Literature DB >> 29733302

Excess Cost of Cervical Cancer Screening Beyond Recommended Screening Ages or After Hysterectomy in a Single Institution.

Deanna Teoh1, Gretchen Hultman2, McKenzie DeKam3, Rachel Isaksson Vogel1,4, Levi S Downs1, Melissa A Geller1, Chap Le5, Genevieve Melton2,6, Shalini Kulasingam7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to estimate the excess cost of guideline nonadherent cervical cancer screening in women beyond the recommended screening ages or posthysterectomy in a single healthcare system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All Pap tests performed between September 1, 2012, and August 31, 2014, in women younger than 21 years, older than 65 years, or after hysterectomy, were coded as guideline adherent or nonadherent per the 2012 America Society of Colposcopy and Clinical Pathology guidelines. We assumed management of abnormal results per the 2013 America Society of Colposcopy and Clinical Pathology management guidelines. Costs were obtained from a literature review and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services data and applied to nonadherent screening and subsequent diagnostic tests.
RESULTS: During this period, 1,398 guideline nonadherent Pap tests were performed (257 in women <21 years, 536 in women >65 years, and 605 after hysterectomy), with 88 abnormal results: 35 (13.5%) in women younger than 21 years, 14 (2.6%) in women older than 65 years, and 39 (6.5%) in women after hysterectomy. The excess cost for initial screening, diagnostic tests, and follow-up was US $35,337 for 2 years in women younger than 21 years, US $54,378 for 5 years in women older than 65 years, and US $77,340 for 5 years in women after hysterectomy, resulting in a total excess cost of US $166,100 for 5 years. Of the 1,398 women who underwent guideline nonadherent screening, there were only 2 (0.1%) diagnoses of high-grade dysplasia (VaIN3).
CONCLUSIONS: Guideline nonadherent cervical cancer screening in women beyond the recommended screening ages and posthysterectomy resulted in costs exceeding US $160,000 for screening, diagnostic tests, and follow-up with minimal improvement in detection of high-grade dysplasia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29733302      PMCID: PMC6957129          DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000400

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis        ISSN: 1089-2591            Impact factor:   1.925


  20 in total

1.  Time costs associated with cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  T I Shireman; J Tsevat; S J Goldie
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.188

2.  Cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands: a tale of two countries.

Authors:  Dik Habbema; Inge M C M De Kok; Martin L Brown
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands.

Authors:  Dik Habbema; Sheila Weinmann; Marc Arbyn; Aruna Kamineni; Andrew E Williams; Inge M C M de Kok; Folkert van Kemenade; Terry S Field; Joost van Rosmalen; Martin L Brown
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  The psychosocial impact of an abnormal cervical smear result.

Authors:  Mélanie Drolet; Marc Brisson; Elizabeth Maunsell; Eduardo L Franco; François Coutlée; Alex Ferenczy; William Fisher; James A Mansi
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2011-06-21       Impact factor: 3.894

5.  Single Health System Adherence to 2012 Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines at Extremes of Age and Posthysterectomy.

Authors:  Deanna Teoh; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Gretchen Hultman; Minnu Monu; Levi Downs; Melissa A Geller; Chap Le; Genevieve Melton-Meaux; Shalini Kulasingam
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Adherence to the 2012 national cervical cancer screening guidelines: a pilot study.

Authors:  Deanna G K Teoh; Amity E Marriott; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Ryan T Marriott; Charles W Lais; Levi S Downs; Shalini L Kulasingam
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Demographic factors associated with overuse of Pap testing.

Authors:  Deanna Kepka; Nancy Breen; Jessica B King; Helen I Meissner; Katherine B Roland; Vicki B Benard; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  Inefficiencies and High-Value Improvements in U.S. Cervical Cancer Screening Practice: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Nicole G Campos; Stephen Sy; Emily A Burger; Jack Cuzick; Philip E Castle; William C Hunt; Alan Waxman; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Overuse of papanicolaou testing among older women and among women without a cervix.

Authors:  Deanna Kepka; Nancy Breen; Jessica B King; Vicki B Benard; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 10.  American health care paradox-high spending on health care and poor health.

Authors:  E H Bradley; H Sipsma; L A Taylor
Journal:  QJM       Date:  2017-02-01
View more
  3 in total

1.  Test Performance of Cervical Cytology Among Adults With vs Without Human Papillomavirus Vaccination.

Authors:  Deanna Teoh; Gwiwon Nam; Danielle A Aase; Ruby Russell; Genevieve B Melton; Shalini Kulasingam; Rachel I Vogel
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-05-02

2.  Can nudge-interventions address health service overuse and underuse? Protocol for a systematic review.

Authors:  Mary O'Keeffe; Adrian C Traeger; Tammy Hoffmann; Giovanni Esteves Ferreira; Jason Soon; Christopher Maher
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Unindicated cervical cancer screening in adolescent females within a large healthcare system in the United States.

Authors:  Hillary Hosier; Sangini S Sheth; Carlos R Oliveira; Lauren E Perley; Alla Vash-Margita
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 8.661

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.