The Cost of Breast Cancer Screening in the Medicare Population | Breast Cancer | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Bach PB. Limits on Medicare's ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs.  N Engl J Med. 2009;360(6):626-63319176475PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Bach PB. Costs of cancer care: a view from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(2):187-19017210938PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Warren JL, Yabroff KR, Meekins A, Topor M, Lamont EB, Brown ML. Evaluation of trends in the cost of initial cancer treatment.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(12):888-89718544740PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Koroukian SM, Bakaki PM, Schluchter MD, Owusu C. Treatment and survival patterns in relation to multimorbidity in patients with locoregional breast and colorectal cancer.  J Geriatr Oncol. 2011;2(3):200-20821785664PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L.US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the US Preventive Services Task Force.  Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):727-737, W237-4219920273PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Fenton JJ, Foote SB, Green P, Baldwin LM. Diffusion of computer-aided mammography after mandated Medicare coverage.  Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(11):987-98920548013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Rao VM, Levin DC, Parker L, Cavanaugh B, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH. How widely is computer-aided detection used in screening and diagnostic mammography?  J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(10):802-80520889111PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Noble M, Bruening W, Uhl S, Schoelles K. Computer-aided detection mammography for breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis.  Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;279(6):881-89019023581PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D,  et al; ACRIN 6666 Investigators.  Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk.  JAMA. 2012;307(13):1394-140422474203PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA,  et al.  Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination.  JAMA. 2004;292(11):1317-132515367553PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK,  et al; MARIBS Study Group.  Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS).  Lancet. 2005;365(9473):1769-177815910949PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC,  et al.  Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8469-847616293877PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C,  et al; Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.  N Engl J Med. 2004;351(5):427-43715282350PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB,  et al; ACRIN 6666 Investigators.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.  JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151-216318477782PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Potosky AL, Riley GF, Lubitz JD, Mentnech RM, Kessler LG. Potential for cancer related health services research using a linked Medicare-tumor registry database.  Med Care. 1993;31(8):732-7488336512PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population.  Med Care. 2002;40(8):(suppl)  IV-3-IV-1812187163PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.  Med Care. 1998;36(1):8-279431328PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P,  et al.  Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data.  Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130-113916224307PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, Warren JL. Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(12):1258-126711146273PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Virnig BA, Warren JL, Cooper GS, Klabunde CN, Schussler N, Freeman J. Studying radiation therapy using SEER-Medicare-linked data.  Med Care. 2002;40(8):(suppl)  IV-49-IV-5412187168PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Du X, Freeman JL, Goodwin JS. Information on radiation treatment in patients with breast cancer: the advantages of the linked Medicare and SEER data: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(5):463-47010360342PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. 3rd Ed. Vols 1-3. Los Angeles, CA: Practice Management Information Corp; 1991
23.
Buck CJ. 2002 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System, Level II. Vol 1. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Co; 2002
24.
Kirschner CG, Edwards NK, May DM,  et al.  Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology. 4th ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1991
25.
Anderson CA, Beebe M, Dalton JA,  et al.  Current Procedural Terminology CPT 2002. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2002
26.
Smith-Bindman R, Quale C, Chu PW, Rosenberg R, Kerlikowske K. Can Medicare billing claims data be used to assess mammography utilization among women ages 65 and older?  Med Care. 2006;44(5):463-47016641665PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Brown ML, Riley GF, Schussler N, Etzioni R. Estimating health care costs related to cancer treatment from SEER-Medicare data.  Med Care. 2002;40(8):(suppl)  IV-104-IV-11712187175PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Burkhardt JH, Sunshine JH. Core-needle and surgical breast biopsy: comparison of three methods of assessing cost.  Radiology. 1999;212(1):181-18810405740PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Riley GF, Potosky AL, Lubitz JD, Kessler LG. Medicare payments from diagnosis to death for elderly cancer patients by stage at diagnosis.  Med Care. 1995;33(8):828-8417637404PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Warren JL, Brown ML, Fay MP, Schussler N, Potosky AL, Riley GF. Costs of treatment for elderly women with early-stage breast cancer in fee-for-service settings.  J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(1):307-31611773184PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Yabroff KR, Lamont EB, Mariotto A,  et al.  Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(9):630-64118445825PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Information Services.  Medicare Enrollment Table 2.2: Total, Fee-for-Service and Managed Care Enrollees, by Demographic Characteristics as of July, 2007Bethesda, MD: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; 2008
33.
 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results. (SEER) Program. www.seer.cancer.gov. SEER*Stat Database: Incidence - SEER 17 Regs Research Data + Hurricane Katrina Impacted Louisiana Cases, Nov 2010 Sub (2000-2008) <Katrina/Rita Population Adjustment> - Linked To County Attributes: Total US, 1969-2009 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2011 (updated October 28, 2011), based on the November 2010 submission
34.
Dartmouth Medical School.  Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Publishing; 1996
35.
Trustees of Dartmouth College.  Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. Downloads, Crosswalks, Zip Code Crosswalks 1995-2010 2011; http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/tools/downloads.aspx. Accessed September 29, 2011
36.
Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE,  et al.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(3):671-67712185042PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.  Radiology. 2007;244(3):708-71717709826PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Taylor P, Potts HWW. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate.  Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(6):798-80718353630PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Kalager M, Adami H-O, Bretthauer M, Tamimi RM. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program.  Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):491-49922473436PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ,  et al; DMIST Investigators Group.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.  Radiology. 2008;246(2):376-38318227537PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Poplack SP, Carney PA, Weiss JE, Titus-Ernstoff L, Goodrich ME, Tosteson AN. Screening mammography: costs and use of screening-related services.  Radiology. 2005;234(1):79-8515618376PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Bach PB, Guadagnoli E, Schrag D, Schussler N, Warren JL. Patient demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in the SEER-Medicare database applications and limitations.  Med Care. 2002;40(8):(suppl)  IV-19-IV-2512187164PubMedGoogle Scholar
Original Investigation
Health Care Reform
Feb 11, 2013

The Cost of Breast Cancer Screening in the Medicare Population

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center (Drs Gross, Ross, Wang, Killelea, Chagpar, and Ma and Ms Long), Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center and Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine (Drs Gross and Ross and Ms Long), Section of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine (Dr Abu-Khalaf), Department of Epidemiology and Public Health (Drs Wang and Ma), and Department of Surgery (Drs Killelea and Chagpar), Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven; and Departments of Population Health and Medicine (Dr Gold), New York University School of Medicine and New York University Cancer Institute, New York.

JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(3):220-226. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1397
Abstract

Background Little is known about the cost to Medicare of breast cancer screening or whether regional-level screening expenditures are associated with cancer stage at diagnosis or treatment costs, particularly because newer breast cancer screening technologies, like digital mammography and computer-aided detection (CAD), have diffused into the care of older women.

Methods Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare database, we identified 137 274 women ages 66 to 100 years who had not had breast cancer and assessed the cost to fee-for-service Medicare of breast cancer screening and workup during 2006 to 2007. For women who developed cancer, we calculated initial treatment cost. We then assessed screening-related cost at the Hospital Referral Region (HRR) level and evaluated the association between regional expenditures and workup test utilization, cancer incidence, and treatment costs.

Results In the United States, the annual costs to fee-for-service Medicare for breast cancer screening-related procedures (comprising screening plus workup) and treatment expenditures were $1.08 billion and $1.36 billion, respectively. For women 75 years or older, annual screening-related expenditures exceeded $410 million. Age-standardized screening-related cost per beneficiary varied more than 2-fold across regions (from $42 to $107 per beneficiary); digital screening mammography and CAD accounted for 65% of the difference in screening-related cost between HRRs in the highest and lowest quartiles of cost. Women residing in HRRs with high screening costs were more likely to be diagnosed as having early-stage cancer (incidence rate ratio, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.40-2.26]). There was no significant difference in the cost of initial cancer treatment per beneficiary between the highest and lowest screening cost HRRs ($151 vs $115; P = .20).

Conclusions The cost to Medicare of breast cancer screening exceeds $1 billion annually in the fee-for-service program. Regional variation is substantial and driven by the use of newer and more expensive technologies; it is unclear whether higher screening expenditures are achieving better breast cancer outcomes.

×