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.

White Paper AGA: An Episode-of-Care Framework for the Management of Obesity-Moving Toward High Value, High Quality Care: A Report From the American Gastroenterological Association Institute Obesity Episode of Care and Bundle Initiative Work Group.

The American Gastroenterological Association acknowledges the need for gastroenterologists to participate in and provide value-based care for both cognitive and procedural conditions. Episodes of care are designed to engage specialists in the movement toward fee for value, while facilitating improved outcomes and patient experience and a reduction in unnecessary services and overall costs. The episode of care model puts the patient at the center of all activity related to their particular diagnosis, procedure, or health care event, rather than on a physician's specific services. It encourages and incents communication, collaboration, and coordination across the full continuum of care and creates accountability for the patient's entire experience and outcome. This paper outlines a collaborative approach involving multiple stakeholders for gastrointestinal practices to assess their ability to participate in and implement an episode of care for obesity and understand the essentials of coding and billing for these services.

AGA White Paper: Training and Implementation of Endoscopic Image Enhancement Technologies.

Endoscopic image-enhancement technologies provide opportunities to visualize normal and abnormal tissues within the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in a manner that complements conventional white light endoscopic imaging. The additional information that is obtained enables the endoscopist to better identify, delineate, and characterize lesions and can facilitate targeted biopsies or, in some cases, eliminate the need to send samples for histologic analysis. Some of these technologies have been available for more than a decade, but despite this fact, there is limited use of these technologies by endoscopists. Lack of formalized training in their use and a scarcity of guidelines on implementation of these technologies into clinical practice are contributing factors. In November 2014, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology conducted a 2-day workshop to discuss endoscopic image-enhancement technologies. This article represents the third of 3 separate documents generated from the workshop and discusses the published literature pertaining to training and outlines a proposed framework for the implementation of endoscopic image-enhancement technologies in clinical practice. There was general agreement among participants in the workshop on several key considerations. Training and competency assessment for endoscopic image-enhancement technologies should incorporate competency-based education paradigms. To facilitate successful training, multiple different educational models that can cater to variations in learning styles need to be developed, including classroom-style and self-directed programs, in-person and web-based options, image and video atlases, and endoscopic simulator programs. To ensure safe and appropriate use of these technologies over time, refresher courses, skill maintenance programs, and options for competency reassessment should be established. Participants also generally agreed that although early adopters of novel endoscopic image-enhancement modalities can successfully implement these technologies by pursuing training and ensuring self-competency, widespread implementation is likely to require support from GI societies and buy-in from other key stakeholders including payors/purchasers and patients. Continued work by manufacturers and the GI societies in providing training programs and patient education, working with payors and purchasers, and creating environments and policies that motivate endoscopists to adopt new practices is essential in creating widespread implementation.

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.

Treating Clostridium difficile infection with fecal microbiota transplantation.

Clostridium difficile infection is increasing in incidence, severity, and mortality. Treatment options are limited and appear to be losing efficacy. Recurrent disease is especially challenging; extended treatment with oral vancomycin is becoming increasingly common but is expensive. Fecal microbiota transplantation is safe, inexpensive, and effective; according to case and small series reports, about 90% of patients are cured. We discuss the rationale, methods, and use of fecal microbiota transplantation.