Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: Controversy exists over how often and at what age mammography screening should be implemented. Given that evidence supports less frequent screening, the cost differences among advocated screening policies should be better understood.To estimate the aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States in 2010 and compare the costs of policy recommendations by professional organizations.A model was developed to estimate the cost of mammography screening in 2010 and 3 screening strategies: annual (ages 40 to 84 years), biennial (ages 50 to 69 years), and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines (biennial for those aged 50 to 74 years and personalized based on risk for those younger than 50 years and based on comorbid conditions for those 75 years and older).United States.Women aged 40 to 85 years.Mammography annually, biennially, or following USPSTF guidelines.Cost of screening per year, using Medicare reimbursements.The estimated cost of mammography screening in the United States in 2010 was $7.8 billion, with approximately 70% of women screened. The simulated cost of screening 85% of women was $10.1 billion, $2.6 billion, and $3.5 billion for annual, biennial, and USPSTF guidelines, respectively. The largest drivers of cost (in order) were screening frequency, percentage of women screened, cost of mammography, percentage of women screened with digital mammography, and percentage of mammography recalls.Cost estimates and assumptions used in the model were conservative.The cost of mammography varies by at least $8 billion per year on the basis of screening strategy. The USPSTF guidelines are based on the scientific evidence to date to maximize patient benefit and minimize harm but also result in far more effective use of resources.University of California and the Safeway Foundation.

SUBMITTER: O'Donoghue C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4142190 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

O'Donoghue Cristina C Eklund Martin M Ozanne Elissa M EM Esserman Laura J LJ

Annals of internal medicine 20140201 3

<h4>Background</h4>Controversy exists over how often and at what age mammography screening should be implemented. Given that evidence supports less frequent screening, the cost differences among advocated screening policies should be better understood.<h4>Objective</h4>To estimate the aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States in 2010 and compare the costs of policy recommendations by professional organizations.<h4>Design</h4>A model was developed to estimate the cost of mammog ...[more]

PMID: 24658691

Similar Datasets

Project description:To examine whether U.S. radiologists' interpretive volume affects their screening mammography performance.Annual interpretive volume measures (total, screening, diagnostic, and screening focus [ratio of screening to diagnostic mammograms]) were collected for 120 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) who interpreted 783?965 screening mammograms from 2002 to 2006. Volume measures in 1 year were examined by using multivariate logistic regression relative to screening sensitivity, false-positive rates, and cancer detection rate the next year. BCSC registries and the Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active or passive consenting processes and a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality and other protections for participating women, physicians, and facilities. All procedures were compliant with the terms of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.Mean sensitivity was 85.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.7%, 86.6%) and was significantly lower for radiologists with a greater screening focus (P = .023) but did not significantly differ by total (P = .47), screening (P = .33), or diagnostic (P = .23) volume. The mean false-positive rate was 9.1% (95% CI: 8.1%, 10.1%), with rates significantly higher for radiologists who had the lowest total (P = .008) and screening (P = .015) volumes. Radiologists with low diagnostic volume (P = .004 and P = .008) and a greater screening focus (P = .003 and P = .002) had significantly lower false-positive and cancer detection rates, respectively. Median invasive tumor size and proportion of cancers detected at early stages did not vary by volume.Increasing minimum interpretive volume requirements in the United States while adding a minimal requirement for diagnostic interpretation could reduce the number of false-positive work-ups without hindering cancer detection. These results provide detailed associations between mammography volumes and performance for policymakers to consider along with workforce, practice organization, and access issues and radiologist experience when reevaluating requirements.

Project description:Rapid sequence induction and intubation (RSII) is a technique commonly used to resist regurgitation of gastric contents and protect the airway. A modification of this technique is implemented in certain clinical circumstances. However, there is currently no standard definition for a modified RSII. Therefore, we surveyed clinicians at academic centers across the United States to establish a working definition of a modified RSII as well as the clinical scenarios in which it is being used.A survey was created that queried the use and definition of modified RSII, and validated with test respondents. We then mailed the survey to all 131 anesthesia residency training programs across the United States. Logistic regression models were created to estimate the percentage of affirmative responses among respondents that performed modified RSII procedures and answered survey items in a consistent manner. Similar quantities were calculated by physician status (resident and attending).Four hundred ninety surveys were received from 58 institutions (44% institution response rate); 93% of respondents reported using a modified RSII, and of those 85% consistently completed the survey instrument. A majority of respondents (71%, CI: 63%-77%) reported administering oxygen before anesthesia induction, applying cricoid pressure, and attempting to ventilate the lungs via a facemask before securing the airway. Respondents noted that they would use a modified RSII procedure if the patient were either moderately or morbidly obese (each ?59%, 53%-64%), had a history but no current symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (52%, 46%-57%), had a hiatal hernia (42%, 36%-48%) or were a trauma patient who had been NPO for at least 8 h (39%, 33%-45%). Similar RSII results were obtained when repeating the analysis on the subset that did not enforce the consistency requirements.Based on our survey we have established three defining features of a modified RSII: (1) oxygen administration before induction; (2) the use of cricoid pressure; and (3) an attempt to ventilate the patient's lungs before securing the airway. Although this definition seems intuitively obvious, no previous work has tested whether it is commonly accepted.

Project description:BackgroundThe cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden.DesignMarkov microsimulation model.Data sourcesSEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Target populationU.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveNational health payer.InterventionScreening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer death, survival, and costs.Results of base-case analysisExtending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer.Results of sensitivity analysisCosts per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography.LimitationNo randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs.ConclusionAlthough annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets