Literature DB >> 27624875

Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Low-Value Cancer Screenings and Distributional Effects in Medicare.

Wendy Yi Xu1, Jeah Kyoungrae Jung2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Consuming low-value health care not only highlights inefficient resource use but also brings an important concern regarding the economics of disparities. We identify the relation of socioeconomic characteristics to the use of low-value cancer screenings in Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) settings, and quantify the amount subsidized from nonusers and taxpayers to users of these screenings. DATA SOURCES: 2007-2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Medicare FFS claims, and the Area Health Resource Files. STUDY
DESIGN: Our sample included enrollees in FFS Part B for the entire calendar year. We excluded beneficiaries with a claims-documented or self-reported history of targeted cancers, or those enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare Advantage plans. We identified use of low-value Pap smears, mammograms, and prostate-specific antigen tests based on established algorithms, and estimated a logistic model with year dummies separately for each test. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
METHODS: Secondary data analyses. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: We found a statistically significant positive association between privileged socioeconomic characteristics and use of low-value screenings. Having higher income and supplemental private insurance strongly predicted more net subsidies from Medicare.
CONCLUSIONS: FFS enrollees who are better off in terms of sociodemographic characteristics receive greater subsidies from taxpayers for using low-value cancer screenings. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Distributional effects; Medicare; low-value cancer screenings

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27624875      PMCID: PMC5583315          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12559

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  36 in total

1.  Inequality in quality: addressing socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic disparities in health care.

Authors:  K Fiscella; P Franks; M R Gold; C M Clancy
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-05-17       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Disparities in health care by race, ethnicity, and language among the insured: findings from a national sample.

Authors:  Kevin Fiscella; Peter Franks; Mark P Doescher; Barry G Saver
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Is language a barrier to the use of preventive services?

Authors:  S Woloshin; L M Schwartz; S J Katz; H G Welch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  The cost implications of prostate cancer screening in the Medicare population.

Authors:  Xiaomei Ma; Rong Wang; Jessica B Long; Joseph S Ross; Pamela R Soulos; James B Yu; Danil V Makarov; Heather T Gold; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Trusting in the future: the distinct advantage of nonprofit HMOs.

Authors:  D M Lawrence; P H Mattingly; J M Ludden
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.911

6.  The debate over prostate cancer screening guidelines.

Authors:  Karen E Hoffman; Paul L Nguyen
Journal:  Virtual Mentor       Date:  2011-01-01

7.  Eligibility and take-up of the Medicare Part D low-income subsidy.

Authors:  J Samantha Shoemaker; Amy J Davidoff; Bruce Stuart; Ilene H Zuckerman; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Christopher Powers
Journal:  Inquiry       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.730

8.  Overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Medicare population.

Authors:  James S Goodwin; Amanpal Singh; Nischita Reddy; Taylor S Riall; Yong-Fang Kuo
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-05-09

9.  PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies.

Authors:  Louise C Walter; Daniel Bertenthal; Karla Lindquist; Badrinath R Konety
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Cancer screening behaviors of low-income women: the impact of race.

Authors:  E D Paskett; J Rushing; R D'Agostino; C Tatum; R Velez
Journal:  Womens Health       Date:  1997 Fall-Winter
View more
  4 in total

1.  Promoting Health Equity through De-Implementation Research.

Authors:  Christian D Helfrich; Christine W Hartmann; Toral J Parikh; David H Au
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2019-02-21       Impact factor: 1.847

2.  Relationships of Family History-related Factors and Causal Beliefs to Cancer Risk Perception and Mammography Screening Adherence Among Medically Underserved Women.

Authors:  Soo Jung Hong; Melody Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2020-07-16

3.  External Validation of and Factors Associated with the Overuse Index: a Nationwide Population-Based Study from Taiwan.

Authors:  Yu-Chi Tung; Guo-Hong Li; Hsien-Yen Chang
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  A scoping review of de-implementation frameworks and models.

Authors:  Callie Walsh-Bailey; Edward Tsai; Rachel G Tabak; Alexandra B Morshed; Wynne E Norton; Virginia R McKay; Ross C Brownson; Sheyna Gifford
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 7.960

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.