Literature DB >> 25943596

Projected Clinical, Resource Use, and Fiscal Impacts of Implementing Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening in Medicare.

Joshua A Roth1, Sean D Sullivan2, Bernardo H L Goulart2, Arliene Ravelo2, Joanna C Sanderson2, Scott D Ramsey2.   

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.
Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25943596      PMCID: PMC5706131          DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2014.002600

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oncol Pract        ISSN: 1554-7477            Impact factor:   3.840


  19 in total

1.  Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Joshua T Cohen; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Modeling the dissemination of mammography in the United States.

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

3.  Offering lung cancer screening to high-risk medicare beneficiaries saves lives and is cost-effective: an actuarial analysis.

Authors:  Bruce S Pyenson; Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; Rowena Yip; Ellynne Dec
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2014-08

4.  Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

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

5.  An actuarial analysis shows that offering lung cancer screening as an insurance benefit would save lives at relatively low cost.

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

6.  Stage migration, selection bias, and survival associated with the adoption of positron emission tomography among medicare beneficiaries with non-small-cell lung cancer, 1998-2003.

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

7.  Chapter 3: Cohort life tables by smoking status, removing lung cancer as a cause of death.

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

8.  National Lung Screening Trial findings by age: Medicare-eligible versus under-65 population.

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

9.  Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions.

Authors:  Andrea C Villanti; Yiding Jiang; David B Abrams; Bruce S Pyenson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  2016 reflections on the favorable cost-benefit of lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Bruce Pyenson; Gabriela Dieguez
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-04

2.  Sputum-based DNA methylation biomarkers to guide lung cancer screening decisions.

Authors:  Delphine Lissa; Ana I Robles
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  State-Level Variations in the Utilization of Lung Cancer Screening Among Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries: An Analysis of the 2015 to 2017 Physician and Other Supplier Data.

Authors:  Bian Liu; Kavita Dharmarajan; Claudia I Henschke; Emanuela Taioli
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2019-11-22       Impact factor: 9.410

4.  Lung Cancer Screening Inconsistent With U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.

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

Review 5.  Lung Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Rolando Sanchez
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 5.456

6.  Challenges Implementing Lung Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

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

Review 7.  Early detection of lung cancer.

Authors:  David E Midthun
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-04-25

8.  A qualitative analysis of smokers' perceptions about lung cancer screening.

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

9.  Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy to access lung lesions in 1,000 subjects: first results of the prospective, multicenter NAVIGATE study.

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

10.  Gene methylation biomarkers in sputum as a classifier for lung cancer risk.

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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.