact. RESULTS: Over 5 years, we project that low-dose CT screening will result in 10.7 million more low-dose CT scans, 52,000 more lung cancers detected, and increased overall expenditure of $6.8 billion ($2.22 per Medicare enrollee per month). The most fiscally impactful factors were the average cost-per-screening episode, proportion of enrollees eligible for screening, and cost of treating stage I lung cancer. CONCLUSION: Low-dose CT screening is expected to increase lung cancer diagnoses, shift stage at diagnosis toward earlier stages, and substantially increase Medicare expenditures over a 5-year time horizon. These projections can inform planning efforts by Medicare administrators, contracted health care providers, and other stakeholders.
Authors: Kathleen A Cronin; Binbing Yu; Martin Krapcho; Diana L Miglioretti; Michael P Fay; Grant Izmirlian; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Eric J Feuer Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: William C Black; Ilana F Gareen; Samir S Soneji; JoRean D Sicks; Emmett B Keeler; Denise R Aberle; Arash Naeim; Timothy R Church; Gerard A Silvestri; Jeremy Gorelick; Constantine Gatsonis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce S Pyenson; Marcia S Sander; Yiding Jiang; Howard Kahn; James L Mulshine Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Michaela A Dinan; Lesley H Curtis; William R Carpenter; Andrea K Biddle; Amy P Abernethy; Edward F Patz; Kevin A Schulman; Morris Weinberger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marjorie A Rosenberg; Eric J Feuer; Binbing Yu; Jiafeng Sun; S Jane Henley; Thomas G Shanks; Christy M Anderson; Pamela M McMahon; Michael J Thun; David M Burns Journal: Risk Anal Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 4.000
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; David S Gierada; William Hocking; Edward F Patz; Barnett S Kramer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Thomas B Richards; V Paul Doria-Rose; Ashwini Soman; Carrie N Klabunde; Ralph S Caraballo; Simone C Gray; Keisha A Houston; Mary C White Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Steven B Zeliadt; Richard M Hoffman; Genevieve Birkby; Jan M Eberth; Alison T Brenner; Daniel S Reuland; Susan A Flocke Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Lindsay Gressard; Amy S DeGroff; Thomas B Richards; Stephanie Melillo; Julia Kish-Doto; Christina L Heminger; Elizabeth A Rohan; Kristine Gabuten Allen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sandeep J Khandhar; Mark R Bowling; Javier Flandes; Thomas R Gildea; Kristin L Hood; William S Krimsky; Douglas J Minnich; Septimiu D Murgu; Michael Pritchett; Eric M Toloza; Momen M Wahidi; Jennifer J Wolvers; Erik E Folch Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Shuguang Leng; Guodong Wu; Donna M Klinge; Cynthia L Thomas; Elia Casas; Maria A Picchi; Christine A Stidley; Sandra J Lee; Seena Aisner; Jill M Siegfried; Suresh Ramalingam; Fadlo R Khuri; Daniel D Karp; Steven A Belinsky Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-07-15