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。
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.
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.