Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29904156›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2018

Contrasting Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Under Commercial Insurance vs. Medicare.

Uri Ladabaum, Ajitha Mannalithara, Joel V Brill, Zachary Levin, Kate M Bundorf

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on Real-World Data.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Uri LadabaumDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Predictive Health, Paradise Valley, AZ, USA. Department of Family, Community and Preventive Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Ajitha MannalitharaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Predictive Health, Paradise Valley, AZ, USA. Department of Family, Community and Preventive Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Joel V BrillDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Predictive Health, Paradise Valley, AZ, USA. Department of Family, Community and Preventive Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Zachary LevinDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Predictive Health, Paradise Valley, AZ, USA. Department of Family, Community and Preventive Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Kate M BundorfDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Predictive Health, Paradise Valley, AZ, USA. Department of Family, Community and Preventive Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Stanford University · USPredictive Science (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMost cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening assume Medicare payment rates and a lifetime horizon. Our aims were to examine the implications of differential payment levels and time horizons for commercial insurers vs. Medicare on the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening.

methodsWe used our validated Markov cohort simulation of CRC screening in the average risk US population to examine CRC screening at ages 50-64 under commercial insurance, and at ages 65-80 under Medicare, using a health-care sector perspective. Model outcomes included discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs per person, and incremental cost/QALY gained.

resultsLifetime costs/person were 20-44% higher when assuming commercial payment rates rather than Medicare rates for people under 65. Most of the substantial clinical benefit of screening at ages 50-64 was realized at ages ≥65. For commercial payers with a time horizon of ages 50-64, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) were cost-effective (<$61,000/QALY gained), but colonoscopy was costly (>$185,000/QALY gained). Medicare experienced substantial clinical benefits and cost-savings from screening done at ages <65, even if screening was not continued. Among those previously screened, continuing FOBT and FIT under Medicare was cost-saving and continuing colonoscopy was highly cost-effective (<$30,000/QALY gained), and initiating any screening in those previously unscreened was highly effective and cost-saving.

conclusionsModeling suggests that CRC screening is highly cost-effective over a lifetime even when considering higher payment rates by commercial payers vs. Medicare. Screening may appear relatively costly for commercial payers if only a time horizon of ages 50-64 is considered, but it is predicted to yield substantial clinical and economic benefits that accrue primarily at ages ≥65 under Medicare.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAgedAge FactorsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCommerceEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Care SectorHealth ExpendituresHumansMaleMarkov ChainsMass ScreeningMedicareMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID29904156
PMCPMC6768591
OpenAlexW2807935300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.