Literature DB >> 30232793

What Happened to Disparities in CRC Screening Among FFS Medicare Enrollees Following Medicare Modernization?

Lee R Mobley1, Tzy-Mey Kuo2, Mei Zhou3, Yamisha Rutherford4, Seth Meador4, Julia Koschinsky5.   

Abstract

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, implemented in 2006, increased managed care options for seniors. It introduced insurance plans for prescription drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries, whether they were enrolled in FFS or managed care (Medicare Advantage) plans. The availability of drug coverage beginning in 2006 served to free up budgets for FFS Medicare enrollees that could be used to make copayments for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using endoscopy (colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy). In 2007, Medicare eliminated the copayments required by seniors for CRC screening by endoscopy. Later in 2008, CRC screening by colonoscopy became part of the gold standard for CRC screening. This legitimized its use and offered even further encouragement to seniors, who may have been reluctant to undergo the procedure because of the non-pecuniary risks associated with it. In addition, 37 CRC screening interventions occurred during this timeframe to enhance compliance with screening standards. Using multilevel analysis of individuals' endoscopy utilization, derived from 100% FFS Medicare claims, along with county-level market and contextual factors, we compare the periods before and after the MMA (2001-2005 to 2006-2009) to determine whether disparities in the utilization of endoscopic CRC screening occurred or changed over the decade. We examined Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics relative to Whites, and Females relative to Males (with race or ethnicity combined). We examined each state separately for evidence of disparities within states, to avoid confounding by geographic disparities. We expected that the net effect of the policy changes and the targeted interventions over the decade would be to increase CRC screening by endoscopy, reducing disparities. We saw improvements over time (reduced disparities relative to Whites) for Blacks and Hispanics residing in several states, and improvements over time for Females relative to Males in many states. For the vast majority of states, however, disparities persisted with Whites and Males exhibiting greater rates of utilization than other groups. States that undertook the interventions were more likely to have had improvements in disparities or positive disparities for women and minorities. While some gains were made over this time period, the gains were unevenly distributed across the USA and more work needs to be done to reduce remaining disparities.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Age disparities; CRC screening; Disparities; Gender disparities; Geographic disparities; Racial/ethnic disparities

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30232793     DOI: 10.1007/s40615-018-0522-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities        ISSN: 2196-8837


  18 in total

1.  Use of preventive services by Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries: does spillover from managed care matter?

Authors:  Siran M Koroukian; David Litaker; Avi Dor; Gregory S Cooper
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Medicare modernization: the new prescription drug benefit and redesigned Part B and Part C.

Authors:  Michelle M Megellas
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2006-01

3.  Efforts to reduce racial disparities in Medicare managed care must consider the disproportionate effects of geography.

Authors:  Beth A Virnig; Sarah Hudson Scholle; Ann F Chou; Sarah Shih
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.229

4.  Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Breast, cervical, and colorectal carcinoma screening in a demographically defined region of the southern U.S.

Authors:  Steven S Coughlin; Trevor D Thompson; Laura Seeff; Thomas Richards; Fred Stallings
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-11-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 6.  Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Ann G Zauber
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2010-10

7.  Managed care and the diffusion of endoscopy in fee-for-service Medicare.

Authors:  Lee Rivers Mobley; Sujha Subramanian; Julia Koschinsky; H E Frech; Laurel Clayton Trantham; Luc Anselin
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-08-16       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Trends in colorectal cancer test use in the medicare population, 1998-2005.

Authors:  Anna P Schenck; Sharon C Peacock; Carrie N Klabunde; Pauline Lapin; Jim F Coan; Martin L Brown
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2009-05-07       Impact factor: 5.043

9.  Medicare modernization and diffusion of endoscopy in FFS medicare.

Authors:  Lee R Mobley; Pedro Amaral; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Mei Zhou; Srimoyee Bose
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2017-03-09

10.  Heterogeneity in mammography use across the nation: separating evidence of disparities from the disproportionate effects of geography.

Authors:  Lee R Mobley; Tzy-Mey May Kuo; David Driscoll; Laurel Clayton; Luc Anselin
Journal:  Int J Health Geogr       Date:  2008-06-30       Impact factor: 3.918

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.