Tia Goss Sawhney1, Bruce S Pyenson2, David Rotter3, Michele Berrios4, Judy Yee5. 1. Healthcare Consultant and Actuary, Milliman, New York, NY. 2. Principal & Consulting Actuary, Milliman, and Commissioner of Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). 3. Senior Healthcare Analyst, Milliman. 4. Senior Healthcare Analytics Consultant, Milliman. 5. Chair, Department of Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States. METHODS: Using retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies. RESULTS: In 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States. METHODS: Using retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies. RESULTS: In 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.
Authors: Theodore R Levin; Wei Zhao; Carol Conell; Laura C Seeff; Diane L Manninen; Jean A Shapiro; Jane Schulman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-12-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: John T Edwards; Richard M Mendelson; Lin Fritschi; Noellene M Foster; Christopher Wood; Dianne Murray; Geoffrey M Forbes Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-12-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; John Bond; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; David Johnson; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; Perry J Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Robert A Smith; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Robert E Schoen; Paul F Pinsky; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Douglas J Reding; Richard B Hayes; Timothy Church; Susan Yurgalevich; V Paul Doria-Rose; Tom Hickey; Thomas Riley; Christine D Berg Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Douglas K Rex; David A Johnson; Joseph C Anderson; Phillip S Schoenfeld; Carol A Burke; John M Inadomi Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Courtney C Moreno; Judy Yee; Firas S Ahmed; Matthew A Barish; Cecelia Brewington; Abraham H Dachman; Marc J Gollub; David H Kim; Elizabeth McFarland; Perry J Pickhardt; Syam Reddy; Michael Zalis; Kevin J Chang Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-08-03