Sawhney Tia Goss, Pyenson Bruce S, Rotter David, Berrios Michele, Yee Judy
Healthcare Consultant and Actuary, Milliman, New York, NY.
Principal & Consulting Actuary, Milliman, and Commissioner of Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).
Am Health Drug Benefits. 2018 Oct;11(7):353-361.
Computed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed.
To compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States.
Using retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies.
In 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services.
The use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.
既往研究已证实计算机断层扫描(CT)结肠成像的有效性、其给患者带来的优势以及其在提高结直肠癌(CRC)筛查率方面的潜在作用,但对于美国商业保险人群而言,CT结肠成像相对于光学结肠镜检查是否具有成本优势尚未得到评估。
比较美国商业保险人群使用CT结肠成像或光学结肠镜检查进行CRC筛查的成本。
利用回顾性商业医疗保健索赔数据和同行评审研究,我们对CT结肠成像和光学结肠镜检查用于CRC筛查的成本进行了模拟多年的匹配病例比较。我们根据2016年Truven Health MarketScan商业数据库以及辅助服务(如肠道准备、麻醉、病理和并发症成本)估算了每次筛查的商业光学结肠镜检查成本。我们使用商业费用与医疗保险费用的比率制定了4种CT结肠成像每次筛查成本的情景,并根据与光学结肠镜检查相关时这些服务的支付者成本计算了辅助服务和后续成本。为了进行比较,我们使用从同行评审研究中获得的实际筛查间隔将每次筛查成本转换为每人每年的筛查成本。
2016年,商业支付者的平均光学结肠镜检查筛查成本为2033美元(N = 406,068),即每人每年筛查成本为340美元。在我们成本最高的CT结肠成像情景中,CT结肠成像的成本比光学结肠镜检查低22%,即每人每年筛查成本为265美元,这主要是因为其对患者而言无需麻醉且病理服务使用大幅减少。
与光学结肠镜检查相比,使用CT结肠成像进行CRC检测可提供有效的筛查、以患者为中心的优势以及更低的成本,并且可能对目前未接受筛查的商业健康保险人群特别有吸引力。如果CT结肠成像的可及性扩大以满足对其不断增加的需求,那么每次筛查年度CT结肠成像的成本可能比光学结肠镜检查低多达50%。