Dataset Information

Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.

ABSTRACT: Timely follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test result is critical to the prevention and early diagnosis of cervical cancer. The current inadequate and inequitable delivery of these potentially life-saving services is attributed to several factors, including patient out-of-pocket costs. Waiving of consumer cost-sharing for follow-up testing (e.g., colposcopy and related cervical services) is likely to improve access and uptake, especially among underserved populations. One approach to defray the incremental costs of providing more generous coverage for follow-up testing is reducing expenditures on "low-value" cervical cancer screening services. To explore the potential fiscal implications of a policy that redirects cervical cancer screening resources from potentially low- to high-value clinical scenarios, we analyzed 2019 claims from the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database to quantify (i) total spending on low-value cervical cancer screening and (ii) out-of-pocket costs associated with colposcopy and related cervical services among commercially insured Virginians. In a cohort of 1,806,921 female patients (ages 48.1 ± 24.8 years), 295,193 claims for cervical cancer screening were reported, 100,567 (34.0%) of which were determined to be low-value ($4,394,361 total; $4,172,777 for payers and $221,584 out-of-pocket [$2/patient]). Claims for 52,369 colposcopy and related cervical services were reported ($40,994,016 total; $33,457,518 for payers and $7,536,498 out-of-pocket [$144/patient]). These findings suggest that reallocating savings incurred from unnecessary spending to fund more generous coverage of necessary follow-up care is a feasible approach to enhancing cervical cancer prevention equity and outcomes.

Prevention relevance

Out-of-pocket fees are a barrier to follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test. Among commercially insured Virginians, out-of-pocket costs for follow-up services averaged $144/patient; 34% of cervical cancer screenings were classified as low value. Reallocating low-value cervical cancer screening expenditures to enhance coverage for follow-up care can improve screening outcomes. See related Spotlight, p. 363.

SUBMITTER: Rockwell MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10320459 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.

Rockwell Michelle S MS Armbruster Shannon D SD Capucao Jillian C JC Russell Kyle B KB Rockwell John A JA Perkins Karen E KE Huffstetler Alison N AN Mafi John N JN Fendrick A Mark AM

Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) 20230701 7

Timely follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test result is critical to the prevention and early diagnosis of cervical cancer. The current inadequate and inequitable delivery of these potentially life-saving services is attributed to several factors, including patient out-of-pocket costs. Waiving of consumer cost-sharing for follow-up testing (e.g., colposcopy and related cervical services) is likely to improve access and uptake, especially among underserved populations. One ...[more]

PMID: 36976753

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLow-value care, defined as care offering no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is associated with harmful outcomes in patients and wasteful spending. Despite a national education campaign and increasing attention on reducing health care waste, recent trends in low-value care delivery remain unknown.ObjectiveTo assess national trends in low-value care use and spending.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, analyses of low-value care use and spending from 2014 to 2018 were conducted using 100% Medicare fee-for-service enrollment and claims data. Included individuals were aged 65 years or older and continuously enrolled in Medicare parts A, B, and D during each measurement year and the previous year. Data were analyzed from September 2019 through December 2020.ExposureBeing enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for a period of time, in years.Main outcomes and measuresThe Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator was used to assess 32 claims-based measures of low-value care associated with Choosing Wisely recommendations and other professional guidelines. The calculator designates services as wasteful, likely wasteful, or not wasteful based on an absence of indication of appropriate use in the claims history; calculator-designated wasteful services were defined as low-value care. Spending was calculated as claim-line level (ie, spending on the low-value service) and claim level (ie, spending on the low-value service plus associated services), adjusting for inflation.ResultsAmong 21 045 759 individuals with fee-for-service Medicare (mean [SD] age, 77.4 [7.9] years; 12 515 915 [59.5%] women), the percentage receiving any of 32 low-value services decreased from 36.3% (95% CI, 36.3%-36.4%) to 33.6% (95% CI, 33.6%-33.6%) from 2014 to 2018. Uses of low-value services per 1000 individuals decreased from 677.8 (95% CI, 676.2-679.5) to 632.7 (95% CI, 632.6-632.8) from 2014 to 2018. Three services comprised approximately two-thirds of uses among 32 low-value services per 1000 individuals: preoperative laboratory testing decreased from 213.8 (95% CI, 213.4-214.2) to 166.2 (95% CI, 166.2-166.2), while opioids for back pain increased from 154.4 (95% CI, 153.6-155.2) to 182.1 (95% CI, 182.1-182.1) and antibiotics for upper respiratory infections increased from 75.0 (95% CI, 75.0-75.1) to 82 (95% CI, 82.0-82.0). Spending per 1000 individuals on low-value care also decreased, from $52 765.5 (95% CI, $51 952.3-$53 578.6) to $46 921.7 (95% CI, $46 593.7-$47 249.7) at the claim-line level and from $160 070.4 (95% CI, $158 999.8-$161 141.0) to $144 741.1 (95% CI, $144 287.5-$145 194.7) at the claim level.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that among individuals with fee-for-service Medicare receiving any of 32 measured services, low-value care use and spending decreased marginally from 2014 to 2018, despite a national education campaign in collaboration with clinician specialty societies and increased attention on low-value care. While most use of low-value care came from 3 services, 1 of these was opioid prescriptions, which increased over time despite the harms associated with their use. These findings may represent several opportunities to prevent patient harm and lower spending.

Project description:ImportanceOwing to a rapid increase in rates of diagnostic cardiovascular testing in the 1990s and early 2000s, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented a series of payment changes intended to reduce overall spending on fee-for-service testing. Whether guideline-concordant testing has been subsequently affected is unknown to date.ObjectiveTo determine whether changes in overall rates of use of diagnostic cardiovascular tests were associated with changes in high-value testing recommended by guidelines and low-value testing that is expected to provide minimal benefits.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study assessed a national 5% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 95 years from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2016. Data were analyzed from February 15, 2018, through August 15, 2019.ExposuresEligibility to receive high-value testing (assessment of left ventricular systolic function among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction or heart failure) and low-value testing (stress testing before low-risk noncardiac surgery and routine stress testing within 2 years of coronary revascularization not associated with acute care visits).Main outcomes and measuresAge- and sex-adjusted annual rates of overall, high-value, and low-value diagnostic cardiovascular testing.ResultsMean (SD) age was similar over time (75.57 [7.32] years in 2000-2003; 74.82 [7.79] years in 2012-2016); the proportion of women slightly declined over time (63.23% in 2000 to 2003; 57.27% in 2012 to 2016). The rate of overall diagnostic cardiovascular testing per 1000 patient-years among the 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries increased from 275 in 2000 to 359 in 2008 (P?<?.001) and then declined to 316 in 2016 (P?<?.001). High-value testing increased steadily over the entire study period for patients with acute myocardial infarction (85.7% to 89.5%; P?<?.001) and heart failure (72.6% to 80.1%; P?<?.001). Low-value testing among patients undergoing low-risk surgery increased from 2.4% in 2000 to 3.8% in 2008 (P?<?.001) but then declined to 2.5% in 2016 (P?<?.001). Low-value testing within 2 years of coronary revascularization slightly increased from 47.4% in 2000 to 49.2% in 2003 (P?=?.03) but then declined to 30.8% in 2014 (P?<?.001).Conclusions and relevanceRates of overall and low-value diagnostic cardiovascular testing appear to have declined considerably and rates of high-value testing have increased slightly. Payment changes intended to reduce spending on overall testing may not have adversely affected testing recommended by guidelines.

Project description:ImportanceHigh-deductible health plans with health savings accounts (HDHP-HSAs) incentivize patients to use less health care, including necessary care. Preventive drug lists (PDLs) exempt high-value medications from the deductible, reducing out-of-pocket cost sharing; the associations of PDLs with health outcomes among patients with asthma is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the associations of a PDL for asthma medications on utilization, adverse outcomes, and patient spending for HDHP-HSA enrollees with asthma.Design, setting, and participantsThis case-control study used matched groups of patients with asthma before and after an insurance design change using a national commercial health insurance claims data set from 2004-2017. Participants included patients aged 4 to 64 years enrolled for 1 year in an HDHP-HSA without a PDL in which asthma medications were subject to the deductible who then transitioned to an HDHP-HSA with a PDL that included asthma medications; these patients were compared with a matched weighted sample of patients with 2 years of continuous enrollment in an HDHP-HSA without a PDL. Models controlled for patient demographics and asthma severity and were stratified by neighborhood income. Analyses were conducted from October 2020 to June 2023.ExposuresEmployer-mandated addition of a PDL that included asthma medications to an existing HDHP-HSA.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes of interest were utilization of asthma medications on the PDL (controllers and albuterol), asthma exacerbations (oral steroid bursts and asthma-related emergency department use), and out-of-pocket spending (all and asthma-specific).ResultsA total of 12 174 participants (mean [SD] age, 36.9 [16.9] years; 6848 [56.25%] female) were included in analyses. Compared with no PDL, PDLs were associated with increased rates of 30-day fills per enrollee for any controller medication (change, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.17] fills per enrollee; 12.9% increase) and for combination inhaled corticosteroid long-acting β2-agonist (ICS-LABA) medications (change, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.10] fills per enrollee; 25.4% increase), and increased proportion of days covered with ICS-LABA (6.0% [0.7% to 11.3%] of days; 15.6% increase). Gaining a PDL was associated with decreased out-of-pocket spending on asthma care (change, -$34 [95% CI, -$47 to -$21] per enrollee; 28.4% difference), but there was no significant change in asthma exacerbations and no difference in results by income.Conclusions and relevanceIn this case-control study, reducing cost-sharing for asthma medications through a PDL was associated with increased adherence to controller medications, notably ICS-LABA medications used by patients with more severe asthma, but was not associated with improved clinical outcomes. These findings suggest that PDLs are a potential strategy to improve access and affordability of asthma care for patients in HDHP-HSAs.

Project description:IntroductionPeople with Down syndrome have health risks that require specific lifelong preventive health care. With increasing life expectancy, people with Down syndrome also face health conditions typical of their unaffected peers and thus need coordinated health care. The purpose of this study is to describe rates of age/sex- and Down syndrome-specific preventive healthcare activities among adolescents and adults with Down syndrome.MethodsUsing Medicaid claims (2006-2010) in California, Colorado, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, the cohort was defined as people with Down syndrome aged ≥12 years seen by primary care providers and enrolled in Medicaid for ≥45 of 60 months without dual Medicare enrollment (n=3,501). Age focus-consistent primary care providers were defined as having a focus concordant with a patient's age: 12-17 years, child or mixed-focus; ≥26 years, adult or mixed-focus; 18-25 years, any focus. Differences in healthcare activities were evaluated using Pearson's chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Analyses were performed in 2015-2017.ResultsOf the cohort, 79% had an age focus-consistent primary care provider. However, 40% of adults aged ≥26 years received care from a child-focused primary care provider. Only 43% with an age focus-consistent provider had ≥1 well examination (age focus-inconsistent primary care provider: 35%, p<0.001). Most preventive activities had poor rates (<50%) regardless of age focus consistency between provider and patient age or whether they were age/sex- or Down syndrome-specific (well examinations; vaccinations; sleep apnea; hearing; and breast, cervical, and colon cancer screenings). Lipids, vision, and thyroid screenings reached moderate levels (50% to <80%).ConclusionsRates of age/sex- and Down syndrome-specific preventive recommendations were low among adolescents and adults with Down syndrome, regardless of the age focus consistency of their primary care provider. This represents a significant opportunity to improve primary care in this vulnerable population.

Project description:ImportanceDelivering low-value care can lead to unnecessary follow-up services and associated costs, and such care cascades have not been well examined in common clinical scenarios.ObjectiveTo evaluate the utilization and costs of care cascades of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests for prostate cancer screening, as the routine use of which among asymptomatic men aged 70 years and older is discouraged by multiple guidelines.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included men aged 70 years and older without preexisting prostate conditions enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan during January 2016 to December 2018 with at least 1 outpatient visit. Medical billing claims data from the deidentified OptumLabs Data Warehouse were used. Data analysis was conducted from September 2020 to August 2021.ExposuresAt least 1 claim for low-value PSA tests for prostate cancer screening during the observation period.Main outcomes and measuresUtilization of and spending on low-value PSA cancer screening and associated care cascades and the difference in overall health care utilization and spending among individuals receiving low-value PSA cancer screening vs those who did not, adjusting for observed characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting.ResultsOf 995 442 men (mean [SD] age, 78.0 [5.6] years) aged 70 years or older in a Medicare Advantage plan included in this study, 384 058 (38.6%) received a low-value PSA cancer screening. Utilization increased for each subsequent cohort from 2016 to 2018 (49 802 of 168 951 [29.4%] to 134 404 of 349 228 [38.5%] to 199 852 of 477 203 [41.9%]). Among those receiving initial low-value PSA cancer screening, 241 188 of 384 058 (62.8%) received at least 1 follow-up service. Repeated PSA testing was the most common, and 27 268 (7.1%) incurred high-cost follow-up services, such as imaging, radiation therapy, and prostatectomy. Utilization and spending associated with care cascades also increased from 2016 to 2018. For every $1 spent on a low-value PSA cancer screening, an additional $6 was spent on care cascades. Despite avoidable care cascades, individuals who received low-value PSA cancer screening were not associated with increased overall health care utilization and spending during the 1-year follow-up period compared with an unscreened population.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, low-value PSA tests for prostate cancer screening remained prevalent among Medicare Advantage plan enrollees and were associated with unnecessary expenditures due to avoidable care cascades. Innovative efforts from clinicians and policy makers, such as payment reforms, to reduce initial low-value care and avoidable care cascades are warranted to decrease harm, enhance equity, and improve health care efficiency.

Dataset Information

Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.

Prevention relevance

Publications

Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets