Bian Liu1, Kavita Dharmarajan2, Claudia I Henschke3, Emanuela Taioli4. 1. Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Institute for Translational Epidemiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. Electronic address: bian.liu@mountsinai.org. 2. Departments of Radiation Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 3. Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 4. Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Institute for Translational Epidemiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) is an important secondary prevention measure to reduce lung cancer mortality. The goal of this study was to assess state-level variations in LCS among the US elderly during the first 3 years since Medicare began its LCS reimbursement policy in 2015. METHODS: This ecological study examined the relations between LCS utilization density, defined as the number of low-dose CT (LDCT) or shared decision-making and counseling (SDMC) services per 1,000 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries derived from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier public use file, and state-level factors from several publicly available data sources. The study included Kruskal-Wallis tests and a cluster analysis. RESULTS: In 2017, the median utilization density per 1,000 Medicare FFS beneficiaries was 3.32 for LDCT and 0.46 for SDMC, which was 24 and 13 times the 2015 level, respectively. From 2015 to 2017, the total number of unique providers billed for LCS increased from 222 to 3,444 for LDCT imaging and from 20 to 523 for SDMC. Higher utilizations for both LDCT and SDMC services tended to concentrate in the northeastern and upper Midwest states than in the southwest states. The cluster of states with high utilization density did not include those states with the most lung cancer mortality and/or smoking prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: A steady increase was noted in LCS utilization since Medicare began its reimbursement policy. The utilization and its growth varied across the United States and differed between LDCT imaging and SDMC, indicating large growth potentials for LCS and for states with high lung cancer mortality and smoking prevalence.
BACKGROUND:Lung cancer screening (LCS) is an important secondary prevention measure to reduce lung cancer mortality. The goal of this study was to assess state-level variations in LCS among the US elderly during the first 3 years since Medicare began its LCS reimbursement policy in 2015. METHODS: This ecological study examined the relations between LCS utilization density, defined as the number of low-dose CT (LDCT) or shared decision-making and counseling (SDMC) services per 1,000 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries derived from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier public use file, and state-level factors from several publicly available data sources. The study included Kruskal-Wallis tests and a cluster analysis. RESULTS: In 2017, the median utilization density per 1,000 Medicare FFS beneficiaries was 3.32 for LDCT and 0.46 for SDMC, which was 24 and 13 times the 2015 level, respectively. From 2015 to 2017, the total number of unique providers billed for LCS increased from 222 to 3,444 for LDCT imaging and from 20 to 523 for SDMC. Higher utilizations for both LDCT and SDMC services tended to concentrate in the northeastern and upper Midwest states than in the southwest states. The cluster of states with high utilization density did not include those states with the most lung cancer mortality and/or smoking prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: A steady increase was noted in LCS utilization since Medicare began its reimbursement policy. The utilization and its growth varied across the United States and differed between LDCT imaging and SDMC, indicating large growth potentials for LCS and for states with high lung cancer mortality and smoking prevalence.
Authors: Linda L Humphrey; Mark Deffebach; Miranda Pappas; Bernadette Zakher; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Thomas B Richards; V Paul Doria-Rose; Ashwini Soman; Carrie N Klabunde; Ralph S Caraballo; Simone C Gray; Keisha A Houston; Mary C White Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alison T Brenner; Teri L Malo; Marjorie Margolis; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Shynah James; Maihan B Vu; Daniel S Reuland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jan M Eberth; Parisa Bozorgi; Logan M Lebrón; Sarah E Bills; Linda J Hazlett; Ruth C Carlos; Jennifer C King Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Jennifer A Lewis; Lucy B Spalluto; Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; Samuel M Aguayo; Providencia Morales; Rick Avila; Carolyn M Audet; Beth Prusaczyk; Christopher J Lindsell; Carol Callaway-Lane; Robert S Dittus; Timothy J Vogus; Pierre P Massion; Heather M Limper; Sunil Kripalani; Drew Moghanaki; Christianne L Roumie Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2020-12-26 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Lucy B Spalluto; Jennifer A Lewis; Deonni Stolldorf; Vivian M Yeh; Carol Callaway-Lane; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Christopher G Slatore; David F Yankelevitz; Claudia I Henschke; Timothy J Vogus; Pierre P Massion; Drew Moghanaki; Christianne L Roumie Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 6.240
Authors: Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; Artit Jirapatnakul; Rowena Yip; Vivian Reccoppa; Charlene Benjamin; Tserling Llamo; Angel Williams; Simon Liu; Daniel Max; Samuel M Aguayo; Providencia Morales; Brian J Igel; Hamed Abbaszadegan; Peter A Fredricks; Daniel P Garcia; Paska A Permana; Janet Fawcett; Samir Sultan; Lorenza A Murphy Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2021-02
Authors: Bian Liu; Jeremy Sze; Lihua Li; Katherine A Ornstein; Emanuela Taioli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Stacey A Fedewa; Ella A Kazerooni; Jamie L Studts; Robert A Smith; Priti Bandi; Ann Goding Sauer; Megan Cotter; Helmneh M Sineshaw; Ahmedin Jemal; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 13.506