美国老年妇女乳腺癌筛查的使用、成本和价值的变化

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Ilana Richman, Jessica B Long, Meghan E Lindsay, A Mark Fendrick, Kelly Kyanko, Cary P Gross
{"title":"美国老年妇女乳腺癌筛查的使用、成本和价值的变化","authors":"Ilana Richman, Jessica B Long, Meghan E Lindsay, A Mark Fendrick, Kelly Kyanko, Cary P Gross","doi":"10.1007/s11606-025-09778-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The clinical and economic impact of breast cancer screening varies based on the modality, frequency, and age of the screened population.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterize changes in use and cost of breast cancer screening for older women.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Serial cross-sectional study using data from SEER-Medicare, 2009-2019.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Women 67 and older enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service.</p><p><strong>Main measures: </strong>Screening use and cost by age, frequency, and modality. We further categorized screening as cost-effective or cost-ineffective based on published economic analyses rather than guidelines. Cost-effective screening included biennial mammography among women < age 80, while cost-ineffective screening included annual mammography, addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), screening ultrasound, and any screening among women 80 and older. We estimated total annual spending on screening in Medicare fee-for-service, inflated to 2019 dollars.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>Our sample included a mean of 229,683 (range 222,400- 244,793) Medicare beneficiaries annually. Biennial screening was stable among women 65-79, at 11.2% (95% CI 11.0-11.4) in 2009 and 11.9% (95% CI 11.7-12.0) in 2019. Annual screening was also stable at 32.5% (95% CI 32.3-32.7) in 2009 and 30.0% (95% CI 29.8-30.2) in 2019. Among women 80 and older, screening (annual or biennial) declined from 19% (95% CI 18.8-19.3) to 12.9% (95% CI 12.7-13.2). Between 2009-2019, use of DBT rose from 0% to 70.3% of screened women. Total spending on cost-effective screening rose from $569 million per year to $735 million per year, a 29% increase. Spending on cost-ineffective screening rose from $548 million to $1.025 billion, an 87% increase. By 2019, spending on cost-ineffective screening accounted for 58% of total spending.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Screening costs for older women have risen, driven by expenditures on technologies that may not be cost-effective. Reducing use of low value screening could result in savings that could be reallocated toward high value screening and follow up testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Changes in Use, Cost, and Value of Breast Cancer Screening Among Older Women in the US.\",\"authors\":\"Ilana Richman, Jessica B Long, Meghan E Lindsay, A Mark Fendrick, Kelly Kyanko, Cary P Gross\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11606-025-09778-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The clinical and economic impact of breast cancer screening varies based on the modality, frequency, and age of the screened population.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterize changes in use and cost of breast cancer screening for older women.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Serial cross-sectional study using data from SEER-Medicare, 2009-2019.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Women 67 and older enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service.</p><p><strong>Main measures: </strong>Screening use and cost by age, frequency, and modality. We further categorized screening as cost-effective or cost-ineffective based on published economic analyses rather than guidelines. Cost-effective screening included biennial mammography among women < age 80, while cost-ineffective screening included annual mammography, addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), screening ultrasound, and any screening among women 80 and older. We estimated total annual spending on screening in Medicare fee-for-service, inflated to 2019 dollars.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>Our sample included a mean of 229,683 (range 222,400- 244,793) Medicare beneficiaries annually. Biennial screening was stable among women 65-79, at 11.2% (95% CI 11.0-11.4) in 2009 and 11.9% (95% CI 11.7-12.0) in 2019. Annual screening was also stable at 32.5% (95% CI 32.3-32.7) in 2009 and 30.0% (95% CI 29.8-30.2) in 2019. Among women 80 and older, screening (annual or biennial) declined from 19% (95% CI 18.8-19.3) to 12.9% (95% CI 12.7-13.2). Between 2009-2019, use of DBT rose from 0% to 70.3% of screened women. Total spending on cost-effective screening rose from $569 million per year to $735 million per year, a 29% increase. Spending on cost-ineffective screening rose from $548 million to $1.025 billion, an 87% increase. By 2019, spending on cost-ineffective screening accounted for 58% of total spending.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Screening costs for older women have risen, driven by expenditures on technologies that may not be cost-effective. Reducing use of low value screening could result in savings that could be reallocated toward high value screening and follow up testing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of General Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of General Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-025-09778-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-025-09778-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:乳腺癌筛查的临床和经济影响因筛查人群的方式、频率和年龄而异。目的:了解老年妇女乳腺癌筛查使用和费用的变化。设计:采用2009-2019年SEER-Medicare数据的连续横断面研究。参与者:67岁及以上参加医疗保险服务收费的女性。主要措施:按年龄、频率和方式进行筛查的使用和费用。我们进一步根据已发表的经济分析而不是指导方针将筛查分类为成本效益或成本无效。主要结果:我们的样本平均每年包括229,683名(范围222,400- 244,793)医疗保险受益人。65-79岁女性的两年一次筛查稳定,2009年为11.2% (95% CI 11.0-11.4), 2019年为11.9% (95% CI 11.7-12.0)。年度筛查也稳定在2009年的32.5% (95% CI 32.3-32.7)和2019年的30.0% (95% CI 29.8-30.2)。在80岁及以上的妇女中,筛查(每年或两年一次)从19% (95% CI 18.8-19.3)下降到12.9% (95% CI 12.7-13.2)。2009年至2019年期间,接受筛查的妇女中使用DBT的比例从0%上升至70.3%。用于具有成本效益的筛查的总支出从每年5.69亿美元增加到每年7.35亿美元,增长了29%。用于成本低下的筛查的支出从5.48亿美元增加到10.25亿美元,增长了87%。到2019年,成本低下的筛查支出占总支出的58%。结论:老年妇女的筛查费用已经上升,这是由于在可能不具有成本效益的技术上的支出所致。减少低价值筛查的使用可以节省资金,这些资金可以重新分配给高价值筛查和后续测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Changes in Use, Cost, and Value of Breast Cancer Screening Among Older Women in the US.

Background: The clinical and economic impact of breast cancer screening varies based on the modality, frequency, and age of the screened population.

Objective: To characterize changes in use and cost of breast cancer screening for older women.

Design: Serial cross-sectional study using data from SEER-Medicare, 2009-2019.

Participants: Women 67 and older enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service.

Main measures: Screening use and cost by age, frequency, and modality. We further categorized screening as cost-effective or cost-ineffective based on published economic analyses rather than guidelines. Cost-effective screening included biennial mammography among women < age 80, while cost-ineffective screening included annual mammography, addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), screening ultrasound, and any screening among women 80 and older. We estimated total annual spending on screening in Medicare fee-for-service, inflated to 2019 dollars.

Key results: Our sample included a mean of 229,683 (range 222,400- 244,793) Medicare beneficiaries annually. Biennial screening was stable among women 65-79, at 11.2% (95% CI 11.0-11.4) in 2009 and 11.9% (95% CI 11.7-12.0) in 2019. Annual screening was also stable at 32.5% (95% CI 32.3-32.7) in 2009 and 30.0% (95% CI 29.8-30.2) in 2019. Among women 80 and older, screening (annual or biennial) declined from 19% (95% CI 18.8-19.3) to 12.9% (95% CI 12.7-13.2). Between 2009-2019, use of DBT rose from 0% to 70.3% of screened women. Total spending on cost-effective screening rose from $569 million per year to $735 million per year, a 29% increase. Spending on cost-ineffective screening rose from $548 million to $1.025 billion, an 87% increase. By 2019, spending on cost-ineffective screening accounted for 58% of total spending.

Conclusions: Screening costs for older women have risen, driven by expenditures on technologies that may not be cost-effective. Reducing use of low value screening could result in savings that could be reallocated toward high value screening and follow up testing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
749
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信