ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer screening programs have become increasingly prevalent within the United States after the National Lung Screening Trial results. We aimed to review the financial impact after programmatic implementation of Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner-led programs of Lung Cancer Screening and Tobacco Related Diseases, Incidental Pulmonary Nodule Clinic, and Tobacco Cessation Services. METHODS: We reviewed revenue from 2013 to 2016 by our nurse practitioner-led program. Encounters were queried for charges related to outpatient evaluation and management, professional procedures, and facility charges related to both outpatient and inpatient procedures. Revenue was normalized using 2016 data tables and the national Medicare conversion factor (35.8043). RESULTS: Our program evaluated 694 individuals, of whom 75% (518/694) are enrolled within the lung cancer-screening program. Overall revenue associated with the programs was $733,336. Outpatient evaluation and management generated revenue of $168,372. In addition, professional procedure revenue accounted for an additional $60,015 with facility revenue adding an additional $504,949. CONCLUSIONS: A nurse practitioner-led program of lung cancer screening, incidental pulmonary nodules, and tobacco-cessation services can provide additional revenue opportunities for a Thoracic Surgery and Interventional Pulmonology Division, as well as a health care system. The current national, median annual wage of a nurse practitioner is $98,190, and the cost associated directly to their salary (and benefits) may remain neutral or negative within certain programs. However, the larger economic benefit may be realized within the division and institution. This potential additional revenue appears related to evaluation of newly identified diseases and subsequent evaluations, procedures, and operations.
Subject(s)
Early Detection of Cancer , Lung Neoplasms , Practice Patterns, Nurses'/economics , Tobacco Use Cessation , Tobacco Use Disorder , Ambulatory Care Facilities/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Early Detection of Cancer/economics , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Early Detection of Cancer/nursing , Humans , Incidental Findings , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/prevention & control , Nurse Practitioners , Nursing Evaluation Research/methods , Tobacco Use Cessation/economics , Tobacco Use Cessation/methods , Tobacco Use Disorder/diagnosis , Tobacco Use Disorder/economics , Tobacco Use Disorder/prevention & control , United StatesABSTRACT
RATIONALE: Implementation of lung cancer screening programs is occurring across the United States. Programs vary in approaches to patient identification and shared decision-making. The eligibility of persons referred to screening programs, the outcomes of eligibility determination during shared decision-making, and the potential for the electronic medical record (EMR) to identify eligible individuals have not been well described. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to assess the eligibility of individuals referred for lung cancer screening and compare information extracted from the EMR to information derived from a shared decision-making conversation for the determination of eligibility for lung cancer screening. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of individuals referred to a centralized lung cancer screening program serving a five-hospital health services system in Seattle, Washington between October 2014 and January 2016. Demographics, referral, and outcomes data were collected. A pack-year smoking history derived from the EMR was compared with the pack-year history obtained during a shared decision-making conversation performed by a licensed nurse professional representing the lung cancer screening program. RESULTS: A total of 423 individuals were referred to the program, of whom 59.6% (252 of 423) were eligible. Of those, 88.9% (224 of 252) elected screening. There was 96.2% (230 of 239) discordance in pack-year smoking history between the EMR and the shared decision-making conversation. The EMR underreported pack-years of smoking for 85.2% (196 of 230) of the participants, with a median difference of 29.2 pack-years. If identification of eligible individuals relied solely on the accuracy of the pack-year smoking history recorded in the EMR, 53.6% (128 of 239) would have failed to meet the 30-pack-year threshold for screening. CONCLUSIONS: Many individuals referred for lung cancer screening may be ineligible. Overreliance on the EMR for identification of individuals at risk may lead to missed opportunities for appropriate lung cancer screening.