I-Wen Pan1, Kevin C Oeffinger2, Ya-Chen Tina Shih1. 1. Section of Cancer Economics and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The financial protection of the prevention provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) doesn't apply to breast MRI but only to mammography for breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study is to examine the financial burden among women who received breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for screening. METHODS: This observational study used the Marketscan database. Women who underwent breast MRI between 2009 and 2017 and had screening mammography within 6 months of the MRI were included. We compared the time trend of the proportion of zero cost-share for women undergoing screening mammography and that for MRI. We quantified out-of-pocket (OOP) costs as the sum of copayment, coinsurance, and deductible and defined zero cost-share as having no OOP cost. We conducted multivariable logistic regression and 2-part model to examine factors associated with zero cost-share and OOP costs of MRI, respectively. RESULTS: During the study period, 16 341 women had a screening breast MRI. The proportion of screening MRI claims with zero cost-share decreased from 43.1% (2009) to 26.2% (2017). The adjusted mean OOP cost for women in high-deductible plans was more than twice the cost for their counterparts ($549 vs $251; 2-sided P < .001). Women who resided in the South in the post-Affordable Care Act era were less likely to have zero cost-share and paid higher OOP costs for screening MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Many women are subject to high financial burden when receiving MRI for breast cancer screening. Those enrolled in high-deductible plans and who reside in the South are especially vulnerable financially.
BACKGROUND: The financial protection of the prevention provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) doesn't apply to breast MRI but only to mammography for breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study is to examine the financial burden among women who received breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for screening. METHODS: This observational study used the Marketscan database. Women who underwent breast MRI between 2009 and 2017 and had screening mammography within 6 months of the MRI were included. We compared the time trend of the proportion of zero cost-share for women undergoing screening mammography and that for MRI. We quantified out-of-pocket (OOP) costs as the sum of copayment, coinsurance, and deductible and defined zero cost-share as having no OOP cost. We conducted multivariable logistic regression and 2-part model to examine factors associated with zero cost-share and OOP costs of MRI, respectively. RESULTS: During the study period, 16 341 women had a screening breast MRI. The proportion of screening MRI claims with zero cost-share decreased from 43.1% (2009) to 26.2% (2017). The adjusted mean OOP cost for women in high-deductible plans was more than twice the cost for their counterparts ($549 vs $251; 2-sided P < .001). Women who resided in the South in the post-Affordable Care Act era were less likely to have zero cost-share and paid higher OOP costs for screening MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Many women are subject to high financial burden when receiving MRI for breast cancer screening. Those enrolled in high-deductible plans and who reside in the South are especially vulnerable financially.
Authors: Chaya S Moskowitz; Joanne F Chou; Suzanne L Wolden; Jonine L Bernstein; Jyoti Malhotra; Danielle Novetsky Friedman; Nidha Z Mubdi; Wendy M Leisenring; Marilyn Stovall; Sue Hammond; Susan A Smith; Tara O Henderson; John D Boice; Melissa M Hudson; Lisa R Diller; Smita Bhatia; Lisa B Kenney; Joseph P Neglia; Colin B Begg; Leslie L Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ruth C Carlos; A Mark Fendrick; Giselle Kolenic; Neil Kamdar; Emily Kobernik; Sarah Bell; Vanessa K Dalton Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2019-03-02 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: M O Leach; C R M Boggis; A K Dixon; D F Easton; R A Eeles; D G R Evans; F J Gilbert; I Griebsch; R J C Hoff; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; D Thompson; R M L Warren Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 21-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kevin C Oeffinger; Jennifer S Ford; Chaya S Moskowitz; Lisa R Diller; Melissa M Hudson; Joanne F Chou; Stephanie M Smith; Ann C Mertens; Tara O Henderson; Debra L Friedman; Wendy M Leisenring; Leslie L Robison Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-01-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Katherine A Callaway; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Janie M Lee; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Jamie K Wallace; J Frank Wharam; Fang Zhang; Natasha K Stout Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Lindsay M Sabik; Natasha K Stout; Michael T Halpern; Joseph Lipscomb; Scott Ramsey; Debra P Ritzwoller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2022-07-05