Background

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.

Objective

To estimate the aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States in 2010 and compare the costs of policy recommendations by professional organizations.

Design

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).

Setting

United States.

Patients

Women aged 40 to 85 years.

Intervention

Mammography annually, biennially, or following USPSTF guidelines.

Measurements

Cost of screening per year, using Medicare reimbursements.

Results

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.

Limitation

Cost estimates and assumptions used in the model were conservative.

Conclusion

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.

Primary funding source

University of California and the Safeway Foundation.

Background

Detection of cystic lesions of the pancreas has outpaced our ability to stratify low-grade cystic lesions from those at greater risk for pancreatic cancer, raising a concern for overtreatment.

Methods

We developed a Markov decision model to determine the cost-effectiveness of guideline-based management for asymptomatic pancreatic cysts. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year gained and survival were calculated for current management guidelines. A sensitivity analysis estimated the effect on cost-effectiveness and mortality if overtreatment of low-grade cysts is avoided, and the sensitivity and specificity thresholds required of methods of cyst stratification to improve costs expended.

Results

"Surveillance" using current management guidelines had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $171,143/quality adjusted life year compared with no surveillance or operative treatment ("do nothing"). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for surveillance decreases to $80,707/quality adjusted life year if the operative overtreatment of low-grade cysts was avoided. Assuming a societal willingness-to-pay of $100,000/quality adjusted life year, the diagnostic specificity for high-risk cysts must be >67% for surveillance to be preferred over surgery and "do nothing." Changes in sensitivity alone cannot make surveillance cost-effective. Most importantly, survival in surveillance is worse than "do nothing" for 3 years after cyst diagnosis, although long-term survival is improved. The disadvantage is eliminated when overtreatment of low-grade cysts is avoided.

Conclusion

Current management of pancreatic cystic lesions is not cost-effective and may increase mortality owing to overtreatment of low-grade cysts. The specificity for risk stratification for high-risk cysts must be greater than 67% to make surveillance cost-effective.

Introduction

CollaboRATE is a brief patient survey focused on shared decision making. This paper aims to (i) provide insight on facilitators and challenges to implementing a real-time patient survey and (ii) evaluate CollaboRATE scores and response rates across multiple clinical settings with varied patient populations.

Method

All adult patients at three United States primary care practices were eligible to complete CollaboRATE post-visit. To inform key learnings, we aggregated all mentions of unanticipated decisions, problems and administration errors from field notes and email communications. Mixed-effects logistic regression evaluated the impact of site, clinician, patient age and patient gender on the CollaboRATE score.

Results

While CollaboRATE score increased only slightly with increasing patient age (OR 1.018, 95% CI 1.014-1.021), female patient gender was associated with significantly higher CollaboRATE scores (OR 1.224, 95% CI 1.073-1.397). Clinician also predicts CollaboRATE score (random effect variance 0.146). Site-specific factors such as clinical workflow and checkout procedures play a key role in successful in-clinic implementation and are significantly related to CollaboRATE scores, with Site 3 scoring significantly higher than Site 1 (OR 1.759, 95% CI 1.216 to 2.545) or Site 2 (z=-2.71, 95% CI -1.114 to -0.178).

Discussion

This study demonstrates that CollaboRATE can be used in diverse primary care settings. A clinic's workflow plays a crucial role in implementation. Patient experience measurement risks becoming a burden to both patients and administrators. Episodic use of short measurement tools could reduce this burden.