Margaret M Fleming1, Danny R Hughes2, Lauren P Golding3, Geraldine B McGinty4, Dan MacFarlane5, Richard Duszak5. 1. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: margaret.fleming@emory.edu. 2. Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, Reston, Virginia. 3. Triad Radiology Associates, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 4. Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 5. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Bundled payments have been touted as mechanisms to optimize quality and costs. A recent feasibility study evaluating bundled payments for screening mammography episodes predated widespread adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). We explore a similar model reflecting emerging acceptance of DBT in breast cancer screening. METHODS: Using 4-year data for 59,094 screening episodes from two large facilities within a large academic health system, we utilized published methodology to calibrate Medicare national allowable reference prices for women undergoing screening mammography before and after practice-wide implementation of DBT. RESULTS: Excluding DBT, Medicare-normalized bundled prices for traditional breast imaging 364 days downstream to screening mammography are extremely similar pre- and post-DBT implementation ($182.86 in 2013; $182.68 in 2015). The addition of DBT increased a DBT-inclusive bundled price by $53.16 (an amount lower than the $56.13 Medicare allowable fee for screening DBT) but was associated with significantly reduced recall rates (13.0% versus 9.4%; P < .0001). Without or with DBT, screening episode bundled prices remained sensitive to bundle-included services and varied little by patient age, race, or insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: Prior non-DBT approaches to bundled payment models for breast cancer screening remain viable as DBT becomes the standard of care, with bundle prices varying little by patient age, race, or insurance status. Higher DBT-inclusive bundled prices, however, highlight the need to explore societal costs more broadly (eg, reduced time away from work from fewer recalls) as bundled payment models evolve.
PURPOSE: Bundled payments have been touted as mechanisms to optimize quality and costs. A recent feasibility study evaluating bundled payments for screening mammography episodes predated widespread adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). We explore a similar model reflecting emerging acceptance of DBT in breast cancer screening. METHODS: Using 4-year data for 59,094 screening episodes from two large facilities within a large academic health system, we utilized published methodology to calibrate Medicare national allowable reference prices for women undergoing screening mammography before and after practice-wide implementation of DBT. RESULTS: Excluding DBT, Medicare-normalized bundled prices for traditional breast imaging 364 days downstream to screening mammography are extremely similar pre- and post-DBT implementation ($182.86 in 2013; $182.68 in 2015). The addition of DBT increased a DBT-inclusive bundled price by $53.16 (an amount lower than the $56.13 Medicare allowable fee for screening DBT) but was associated with significantly reduced recall rates (13.0% versus 9.4%; P < .0001). Without or with DBT, screening episode bundled prices remained sensitive to bundle-included services and varied little by patient age, race, or insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: Prior non-DBT approaches to bundled payment models for breast cancer screening remain viable as DBT becomes the standard of care, with bundle prices varying little by patient age, race, or insurance status. Higher DBT-inclusive bundled prices, however, highlight the need to explore societal costs more broadly (eg, reduced time away from work from fewer recalls) as bundled payment models evolve.
Authors: Fabian Tollens; Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Dietzel; Moritz L Schnitzer; Vincent Schwarze; Wolfgang G Kunz; Johann Rink; Johannes Rübenthaler; Matthias F Froelich; Stefan O Schönberg; Clemens G Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Xi Zhang; Lei Yang; Shuo Liu; Huichao Li; Qingyu Li; Yangyang Cheng; Ning Wang; Jiafu Ji Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-11-04 Impact factor: 6.244