Literature DB >> 31613693

Utilization and Cost of Mammography Screening Among Commercially Insured Women 50 to 64 Years of Age in the United States, 2012-2016.

Jaya S Khushalani1, Donatus U Ekwueme1, Thomas B Richards1, Susan A Sabatino1, Gery P Guy1, Yuanhui Zhang1, Florence Tangka1.   

Abstract

Background: In recent years, most insurance plans eliminated cost-sharing for breast cancer screening and recommended screening intervals changed, and newer modalities-digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis-became more widely available. The objectives of this study are to examine how these changes affected utilization, frequency, and costs of breast cancer screening among commercially insured women, and to understand factors associated with utilization and frequency of screening. Materials and
Methods: This study used commercial insurance claims data for women 50 to 64 years of age, continuously enrolled in commercial insurance plans during 2012-2016.
Results: Of the 685,737 eligible women, 20% were not screened, 40% received annual screening, 24% received biennial screening, and 16% were screened less frequently than recommended during the time period examined. Sociodemographic factors such as age <60 years, rurality, and fee-for-service insurance were associated with low screening utilization. Patients who received annual screening incurred ∼1.78 times higher costs compared to those who received biennial screening during the study period. Digital mammography was the most costly and commonly used modality along with computer-aided detection. Conclusions: Evidence-based interventions to promote screening among women who are screened less frequently are needed along with interventions to move toward biennial screening rather than annual screening. Increasing provider awareness regarding breast cancer screening rates and frequency among various sociodemographic groups is essential to guide provider recommendations and shared decision making. The results of this study can guide targeted public health interventions to reduce barriers to screening, and can also serve as inputs for economic analyses of screening interventions and programs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; cost; digital breast tomosynthesis; mammography; utilization

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31613693      PMCID: PMC7082198          DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7543

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  31 in total

1.  Promoting prevention through the Affordable Care Act.

Authors:  Howard K Koh; Kathleen G Sebelius
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-08-25       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Benjamin A Herman; Lucy G Hannah; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.

Authors:  Cristina O'Donoghue; Martin Eklund; Elissa M Ozanne; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Breast Cancer Screening in 2018: Time for Shared Decision Making.

Authors:  Nancy L Keating; Lydia E Pace
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Transition from film to digital mammography: impact for breast cancer screening through the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Lisanne van Lier; Clyde B Schechter; Donatus U Ekwueme; Janet Royalty; Jacqueline W Miller; Aimee M Near; Kathleen A Cronin; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Measuring health care costs of individuals with employer-sponsored health insurance in the U.S.: A comparison of survey and claims data.

Authors:  Ana Aizcorbe; Eli Liebman; Sarah Pack; David M Cutler; Michael E Chernew; Allison B Rosen
Journal:  Stat J IAOS       Date:  2012

7.  Addressing overutilization in medical imaging.

Authors:  William R Hendee; Gary J Becker; James P Borgstede; Jennifer Bosma; William J Casarella; Beth A Erickson; C Douglas Maynard; James H Thrall; Paul E Wallner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Change in Breast Cancer Screening Intervals Since the 2009 USPSTF Guideline.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Robert F Arao; Rebecca A Hubbard; Brian L Sprague; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Jennifer S Haas; Louise Henderson; Deidre Hill; Christoph I Lee; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 2.681

9.  Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Karla Kerlikowske; Oguzhan Alagoz; Donald Berry; Diana S M Buist; Mucahit Cevik; Gary Chisholm; Harry J de Koning; Hui Huang; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Mark F Munsell; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Anna N A Tosteson; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Diffusion of digital breast tomosynthesis among women in primary care: associations with insurance type.

Authors:  Cheryl R Clark; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega; Julie E Weiss; Kimberly A Harris; Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 4.452

View more
  2 in total

1.  Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening Among Women Receiving Screening for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Ashley L Titan; Ioana Baiu; Doug Liou; Natalie S Lui; Mark Berry; Joseph Shrager; Leah Backhus
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-09-01

2.  Association of Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors With Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Potential for Additive Multi-Cancer Detection via Liquid Biopsy Screening: A Claims-Based Study.

Authors:  Christine Hathaway; Peter Paetsch; Yali Li; Jincao Wu; Sam Asgarian; Alex Parker; Alley Welsh; Patricia Deverka; Ariella Cohain
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 6.244

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.