Dataset Information

The appropriateness of more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended in Medicare beneficiaries: a modeling study.

ABSTRACT: Many Medicare beneficiaries undergo more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended. Whether this is favorable for beneficiaries and efficient from a societal perspective is uncertain.To determine whether more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended is favorable for Medicare beneficiaries (ie, whether it results in a net health benefit) and whether it is efficient from a societal perspective (ie, whether the net health benefit justifies the additional resources required).Microsimulation modeling study of 65-year-old Medicare beneficiaries at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and with an average life expectancy who underwent a screening colonoscopy at 55 years with negative results.Colonoscopy screening as recommended by guidelines (ie, at 65 and 75 years) vs scenarios with a shorter screening interval (5 or 3 instead of 10 years) or in which screening was continued to 85 or 95 years.Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (measure of net health benefit); additional colonoscopies required per additional QALY gained and additional costs per additional QALY gained (measures of efficiency).Screening previously screened Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended resulted in only small increases in CRC deaths prevented and life-years gained. In comparison, the increases in colonoscopies performed and colonoscopy-related complications experienced were large. As a result, all scenarios of more intensive screening than recommended resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain (ie, a net harm). The only exception was shortening the screening interval from 10 to 5 years, which resulted in 0.7 QALYs gained per 1000 beneficiaries. However, this scenario was inefficient because it required no less than 909 additional colonoscopies and an additional $711?000 per additional QALY gained. Results in previously unscreened beneficiaries were slightly less unfavorable, but conclusions were identical.Screening Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended is not only inefficient from a societal perspective; often it is also unfavorable for those being screened. This study provides evidence and a clear rationale for clinicians and policy makers to actively discourage this practice.

SUBMITTER: van Hees F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4416697 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The appropriateness of more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended in Medicare beneficiaries: a modeling study.

van Hees Frank F Zauber Ann G AG Klabunde Carrie N CN Goede S Luuk SL Lansdorp-Vogelaar Iris I van Ballegooijen Marjolein M

JAMA internal medicine 20141001 10

<h4>Importance</h4>Many Medicare beneficiaries undergo more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended. Whether this is favorable for beneficiaries and efficient from a societal perspective is uncertain.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended is favorable for Medicare beneficiaries (ie, whether it results in a net health benefit) and whether it is efficient from a societal perspective (ie, whether the net health benefit justifies the add ...[more]

PMID: 25133641

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNo randomized, controlled trials of screening colonoscopy have been completed, and ongoing trials exclude persons aged 75 years or older. The Medicare program, however, reimburses screening colonoscopy without an upper age limit.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of screening colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) in persons aged 70 to 74 and those aged 75 to 79 years.DesignLarge-scale, population-based, prospective study. The observational data were used to emulate a target trial with 2 groups: colonoscopy screening and no screening.SettingUnited States.Participants1 355 692 Medicare beneficiaries (2004 to 2012) aged 70 to 79 years at average risk for CRC who used Medicare preventive services and had no previous diagnostic or surveillance colonoscopies in the past 5 years.Measurements8-year risk for CRC and 30-day risk for adverse events.ResultsIn beneficiaries aged 70 to 74 years, the 8-year risk for CRC was 2.19% (95% CI, 2.00% to 2.37%) in the screening colonoscopy group and 2.62% (CI, 2.56% to 2.67%) in the no-screening group (absolute risk difference, -0.42% [CI, -0.24% to -0.63%]). Among those aged 75 to 79 years, the 8-year risk for CRC was 2.84% (CI, 2.54% to 3.13%) in the screening colonoscopy group and 2.97% (CI, 2.92% to 3.03%) in the no-screening group (risk difference, -0.14% [CI, -0.41 to 0.16]). The excess 30-day risk for any adverse event in the colonoscopy group was 5.6 events per 1000 individuals (CI, 4.4 to 6.8) in the 70- to 74-year age group and 10.3 per 1000 (CI, 8.6 to 11.1) in the 75- to 79-year age group.LimitationCRC-specific mortality was not available, but CRC incidence and stage were studied at diagnosis.ConclusionScreening colonoscopy may have had a modest benefit in preventing CRC in beneficiaries aged 70 to 74 years and a smaller benefit in older beneficiaries. The risk for adverse events was low but greater among older persons.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.

Project description:ObjectivesThere is wide variation in long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) use nationwide, the most intensive and expensive post-acute care setting, although appropriateness of use is uncertain. Therefore, we examined the appropriateness and reasons for transfer in a high-use region, and how Medicare criteria for LTACH payment identifies appropriate transfers.DesignMulticenter retrospective observational cohort.Setting and participantsConsecutive hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries transferred to an LTACH from 2017 to 2018 from an accountable care organization in Texas.MethodsThe primary outcome was clinical appropriateness of transfer ascertained by 2 physician reviewers. We abstracted patients' characteristics and primary reasons for transfer. We examined the positive predictive value (PPV) of meeting Medicare criteria for full LTACH payment [preceding intensive care unit (ICU) stay ≥3 days or prolonged mechanical ventilation] for identifying appropriate transfers, and how this differed if Medicare adopted an 8-day minimum ICU stay criterion recommended by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).ResultsOf 105 LTACH transfers, 33 (31.4%) were clinically appropriate. The most common reason among appropriate transfers was respiratory care (58%), but 42% had other indications. Inappropriate transfers most commonly were for wound care (28%), intravenous medication infusions (28%), or patient (17%) and physician preference (26%). The PPV for meeting Medicare LTACH payment criteria was 55%. The PPV improved to 77% if Medicare adopted the 8-day minimum ICU stay criterion, with only a modest absolute increase in appropriate transfers not meeting the more stringent criteria (12% to 17%).Conclusions and implicationsTwo-thirds of LTACH transfers in a high-LTACH-use region are clinically inappropriate, and are most commonly transferred for wound care, intravenous infusions, or patient and physician preference. Medicare payment criteria modestly distinguished between appropriate and inappropriate transfers. Adoption of MedPAC's recommended 8-day minimum ICU stay criterion could safely reduce inappropriate transfers, although generalizability to low LTACH-use regions is uncertain.

Project description:Importance:Despite rapid diffusion of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), whether ACO enrollment results in observable changes in cancer screening remains unknown. Objective:To determine whether Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACO enrollment changes the appropriateness of screening for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants:For this population-based analysis of Medicare beneficiaries, we used Medicare data from 2007 through 2014 and evaluated changes in screening associated with ACO enrollment using differences-in-differences (DD) analyses. We then performed difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) analyses to determine whether observed changes in cancer screening associated with ACO enrollment were different across strata of appropriateness, defined using age (65-74 years vs ≥75 years) and predicted survival (top vs bottom quartile). Main Outcomes and Measures:Rates of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening measured yearly as a proportion of eligible Medicare beneficiaries undergoing relevant screening services. Results:Among Medicare beneficiaries, comprising 39 218 652 person-years before MSSP enrollment and 17 252 345 person-years after MSSP enrollment, breast cancer screening declined among both ACO (42.7% precontract, 38.1% postcontract) and non-ACO (37.3% precontract, 34.1% postcontract) populations. The adjusted rate of decline (DD) in the ACO population exceeded the non-ACO population by 0.79% (P < .001). This decline was most pronounced among elderly women (-2.1%), with minimal observed change among younger women (-0.26%). Baseline colorectal cancer screening rates were lower than those for breast cancer among both ACO (10.1% precontract, 10.3% postcontract) and non-ACO (9.2% precontract, 9.1% postcontract) populations. We observed an adjusted 0.24% (P = .03) increase in screening associated with ACO enrollment, most pronounced among younger Medicare beneficiaries (0.36%). For breast and colorectal cancer, we observed statistically significant differences in estimates of effect between age strata, suggesting that the ACO effect on cancer screening is mediated by age (DDD for both P < .001). Prostate cancer screening declined among ACO (35.1% precontract, 28.5% postcontract) and non-ACO (31.2% precontract, 25.7% postcontract) populations. The adjusted rate of decline in the ACO population exceeded that of the non-ACO population by 1.2%. We observed no difference in estimate of effect between age strata, suggesting that the ACO-mediated changes in prostate cancer screening are similar among younger and elderly men. Results characterizing appropriateness with predicted survival mirrored those when stratified by age. Conclusions and Relevance:Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO enrollment is associated with more appropriate breast and colorectal screening, although the magnitude of the observed ACO effect is modest in the early ACO experience.

Project description:ImportanceA growing proportion of the population is enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which typically offers additional benefits compared with traditional Medicare (TM).ObjectiveTo determine whether frailty and frailty trajectories differ between MA enrollees and TM enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2015-2016). Analyses were conducted from August 2023 to March 2024. Participants were community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older.ExposureEnrollment in MA vs TM.Main outcomes and measuresFrailty was calculated by a frailty index (FI) (range, 0-1, with higher values indicating greater frailty) and the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) score (range, 0-5, with higher values indicating greater frailty). Physical performance, including Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score (range, 0-12, with higher values indicating better performance), and gait speed (meters per second) were measured. The primary outcome was the difference in FI and FFP scores from the 2015 baseline assessment to the 2016 follow-up assessment. Secondary outcomes include the 1-year changes in SPPB and gait speed.ResultsThe final cohort consisted of 7063 participants (2775 [23.1%] aged >80 years; 4040 [54.7%] female), representing a sample of the 38.8 million beneficiaries. There were 2583 (35.0%) MA enrollees (13.6 million) and 4480 (65.0%) TM enrollees (25.2 million). At baseline, the FI score was similar between MA and TM enrollees (mean [SD], 0.22 [0.15] vs 0.21 [0.14]), although MA enrollees had worse phenotypic frailty (496 participants [15.2%] vs 811 participants [13.7%] considered frail by FFP score), SPPB scores (mean [SD], 6.91 [3.34] vs 7.21 [3.27]), and gait speed (0.79 [0.24] m/s vs 0.82 [0.23] m/s) than TM enrollees. One year later, there were no differences between MA and TM enrollees in the 1-year change in FI score (mean [SD], 0.016 [0.071] vs 0.014 [0.066]; adjusted mean difference, 0.001 [95% CI, -0.004 to 0.005]), FFP score (mean [SD], 0.017 [1.004] vs 0.007 [0.958]; adjusted mean difference, -0.009 [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049]), SPPB score (mean [SD], -0.144 [2.064] vs -0.211 [1.968]; adjusted mean difference, 0.068 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.212]), and gait speed (mean [SD], -0.0160 [0.148] m/s vs -0.007 [0.148] m/s; adjusted mean difference, -0.010 m/s [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049 m/s]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries from 2015, MA enrollees experienced similar declines in frailty over 1 year compared with TM enrollees. Future work should examine whether the specific types of services covered by health insurance can impact frailty and health trajectories for older adults.

Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to decrease the incidence of late-stage colorectal cancer, yet a substantial proportion of Americans do not receive screening. Those in rural areas may face barriers to colonoscopy services based on travel time, and previous studies have demonstrated lower screening among rural residents. Our purpose was to assess factors associated with late-stage CRC, and specifically to determine if longer travel time to colonoscopy was associated with late-stage CRC among an insured population in Iowa.SEER-Medicare data were used to identify individuals ages 65 to 84 years old diagnosed with CRC in Iowa from 2002 to 2009. The distance between the centroid of the ZIP code of residence and the ZIP code of colonoscopy was computed for each individual who had continuous Medicare fee-for-service coverage for a 3- to 4-month period prior to diagnosis, and a professional claim for colonoscopy within that time frame. Demographic characteristics and travel times were compared between those diagnosed with early- versus late-stage CRC. Also, demographic differences between those who had colonoscopy claims identified within 3-4 months prior to diagnosis (81%) were compared to patients with no colonoscopy claims identified (19%).A total of 5,792 subjects met inclusion criteria; 31% were diagnosed with early-stage versus 69% with late-stage CRC. Those divorced or widowed (vs married) were more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage CRC (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.06-1.37). Travel time was not associated with diagnosis of late-stage CRC.Among a Medicare-insured population, there was no relationship between travel time to colonoscopy and disease stage at diagnosis. It is likely that factors other than distance to colonoscopy present more pertinent barriers to screening in this insured population. Additional research should be done to determine reasons for nonadherence to screening among those with access to CRC screening services, given that over two-thirds of these insured individuals were diagnosed with late-stage CRC.

Dataset Information

The appropriateness of more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended in Medicare beneficiaries: a modeling study.

Publications

The appropriateness of more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended in Medicare beneficiaries: a modeling study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets