ArticleHealth affairs (Project Hope)2017
Value Of Waiving Coinsurance For Colorectal Cancer Screening In Medicare Beneficiaries.
Article in Health affairs (Project Hope), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implications of the initial Braidwood v. Becerra ruling for colorectal cancer outcomes: a modeling study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Eliminating Consumer Cost-Sharing for the Entire Prostate Cancer Screening Pathway.Urology practice · 2025Article
- Closing the Gap: Approaches to Improving Colorectal Surgery Care for the Uninsured and Underinsured.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025Review
- Redefining Cancer Screening Coverage-Screening to Diagnosis.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- The Cost to Breathe: Eliminating Cost Sharing Associated with Lung Cancer Screening.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2024Article
- Social Determinants of Health and the Link to Colorectal Cancer Outcomes.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
- Commentary: Health disparities across the cancer care continuum and implications for microsimulation modeling.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2023Article
- Impact of Eliminating Cost-Sharing by Medicare Beneficiaries for Follow-Up Colonoscopy After a Positive Stool-based Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.Cancer research communications · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Waiving Coinsurance for Follow-Up Colonoscopy after a Positive Stool-Based Colorectal Screening Test in a Medicare Population.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2022Article
- Life-years gained resulting from screening colonoscopy compared with follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based colorectal screening test.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Innovative Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
- Article
- Causes of Socioeconomic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer and Intervention Framework and Strategies.Gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Mailed FIT (fecal immunochemical test), navigation or patient reminders? Using microsimulation to inform selection of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening in Medicaid enrollees.Preventive medicine · 2019Article
- Changes in screening colonoscopy following Medicare reimbursement and cost-sharing changes.Health services research · 2019Article
- The impact of travel time on colorectal cancer stage at diagnosis in a privately insured population.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Data-Powered Participatory Decision Making: Leveraging Systems Thinking and Simulation to Guide Selection and Implementation of Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions.Cancer journal (Sudbury, Mass.)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening persist despite the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Medicare beneficiaries may face 20 percent coinsurance for a screening colonoscopy when the procedure includes the removal of polyps or follows a positive fecal screening test. Using an established microsimulation model, we estimated that waiving this coinsurance would result in 1.7 fewer colorectal cancer deaths (a decrease of 13 percent) and $17,000 higher colorectal cancer-related costs (an increase of 0.6 percent) for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services per 1,000 sixty-five-year-olds, assuming a 10-percentage-point increase in the rates of first colonoscopy screening, follow-up, and surveillance. If the rates did not change, waiving coinsurance would increase total costs by $51,000 (1.9 percent) per 1,000 sixty-five-year-olds. Estimated screening benefits were comparable when fecal testing was assumed to be the primary screening method. Moreover, waiving coinsurance would be cost-effective if the screening rate increased by 0.6 percentage points, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Thus, the waiver is likely to have a favorable balance of health and cost impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.