Patient Cost-Sharing and Utilization of Breast Cancer Diagnostic Imaging by Patients Undergoing Subsequent Testing After a Screening Mammogram.

Importance: Out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) have been largely eliminated for screening mammography. However, patients still face OOPCs when undergoing subsequent diagnostic tests after the initial screening, which represents a potential barrier to those who require follow-up testing after initial testing. Objective: To examine the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after undergoing a screening mammogram. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used medical claims from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, a commercial claims database derived from a database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The large commercially insured cohort included female patients aged 40 years or older with no prior history of breast cancer undergoing a screening mammogram examination. Data were collected from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, and analysis was conducted from January 2021 to September 2022. Exposures: A k-means clustering machine learning algorithm was used to classify patient insurance plans by dominant cost-sharing mechanism. Plan types were then ranked by OOPCs. Main Outcomes and Measures: A multivariable 2-part hurdle regression model was used to examine the association between patient OOPCs and the number and type of diagnostic breast services undergone by patients observed to undergo subsequent testing. Results: In our sample, 230 845 women (220 023 [95.3%] aged 40 to 64 years; 16 810 [7.3%] Black, 16 398 [7.1%] Hispanic, and 164 702 [71.3%] White) underwent a screening mammogram in 2016. These patients were covered by 22 828 distinct insurance plans associated with 6 025 741 enrollees and 44 911 473 distinct medical claims. Plans dominated by coinsurance were found to have the lowest mean (SD) OOPCs ($945 [$1456]), followed by balanced plans ($1017 [$1386]), plans dominated by copays ($1020 [$1408]), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1186 [$1522]). Women underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast imaging procedures in dominantly copay (24 [95% CI, 11-37] procedures per 1000 women) and dominantly deductible (16 [95% CI, 5-28] procedures per 1000 women) plans compared with coinsurance plans. Patients from all plan types underwent fewer breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans than patients in the lowest OOPC plan (balanced, 5 [95% CI, 2-12] MRIs per 1000 women; copay, 6 [95% CI, 3-6] MRI per 100 women; deductible, 6 [95% CI, 3-9] MRIs per 1000 women. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite policies designed to remove financial barriers to access for breast cancer screening, significant financial barriers remain for women at risk of breast cancer.

Integrative Diagnostics: The Time Is Now-A Report From the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology.

Enormous recent progress in diagnostic testing can enable more accurate diagnosis and improved clinical outcomes. Yet these tests are increasingly challenging and frustrating; the volume and diversity of results may overwhelm the diagnostic acumen of even the most dedicated and experienced clinician. Because they are gathered and processed within the "silo" of each diagnostic discipline, diagnostic data are fragmented, and the electronic health record does little to synthesize new and existing data into usable information. Therefore, despite great promise, diagnoses may still be incorrect, delayed, or never made. Integrative diagnostics represents a vision for the future, wherein diagnostic data, together with clinical data from the electronic health record, are aggregated and contextualized by informatics tools to direct clinical action. Integrative diagnostics has the potential to identify correct therapies more quickly, modify treatment when appropriate, and terminate treatment when not effective, ultimately decreasing morbidity, improving outcomes, and avoiding unnecessary costs. Radiology, laboratory medicine, and pathology already play major roles in medical diagnostics. Our specialties can increase the value of our examinations by taking a holistic approach to their selection, interpretation, and application to the patient's care pathway. We have the means and rationale to incorporate integrative diagnostics into our specialties and guide its implementation in clinical practice.

Breast Cancer Disparities Through the Lens of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose of Review: The emergency medicine and critical care needs of the COVID-19 pandemic forced a sudden and dramatic disruption of cancer screening and treatment programs in the USA during the winter and spring of 2020. This review commentary addresses the impact of the pandemic on racial/ethnic minorities such as African Americans and Hispanic-Latina Americans, with a focus on factors related to breast cancer. Recent Findings: African Americans and Hispanic-Latina Americans experienced disproportionately higher morbidity and mortality from COVID-19; many of the same socioeconomic and tumor biology/genetic factors that explain breast cancer disparities are likely to account for COVID-19 outcome disparities. Summary: The breast cancer clinical and research community should partner with public health experts to ensure participation of diverse patients in COVID-19 treatment trials and vaccine programs and to overcome COVID-19-related breast health management delays that are likely to have been magnified among African Americans and Hispanic-Latina Americans.

The impact of scaling up access to treatment and imaging modalities on global disparities in breast cancer survival: a simulation-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Female breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world, with wide variations in reported survival by country. Women in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in particular face several barriers to breast cancer services, including diagnostics and treatment. We aimed to estimate the potential impact of scaling up the availability of treatment and imaging modalities on breast cancer survival globally, together with improvements in quality of care. METHODS: For this simulation-based analysis, we used a microsimulation model of global cancer survival, which accounts for the availability and stage-specific survival impact of specific treatment modalities (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, and targeted therapy), imaging modalities (ultrasound, x-ray, CT, MRI, PET, and single-photon emission computed tomography [SPECT]), and quality of cancer care, to simulate 5-year net survival for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in 200 countries and territories in 2018. We calibrated the model to empirical data on 5-year net breast cancer survival in 2010-14 from CONCORD-3. We evaluated the potential impact of scaling up specific imaging and treatment modalities and quality of care to the mean level of high-income countries, individually and in combination. We ran 1000 simulations for each policy intervention and report the means and 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for all model outcomes. FINDINGS: We estimate that global 5-year net survival for women diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018 was 67·9% (95% UI 62·9-73·4) overall, with an almost 25-times difference between low-income (3·5% [0·4-10·0]) and high-income (87·0% [85·6-88·4]) countries. Among individual treatment modalities, scaling up access to surgery alone was estimated to yield the largest survival gains globally (2·7% [95% UI 0·4-8·3]), and scaling up CT alone would have the largest global impact among imaging modalities (0·5% [0·0-2·0]). Scaling up a package of traditional modalities (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, ultrasound, and x-ray) could improve global 5-year net survival to 75·6% (95% UI 70·6-79·4), with survival in low-income countries improving from 3·5% (0·4-10·0) to 28·6% (4·9-60·1). Adding concurrent improvements in quality of care could further improve global 5-year net survival to 78·2% (95% UI 74·9-80·4), with a substantial impact in low-income countries, improving net survival to 55·3% (42·2-67·8). Comprehensive scale-up of access to all modalities and improvements in quality of care could improve global 5-year net survival to 82·3% (95% UI 79·3-85·0). INTERPRETATION: Comprehensive scale-up of treatment and imaging modalities, and improvements in quality of care could improve global 5-year net breast cancer survival by nearly 15 percentage points. Scale-up of traditional modalities and quality-of-care improvements could achieve 70% of these total potential gains, with substantial impact in LMICs, providing a more feasible pathway to improving breast cancer survival in these settings even without the benefits of future investments in targeted therapy and advanced imaging. FUNDING: Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, and National Cancer Institute P30 Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

A lactation credit model to support breastfeeding in radiology: The new gold standard to support "liquid gold".

Breastfeeding has medical and economic benefits and providing an environment supportive of breastfeeding should be a priority in radiology to promote diversity, equity and inclusion. Most breastfeeding radiologists do not meet their breastfeeding goals and inadequate time for pumping is the most commonly cited barrier. The UCSF lactation credit model sets the standard for breastfeeding support in medicine by providing protected time without productivity penalties and it should be adapted and implemented across radiology practices to more fully support breastfeeding radiologists and radiation oncologists.

Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally.

Tackling impostor syndrome: A multidisciplinary approach.

What is Imposter Syndrome, whom does it affect, and when, and why is it important to recognize? In this multidisciplinary article, the phenomenon is defined and discussed by a psychiatrist, followed by strategic advice by a radiologist, interventional radiologist and radiation oncologist.

Assessment of the Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network to Reduce Medical Imaging Overutilization: A Multipractice Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether participation in Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) results in a reduction of inappropriate imaging in a wide range of real-world clinical environments. METHODS: This quality improvement study used imaging data from 27 US academic and private practices that completed R-SCAN projects between January 25, 2015, and August 8, 2018. Each project consisted of baseline, educational (intervention), and posteducational phases. Baseline and posteducational imaging cases were rated as high, medium, or low value on the basis of validated ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Four cohorts were generated: a comprehensive cohort that included all eligible practices and three topic-specific cohorts that included practices that completed projects of specific Choosing Wisely topics (pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain). Changes in the proportion of high-value cases after R-SCAN intervention were assessed for each cohort using generalized estimating equation logistic regression, and changes in the number of low-value cases were analyzed using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Use of R-SCAN in the comprehensive cohort resulted in a greater proportion of high-value imaging cases (from 57% to 79%; odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-4.86; P = .001) and 345 fewer low-value cases after intervention (incidence rate ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.70; P < .001). Similar changes in proportion of high-value cases and number of low-value cases were found for the pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: R-SCAN participation was associated with a reduced likelihood of inappropriate imaging and is thus a promising tool to enhance the quality of patient care and promote wise use of health care resources.

The economics of quality and safety in radiology: Accreditation programs and landmark legislation.

Quality and patient safety are essential to the practice of radiology. "Quality is our image" is the slogan for the American College of Radiology (ACR), which has embraced the quality and safety movement as a central tenet. The impact of advances in radiology on diagnosis and management of complex medical disorders cannot be understated. Nevertheless, these revolutionary technologies do come at a cost. Increasing utilization of advanced imaging in emergency departments throughout the country poses challenges both in terms of appropriate use and management of radiation dose. The indispensable place advanced imaging plays in diagnosis has necessitated guidelines and accountability to protect patients and radiology staff. In this series, we have created a concise discourse on what we have determined to be the essentials of the economics of quality and safety as it pertains to radiology. In this first article, we summarize the accreditation programs in radiology, their legislative background, and the associated financial and market responses that have subsequently resulted. We discuss the progression from historical predecessors to the passage of the Mammography Quality and Safety Act (MQSA), which served as a model for subsequent laws governing the quality and safety of other imaging modalities. These laws have had real economic implications for radiology practices seeking to meet new increasingly stringent guidelines. We also break down the costs of participation in the ACR accreditation and center of excellence programs.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Implementation: Considerations for Emerging Breast Cancer Screening Bundled Payment Models.

PURPOSE: Bundled payments have been touted as mechanisms to optimize quality and costs. A recent feasibility study evaluating bundled payments for screening mammography episodes predated widespread adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). We explore a similar model reflecting emerging acceptance of DBT in breast cancer screening. METHODS: Using 4-year data for 59,094 screening episodes from two large facilities within a large academic health system, we utilized published methodology to calibrate Medicare national allowable reference prices for women undergoing screening mammography before and after practice-wide implementation of DBT. RESULTS: Excluding DBT, Medicare-normalized bundled prices for traditional breast imaging 364 days downstream to screening mammography are extremely similar pre- and post-DBT implementation ($182.86 in 2013; $182.68 in 2015). The addition of DBT increased a DBT-inclusive bundled price by $53.16 (an amount lower than the $56.13 Medicare allowable fee for screening DBT) but was associated with significantly reduced recall rates (13.0% versus 9.4%; P < .0001). Without or with DBT, screening episode bundled prices remained sensitive to bundle-included services and varied little by patient age, race, or insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: Prior non-DBT approaches to bundled payment models for breast cancer screening remain viable as DBT becomes the standard of care, with bundle prices varying little by patient age, race, or insurance status. Higher DBT-inclusive bundled prices, however, highlight the need to explore societal costs more broadly (eg, reduced time away from work from fewer recalls) as bundled payment models evolve.

Screening Mammography for Women in Their 40s: The Potential Impact of the American Cancer Society and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review screening mammograms obtained in one practice with the primary endpoint of determining the rate of detection of breast cancer and associated prognostic features in women 40-44 and 45-49 years old. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The retrospective cohort study included women in their 40s with breast cancer detected at screening from June 2014 through May 2016. The focus was on cancer detection rate, pathologic findings, and risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 32,762 screens were performed, and 808 biopsies were recommended. These biopsies yielded 224 breast cancers (cancer detection rate, 6.84 per 1000 screens). Women 40-49 years old had 18.8% of cancers detected; 50-59 years, 21.8%; 60-69 years, 32.6%; and 70-79 years, 21.4%. Among the 40- to 49-year-old women, women 40-44 years old underwent 5481 (16.7%) screens, had 132 biopsies recommended, and had 20 breast cancers detected (cancer detection rate, 3.6/1000). Women 45-49 years old underwent 5319 (16.2%) screens, had 108 biopsies recommended, and had 22 breast cancers detected (cancer detection rate, 4.1/1000). Thus, women 40-44 years old had 8.9% and women 45-49 years old had 9.8% of all screen-detected breast cancers. Of these only a small percentage of women with detected cancers had a first-degree relative with breast cancer (40-44 years, 15%; 45-49 years, 32%) or a BRCA mutation (40-44 years, 5%; 45-49 years, 5%), and over 60% of the cancers were invasive. CONCLUSION: Women 40-49 years old had 18.8% of all screen-detected breast cancers. The two cohorts (40-44 and 45-49 years old) had similar incidences of screen-detected breast cancer (8.9%, 9.8%) and cancer detection rates within performance benchmark standards, supporting a similar recommendation for both cohorts and the American College of Radiology recommendation of annual screening mammography starting at age 40.

Persistent Untreated Screening-Detected Breast Cancer: An Argument Against Delaying Screening or Increasing the Interval Between Screenings.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the natural history of untreated screen-detected breast cancer. METHODS: A prospective cohort survey of Society of Breast Imaging fellows concerning the appearance on subsequent mammography of untreated breast cancer detected on screening mammography was conducted. RESULTS: A representative sample of the 108 actively practicing Society of Breast Imaging fellows (n = 42 [39%]) participated, each reporting outcomes data from his or her entire screening mammography practice. Among all practices, 25,281 screen-detected invasive breast cancers and 9,360 cases of screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ were reported over the past 10 years. Among these cancers, there were 240 cases of untreated invasive breast cancer and 239 cases of untreated ductal carcinoma in situ, among which zero were reported to have spontaneously disappeared or regressed at next mammography. CONCLUSIONS: Among 479 untreated breast cancers detected on screening mammography, none spontaneously disappeared or regressed. An unknown percentage of these cancers represent overdiagnosis, but because all untreated screen-detected cancers were visible and suspicious for malignancy at next mammographic examination, delaying the onset of screening or increasing the interval between screenings should not reduce the frequency of overdiagnosis.

An Empirical Framework for Breast Screening Bundled Payments.

PURPOSE: In an effort to curb health care costs and improve the quality of care, bundled payment models are becoming increasingly adopted, but to date, they have focused primarily on treatment episodes and primary care providers. To achieve current Medicare goals of transitioning fee-for-service payments to alternative payment models, however, a broader range of patient episodes and specialty physicians will need opportunities to participate. The authors explore breast cancer screening episodes as one such opportunity. METHODS: The authors developed a bundled payment model for breast cancer screening and calibrated it using both a national sample of retrospective Medicare claims data and data from a private health system. The model includes alternative screening episode definitions, methods for calibrating prices, and an examination of risk and can serve as a general framework on which other cancer screening bundles could be crafted. RESULTS: The utilization of services associated with breast cancer screening and diagnosis is stable over time. The inclusion of high-risk patients in breast screening bundles did not cause substantial changes in estimated bundle prices. However, prices are sensitive to the choice of services included in the bundle. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer screening may provide a mechanism to expand the use of bundled payments in radiology and could serve as a framework for other episodic specialty bundles. Because screening bundles include costs for follow-up diagnostic imaging in addition to the initial screening mammographic examination, patient adherence to screening guidelines may improve, which may have profound effects on public health.

International Perspectives on Radiology in Preventive Screening.

Several years ago, the International Economics Committee of the ACR began a study of comparisons among nations regarding the practice of radiology. This article is the second in a series. The purpose here is to compare the use across countries of imaging modalities in the screening algorithms of a variety of common diseases. In conjunction with the initial study, this will allow radiologists to understand in greater detail how health system practices differ among a selected set of nations. In this study, a standardized survey was administered to committee members from 10 countries in the developed and developing world. As with the prior study, there were both striking differences and similarities, even among a small cohort of nations that are all (except India) members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. For example, breast cancer screening with mammography involves similar radiographic techniques for screening evaluations and has similarly high levels of insurance coverage, but the recommended ages at initial screening and end of screening differ. Other diseases, such as lung cancer and abdominal aortic aneurysm, have variable, but overall lower, levels of estimated participation among surveyed countries and significantly lower insurance coverage. Although this data set relies on survey data from individual practitioners, it provides an important perspective of the role of radiology in screening programs. Given the increasing pressure from domestic and foreign governments to reign in health care costs, the comparative differences in screening programs, and especially their use of (often costly) imaging techniques, may be a harbinger for future health policy decisions in the United States and abroad.

The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative.

The Affordable Care Act enters its fifth year firmly entrenched in our national consciousness. One method that has entered the vernacular for achieving cost savings is accountable care. There are other approaches that are less well known. The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative has the potential to significantly impact neurointerventionalists. We review that initiative here.