Screening for cancer: the economic, medical, and psychosocial issues.

Despite significant improvements in mortality over the past 20 years, cancer remains the second leading cause of death in the United States. One reason for the improvement in mortality is screening for several common cancers in people at average risk for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers, and screening for lung cancer in those with a 20-plus pack-year history. Such screening may result in earlier diagnosis when the cancer is most likely to respond to treatment. However, there are no population-based screening recommendations for the majority of cancers in average-risk patients, most of which are not diagnosed until the later stages. One question is whether earlier diagnosis could not only reduce mortality rates but also reduce medical costs. Screening comes with several potential risks, including false positives and overdiagnosis, both of which can affect patients' mental health, increase morbidity and mortality, and lead to excess spending. Additionally, certain cancers can evade traditional screening tests and lead to false-negative results, which delays cancer detection, treatment, and may affect treatment efficacy. The advent of liquid biopsy tests that could screen for dozens of cancers holds promise for identifying more cancers early. However, the cost, the potential for overdiagnosis and false positives, and a lack of evidence demonstrating clinical utility or an improvement in health outcomes call into question their potential use for widespread screening. Government and managed care organizations will need to consider the risks and benefits of these assays in determining coverage.

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

OBJECTIVES: Most 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Lifetime 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. CONCLUSIONS: Modeling 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.

Reimbursement for Endoscopic Bariatric Therapies.

Intragastric devices may be of benefit to patients who are unable to achieve weight loss through lifestyle modification and pharmaceuticals. With the help of every member of a multidisciplinary team and ongoing commitment from patients, small, practical steps and goals can lead to long-lasting, healthy weight loss.

Does Hepatitis C Treatment Adherence Affect Risk of Liver Transplantation? A Historical Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the primary cause of liver failure leading to transplantation, and medication adherence is essential to the therapeutic efficacy of HCV treatments. While there is evidence linking poor adherence with increased utilization and cost, published literature lacks examination of the association between medication adherence and risk of liver transplant. In addition, the impact of HCV treatment on total costs of liver transplantation is not well documented. OBJECTIVES: To compare (a) the relative risk of liver transplant by adherence in patients treated for HCV and (b) the total health care costs in treated and untreated patients who require liver transplant. METHODS: This observational, historical cohort study was conducted using administrative data from the Humana Research Database. To be included, patients were required to have a documented HCV diagnosis or treatment between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2013. Patients were excluded if they had a hepatitis B diagnosis, were not fully insured by a commercial or Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan, or were outside the age range of 19-89 years. No minimum pre- or post-index enrollment period was required, and patients were followed for their entire post-index enrollment through December 31, 2013. The study population was divided into treated and untreated groups and then subdivided by presence or absence of a liver transplant. Date of liver transplant was defined as the index date for untreated liver transplant patients; otherwise, the index date was defined as either the date of first observed HCV treatment or diagnosis date (if no treatment or liver transplant). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the relative risk of liver transplant by level of treatment adherence (> 80%, 50%-79%, and < 50%) based on proportion of days covered. General linearized models with log link and gamma distribution were used to compare median total health care costs from index date until end of study period (or death/disenrollment, whichever came first) between treated and untreated liver transplant patients. All costs were converted to 2013 U.S. dollars and reported as total costs per patient and per patient per month (PPPM) to account for varying follow-up periods. RESULTS: Of the 53,423 patients identified with HCV, 10,377 met exclusion criteria, leaving 43,046 patients (primarily Caucasian, males, mean age of 58 years) in the initial cohort. Only 6.29% (n = 2,708) of the total HCV cohort received HCV treatment, and less than 1% (n = 366, 0.8%) received a liver transplant. Although there were no significant differences in the risk of liver transplant by adherence level, there was an upwards trend in the rate of liver transplant as adherence worsened (> 80%: 1.25%; 50%-79%: 1.30%; and < 50%: 1.99%), and the average days to liver transplant was longer with higher adherence (> 80%: 683; 50%-79%: 623; < 50%: 454). Only 48 (13.11%) patients who received a liver transplant were treated for HCV. Adjusted median total and PPPM health care costs measured from index date until end of the study period were significantly higher for patients who received HCV treatment compared with those who did not (total=$231,139 vs. $86,167, adjusted P < 0.001; PPPM=$20,583 vs. $5,778, adjusted P = 0.008), driven by HCV-related medical costs and total pharmacy costs. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence with HCV regimens did not affect risk of liver transplant, underscoring the need for further evidence linking treatment adherence to future liver transplant risk. HCV-treated patients who required liver transplant incurred significantly higher health care costs than those without HCV treatment before liver transplant. Introduction of newer all-oral direct-acting antiviral regimens, with higher acquisition costs, will require further research to more accurately assess medication adherence and its relationship with transplantation, as well as with total health care costs. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this research. Ems, Worley, Racsa, Gregory, Anderson, and Holt are employees of Humana. Brill has participated in a physician advisory board at Humana. The authors have no other financial disclosures to report. Study concept and design were contributed by Ems, Racsa, Worley, and Anderson, along with Gregory, Brill, and Holt. Racsa took the lead in data collection, along with Ems and Worley. All authors participated in data interpretation. Anderson, along with the other authors, wrote the manuscript, which was revised by Brill and Holt, with assistance from the other authors.

What is the RUC and how does it impact gastroenterology?

Physician reimbursement is in a turbulent time. In 2013 and 2014 we have seen an increased public scrutiny of how Medicare sets reimbursement rates and questions about the American Medical Association's Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC). The AGA board requested that two members knowledgeable about the RUC process and related policies help members understand the RUC and how it impacts our field.

Colorectal testing utilization and payments in a large cohort of commercially insured US adults.

OBJECTIVES: Screening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality. The national press has scrutinized colonoscopy charges. Little systematic evidence exists on colorectal testing and payments among commercially insured persons. Our aim was to characterize outpatient colorectal testing utilization and payments among commercially insured US adults. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of outpatient colorectal test utilization rates, indications, and payments among 21 million 18-64-year-old employees and dependants with noncapitated group health insurance provided by 160 self-insured employers in the 2009 Truven MarketScan Databases. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was the predominant colorectal test. Among 50-64-year olds, 12% underwent colonoscopy in 1 year. Most fecal tests and colonoscopies were associated with screening/surveillance indications. Testing rates were higher in women, and increased with age. Mean payments for fecal occult blood and immunochemical tests were $5 and $21, respectively. Colonoscopy payments varied between and within sites of service. Mean payments for diagnostic colonoscopy in an office, outpatient hospital facility, and ambulatory surgical center were $586 (s.d. $259), $1,400 (s.d. $681), and $1,074 (s.d. $549), respectively. Anesthesia and pathology services accompanied 35 and 52% of colonoscopies, with mean payments of $494 (s.d. $354) and $272 (s.d. $284), respectively. Mean payments for the most prevalent colonoscopy codes were 1.4- to 1.9-fold the average Medicare payments. CONCLUSIONS: Most outpatient colorectal testing among commercially insured adults was associated with screening or surveillance. Payments varied widely across sites of service, and payments for anesthesia and pathology services contributed substantially to total payments. Cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening have relied on Medicare payments as proxies for costs, but cost-effectiveness may differ when analyzed from the perspectives of Medicare or commercial insurers.

The impact of health reform on gastroenterology reimbursement.

The budgetary impact of the cost of health care on the United States economy is far-reaching. An understanding of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act is essential to preparing one's practice to proactively deal with a rapidly changing and evolving system whereby local, regional, and national actions are affecting the ability of clinicians to maintain success on a daily basis.

A vision of the future for physician practice in nutrition.

One obstacle that may discourage physician trainees from pursuing a career in clinical nutrition is the perception that such physician practice does not generate sufficient income. A review of the history of Medicare and the current payment system for healthcare services by the U.S. government is essential to understand which members and what services provided by a nutrition support team (NST) will be reimbursed. Patients who require nutrition therapy tend to have multiple comorbidities, which should allow for a higher level of billing under evaluation and management codes. Despite the fact that an intact NST improves outcome and helps ensure patient safety, such teams may not be able to function independently and remain financially sustainable. Hospital administration should be mandated to support an institutional nutrition service. Strategies to define malnutrition and identify measures of quality nutrition care should help demonstrate the value and promote the importance of a functioning NST.