Literature DB >> 30615528

Targeted Incentive Programs For Lung Cancer Screening Can Improve Population Health And Economic Efficiency.

David D Kim1, Joshua T Cohen2, John B Wong3, Babak Mohit4, A Mark Fendrick5, David M Kent6, Peter J Neumann7.   

Abstract

Because an intervention's clinical benefit depends on who receives it, a key to improving the efficiency of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is to incentivize its use among the current or former smokers who are most likely to benefit from it. Despite its clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness, only 3.9 percent of the eligible population underwent LDCT screening in 2015. Using individual lung cancer mortality risk, we developed a policy simulation model to explore the potential impact of implementing risk-targeted incentive programs, compared to either implementing untargeted incentive programs or doing nothing. We found that compared to the status quo, an untargeted incentive program that increased overall LDCT screening from 3,900 (baseline) to 10,000 per 100,000 eligible people would save 12,300 life-years and accrue a net monetary benefit (NMB) of $771 million over a lifetime horizon. Increasing screening by the same amount but targeting higher-risk people would yield an additional 2,470-6,600 life-years and an additional $210-$560 million NMB, depending on the extent of the risk-targeting. Risk-targeted incentive programs could include provider-level bonuses, health plan premium subsidies, and smoking cessation programs to maximize their impact. As clinical medicine becomes more personalized, targeting and incentivizing higher-risk people will help enhance population health and economic efficiency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30615528      PMCID: PMC6409129          DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  42 in total

Review 1.  Value-based insurance design.

Authors:  Michael E Chernew; Allison B Rosen; A Mark Fendrick
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007-01-30       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Randomized trial of four financial-incentive programs for smoking cessation.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern; Benjamin French; Dylan S Small; Kathryn Saulsgiver; Michael O Harhay; Janet Audrain-McGovern; George Loewenstein; Troyen A Brennan; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  The Willingness to Pay for a Quality Adjusted Life Year: A Review of the Empirical Literature.

Authors:  Linda Ryen; Mikael Svensson
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  A value-based insurance design program at a large company boosted medication adherence for employees with chronic illnesses.

Authors:  Teresa B Gibson; Sara Wang; Emily Kelly; Candace Brown; Christine Turner; Feride Frech-Tamas; Joseph Doyle; Edward Mauceri
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  Development and Validation of Risk Models to Select Ever-Smokers for CT Lung Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki; Stephanie A Kovalchik; Christine D Berg; Li C Cheung; Anil K Chaturvedi
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  U.S. primary care physicians' lung cancer screening beliefs and recommendations.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Pamela M Marcus; Gerard A Silvestri; Paul K J Han; Thomas B Richards; Gigi Yuan; Stephen E Marcus; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 5.043

7.  Provider and patient directed financial incentives to improve care and outcomes for patients with diabetes.

Authors:  Ilona S Lorincz; Brittany C T Lawson; Judith A Long
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.810

Review 8.  A systematic review of studies eliciting willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life year: does it justify CE threshold?

Authors:  Khachapon Nimdet; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk; Kittaya Vichansavakul; Surachat Ngorsuraches
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Attitudes and Beliefs of Primary Care Providers in New Mexico About Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Andrew L Sussman; Christina M Getrich; Robert L Rhyne; Richard E Crowell; Kathryn L Taylor; Ellen J Reifler; Pamela H Wescott; Ambroshia M Murrietta; Ali I Saeed; Shiraz I Mishra
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: A retrospective validation study.

Authors:  Kevin Ten Haaf; Jihyoun Jeon; Martin C Tammemägi; Summer S Han; Chung Yin Kong; Sylvia K Plevritis; Eric J Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Ewout W Steyerberg; Rafael Meza
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  4 in total

1.  Exploring Why Financial Incentives Fail to Affect At-home Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Mixed Methods Study.

Authors:  Alicia B W Clifton; Shivan J Mehta; Jocelyn V Wainwright; Shannon N Ogden; Chelsea A Saia; Katharine A Rendle
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 6.473

2.  Kinesin Family Member 18A (KIF18A) Contributes to the Proliferation, Migration, and Invasion of Lung Adenocarcinoma Cells In Vitro and In Vivo.

Authors:  Fu-Tao Chen; Fu-Kuan Zhong
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 3.434

3.  Four strategic areas to advance equitable implementation of evidence-based practices in cancer care.

Authors:  Katharine A Rendle; Rinad S Beidas
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

Authors:  Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Lesley H Souter; Tanner J Caverly; Jeffrey P Kanne; Hormuzd A Katki; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Frank C Detterbeck
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 9.410

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.