Medicare cost of colorectal cancer screening: CT colonography vs. optical colonoscopy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
To compare the Medicare population cost of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of average risk individuals by CT colonography (CTC) vs. optical colonoscopy (OC).Methods
The authors used Medicare claims data, fee schedules, established protocols, and other sources to estimate CTC and OC per-screen costs, including the costs of OC referrals for a subset of CTC patients. They then modeled and compared the Medicare costs of patients who complied with CTC and OC screening recommendations and tested alternative scenarios.Results
CTC is 29% less expensive than OC for the Medicare population in the base scenario. Although the CTC cost advantage is increased or reduced under alternative scenarios, it is always positive.Conclusion
CTC is a cost-effective CRC screening option for the Medicare population and will likely reduce Medicare expenditures for CRC screening.
SUBMITTER: Pyenson B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4628615 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Medicare cost of colorectal cancer screening: CT colonography vs. optical colonoscopy.
Pyenson Bruce B Pickhardt Perry J PJ Sawhney Tia Goss TG Berrios Michele M
Abdominal imaging 20151001 8
<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the Medicare population cost of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of average risk individuals by CT colonography (CTC) vs. optical colonoscopy (OC).<h4>Methods</h4>The authors used Medicare claims data, fee schedules, established protocols, and other sources to estimate CTC and OC per-screen costs, including the costs of OC referrals for a subset of CTC patients. They then modeled and compared the Medicare costs of patients who complied with CTC and OC screening recomm ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundComputerized tomographic (CT) colonography is a potential alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Its main advantage, a better safety profile, may be offset by its limitations: lower sensitivity, need for colonoscopy in cases where results are positive, and expense.MethodsWe performed an economic evaluation, using decision analysis, to compare CT colonography with colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in patients over 50 years of age. Three-year outcomes included number of colonoscopies, perforations and adenomas removed; deaths from perforation and from colorectal cancer from missed adenomas; and direct health care costs. The expected prevalence of adenomas, test performance characteristics of CT colonography and colonoscopy, and probability of colonoscopy complications and cancer from missed adenomas were derived from the literature. Costs were determined in detail locally.ResultsUsing the base-case assumptions, a strategy of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening would cost 2.27 million dollars extra per 100,000 patients screened; 3.78 perforation-related deaths would be avoided, but 4.11 extra deaths would occur from missed adenomas. Because screening with CT colonography would cost more and result in more deaths overall compared with colonoscopy, the latter remained the dominant strategy. Our results were sensitive to CT colonography's test performance characteristics, the malignant risk of missed adenomas, the risk of perforation and related death, the procedural costs and differences in screening adherence.InterpretationAt present, CT colonography cannot be recommended as a primary means of population-based colorectal cancer screening in Canada.
| S-EPMC1247700 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale and objectivesTo compare differences in Medicare costs 1 year after initial computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or initial optical colonoscopy (OC).Materials and methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic Medicare outpatients aged ≥ 66 years who received initial CTC (n = 531) or OC (n = 17,593) between January 2007 and December 2008; initial OC patients were matched on county of residence and year of screening. Outcomes included differences in total inpatient and outpatient Medicare costs 1 year after initial CTC or OC and differences in outpatient testing of potential findings in the colon, abdomen, pelvis, and lungs.ResultsHigher adjusted costs per patient were revealed in the year after initial CTC compared to initial OC for outpatient testing related to potential colonic ($50; 95% confidence interval [CI], $12-$88; P = .010) and extracolonic findings ($64; 95% CI, $23-$106; P = .002). However, there were no differences in adjusted total costs per patient in the year after either modality ($2065; 95% CI, $1672-$5803; P = .28). Similarly, adjusted costs did not differ between cohorts for inpatient ($267; 95% CI, $1017-$1550; P = .68) or outpatient care ($2828; 95% CI, $311-$5966; P = .08).ConclusionsDespite higher adjusted costs of outpatient testing potentially related to colonic and extracolonic findings among asymptomatic elderly patients 1 year after initial CTC compared to OC, we found no differences in adjusted total, inpatient, or outpatient costs between cohorts. Although Medicare does not cover screening CTC, our results suggest that these modalities generate comparable downstream costs to payers.
| S-EPMC4418202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) considered whether to reimburse computed tomographic colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer screening of Medicare enrollees. To help inform its decision, we evaluated the reimbursement rate at which CTC screening could be cost-effective compared with the colorectal cancer screening tests that are currently reimbursed by CMS and are included in most colorectal cancer screening guidelines, namely annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years in conjunction with annual FOBT, and colonoscopy every 10 years.MethodsWe used three independently developed microsimulation models to assess the health outcomes and costs associated with CTC screening and with currently reimbursed colorectal cancer screening tests among the average-risk Medicare population. We assumed that CTC was performed every 5 years (using test characteristics from either a Department of Defense CTC study or the National CTC Trial) and that individuals with findings of 6 mm or larger were referred to colonoscopy. We computed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the currently reimbursed screening tests and calculated the maximum cost per scan (ie, the threshold cost) for the CTC strategy to lie on the efficient frontier. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key parameters and assumptions.ResultsAssuming perfect adherence with all tests, the undiscounted number life-years gained from CTC screening ranged from 143 to 178 per 1000 65-year-olds, which was slightly less than the number of life-years gained from 10-yearly colonoscopy (152-185 per 1000 65-year-olds) and comparable to that from 5-yearly sigmoidoscopy with annual FOBT (149-177 per 1000 65-year-olds). If CTC screening was reimbursed at $488 per scan (slightly less than the reimbursement for a colonoscopy without polypectomy), it would be the most costly strategy. CTC screening could be cost-effective at $108-$205 per scan, depending on the microsimulation model used. Sensitivity analyses showed that if relative adherence to CTC screening was 25% higher than adherence to other tests, it could be cost-effective if reimbursed at $488 per scan.ConclusionsCTC could be a cost-effective option for colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees if the reimbursement rate per scan is substantially less than that for colonoscopy or if a large proportion of otherwise unscreened persons were to undergo screening by CTC.
| S-EPMC2923219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND & AIMS:Recommendations for surveillance after curative surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) include a 1-year post-resection abdominal-pelvic computed tomography (CT) scan and optical colonoscopy (OC). CT colonography (CTC), when used in CRC screening, effectively identifies colorectal polyps ?10 mm and cancers. We performed a prospective study to determine whether CTC, concurrent with CT, could substitute for OC in CRC surveillance. METHODS:Our study enrolled 231 patients with resected stage 0-III CRC, identified at 5 tertiary care academic centers. Approximately 1 year after surgery, participants underwent outpatient CTC plus CT, followed by same-day OC. CTC results were revealed after endoscopic visualization of sequential colonic segments, which were re-examined for discordant findings. The primary outcome was performance of CTC in the detection of colorectal adenomas and cancers using endoscopy as the reference standard. RESULTS:Of the 231 participants, 116 (50.2%) had polyps of any size or histology identified by OC, and 15.6% had conventional adenomas and/or serrated polyps ?6 mm. No intra-luminal cancers were detected. CTC detected patients with polyps of ?6 mm with 44.0% sensitivity (95% CI, 30.2-57.8) and 93.4% specificity (95% CI, 89.7-97.0). CTC detected polyps ?10 mm with 76.9% sensitivity (95% CI, 54.0-99.8) and 89.0% specificity (95% CI, 84.8-93.1). Similar values were found when only adenomatous polyps were considered. The negative predictive value of CTC for adenomas ?6 mm was 90.7% (95% CI, 86.7-94.5) and for adenomas ?10 mm the negative predictive value was 98.6% (95% CI, 97.0-100). CONCLUSIONS:In a CRC surveillance population 1 year following resection, CTC was inferior to OC for detecting patients with polyps ?6 mm. Clinical Trials.gov Registration Number: NCT02143115.
| S-EPMC5847443 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePost-operative surveillance strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) include periodic optical colonoscopy (OC) and abdominal-pelvic CT scan. Adherence with these recommendations is limited. For CRC screening, CT colonography (CTC) identifies larger adenomas and cancers nearly as well as OC. Most screening studies demonstrate that patients prefer CTC. However, CTC has never been compared to OC in the post-operative surveillance setting.MethodsWe hypothesized that CTC might represent an attractive substitute for the standard OC/CT scan combination. Here, 223 patients underwent CTC followed by same day OC 1 year after curative CRC resection.ResultsOf the 144/223 (64.6%) participants with a preference, 65.9% (95/144) preferred OC. This preference was more pronounced in women and in patients with polyps detected. No additional patient level factors significantly altered this primary result.ConclusionsIn contrast to CRC screening, this first study in CRC post-operative surveillance patients demonstrates a preference for OC. Assuming patient preference is an important determinant, introduction of CTC as a method to increase patient adherence with CRC surveillance is unlikely to be effective.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT02143115.
| S-EPMC7534185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking.ObjectiveTo estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021.InterventionInvitation to endoscopic screening.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial.ResultsThis analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.
| S-EPMC10905314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies assessing the sensitivity of both computed tomographic (CT) colonography and optical colonoscopy (OC) for colorectal cancer detection.Analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. The primary data source was the results of a detailed PubMed search from 1994 to 2009. Diagnostic studies evaluating CT colonography detection of colorectal cancer were assessed by using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, in particular requiring both OC and histologic confirmation of disease. Studies that also included a mechanism to assess true-positive versus false-negative diagnoses at OC (eg, segmental unblinding) were used to calculate OC sensitivity. Assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Potential bias was ascertained by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines. Specific CT colonography techniques were cataloged. Forest plots of per-patient sensitivity were produced on the basis of random-effect models. Potential bias across primary studies was assessed by using the I(2) statistic. Original study authors were contacted for data clarification when necessary.Forty-nine studies provided data on 11,151 patients with a cumulative colorectal cancer prevalence of 3.6% (414 cancers). The sensitivity of CT colonography for colorectal cancer was 96.1% (398 of 414; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.8%, 97.7%). No heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%) was detected. No cancers were missed at CT colonography when both cathartic and tagging agents were combined in the bowel preparation. The sensitivity of OC for colorectal cancer, derived from a subset of 25 studies including 9223 patients, was 94.7% (178 of 188; 95% CI: 90.4%, 97.2%). A moderate degree of heterogeneity (I(2) = 50%) was present.CT colonography is highly sensitive for colorectal cancer, especially when both cathartic and tagging agents are combined in the bowel preparation. Given the relatively low prevalence of colorectal cancer, primary CT colonography may be more suitable than OC for initial investigation of suspected colorectal cancer, assuming reasonable specificity.http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11101887/-/DC1.
| S-EPMC3079122 | biostudies-other
Project description:Many individuals have not received recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening before they become Medicare eligible at the age of 65. We aimed to estimate the long-term implications of increased CRC screening in the pre-Medicare population (50-64 y) on costs in the pre-Medicare and Medicare populations (65+ y).We used 2 independently developed microsimulation models [Microsimulation Screening Analysis Colon (MISCAN) and Simulation Model of CRC (SimCRC)] to project CRC screening and treatment costs under 2 scenarios, starting in 2010: "current trends" (60% of the population up-to-date with screening recommendations) and "enhanced participation" (70% up-to-date). The population was scaled to the projected US population for each year between 2010 and 2060. Costs per year were derived by age group (50-64 and 65+ y).By 2060, the discounted cumulative total costs in the pre-Medicare population were $35.7 and $28.1 billion higher with enhanced screening participation, than in the current trends scenario ($252.1 billion with MISCAN and $239.5 billion with SimCRC, respectively). Because of CRC treatment savings with enhanced participation, cumulative costs in the Medicare population were $18.3 and $32.7 billion lower (current trends: $423.5 billion with MISCAN and $372.8 billion with SimCRC). Over the 50-year time horizon an estimated 60% (MISCAN) and 89% (SimCRC) of the increased screening costs could be offset by savings in Medicare CRC treatment costs.Increased CRC screening participation in the pre-Medicare population could reduce CRC incidence and mortality, whereas the additional screening costs can be largely offset by long-term Medicare treatment savings.
| S-EPMC4467468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComputed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed.ObjectiveTo compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States.MethodsUsing retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies.ResultsIn 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services.ConclusionsThe use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.
| S-EPMC6306102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChildhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to the general population, especially those previously exposed to abdominal or pelvic radiation therapy (APRT). However, the benefits and costs of CRC screening in CCS are unclear. In this study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of early-initiated colonoscopy screening in CCS.MethodsWe adjusted a previously validated model of CRC screening in the US population (MISCAN-Colon) to reflect CRC and other-cause mortality risk in CCS. We evaluated 91 colonoscopy screening strategies varying in screening interval, age to start, and age to stop screening for all CCS combined and for those treated with or without APRT. Primary outcomes were CRC deaths averted (compared to no screening) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-years gained (LYG) was used to determine the optimal screening strategy.ResultsCompared to no screening, the US Preventive Services Task Force's average risk screening schedule prevented up to 73.2% of CRC deaths in CCS. The optimal strategy of screening every 10 years from age 40 to 60 years averted 79.2% of deaths, with ICER of $67 000/LYG. Among CCS treated with APRT, colonoscopy every 10 years from age 35 to 65 years was optimal (CRC deaths averted: 82.3%; ICER: $92 000/LYG), whereas among those not previously treated with APRT, screening from age 45 to 55 years every 10 years was optimal (CRC deaths averted: 72.7%; ICER: $57 000/LYG).ConclusionsEarly initiation of colonoscopy screening for CCS is cost-effective, especially among those treated with APRT.
| S-EPMC6855986 | biostudies-literature