Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35768200›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2022

Cost-Effectiveness of Waiving Coinsurance for Follow-Up Colonoscopy after a Positive Stool-Based Colorectal Screening Test in a Medicare Population.

A Mark Fendrick, David Lieberman, Vahab Vahdat, Jing Voon Chen, A Burak Ozbay, Paul J Limburg

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

A Mark FendrickDivision of General Medicine, Departments of Internal Medicine and Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0002-7734-6742
David LiebermanDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.ORCID 0000-0002-1073-5401
Vahab VahdatExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin.ORCID 0000-0001-7831-7567
Jing Voon ChenExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin.ORCID 0000-0003-3632-6806
A Burak OzbayExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin.ORCID 0000-0002-8624-6313
Paul J LimburgDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0002-2428-5675
Exact Sciences (United States) · USMayo Clinic · USOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Commercial insurance covers a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive colorectal cancer-screening test with no patient cost-sharing. Instituting a similar policy for Medicare beneficiaries may increase screening adherence and improve outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening was compared across adherence scenarios that assumed Medicare coinsurance status quo (20% for follow-up colonoscopy) or waived coinsurance. The CRC-AIM model simulated previously unscreened eligible Medicare beneficiaries undergoing stool-based colorectal cancer screening at age 65 for 10 years. Medicare costs, colorectal cancer cases, colorectal cancer-related deaths, life-years gained (LYG), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were estimated versus no screening. Scenario 1 (S1) assumed 20% coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy. Scenario 2 (S2) assumed waived coinsurance without adherence changes. Scenarios 3-7 (S3-S7) assumed that waiving coinsurance increased real-world stool-based screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence by 5% or 10%. Sensitivity analyses assumed 1%-4% increased adherence. Cost-effectiveness threshold was ≤$100,000/QALY. Waiving coinsurance without adherence changes (S2) did not affect outcomes versus S1. S3-S7 versus S1 over 10 years estimated up to 3.6 fewer colorectal cancer cases/1,000 individuals, up to 2.1 fewer colorectal cancer deaths, up to 20.7 more LYG, and had comparable total costs per-patient (≤$6,478 vs. $6,449, respectively) as reduced colorectal cancer medical costs offset increased screening and colonoscopy costs. In sensitivity analyses, any increase in adherence after waiving coinsurance was cost-effective and increased LYG. In simulated Medicare beneficiaries, waiving coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test improved outcomes and was cost-effective when assumed to modestly increase colorectal cancer screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test is necessary to complete the colorectal cancer-screening process. This analysis demonstrated that in a simulated Medicare population, waiving coinsurance for a follow-up colonoscopy improved estimated outcomes and was cost-effective when it was assumed that waiving the coinsurance modestly increased screening adherence. See related Spotlight, p. 641.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsDeductibles and CoinsuranceAgedColonoscopyCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFollow-Up StudiesHumansMass ScreeningMedicareOccult BloodUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35768200
PMCPMC9530644
OpenAlexW4283716031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.