Cost of cervical cancer treatment: implications for providing coverage to low-income women under the Medicaid expansion for cancer care.

BACKGROUND: To date, no study has reported on the cost of treating cervical cancer among Medicaid beneficiaries younger than 65 years of age. This information is essential for assessing the cost effectiveness of screening interventions for low-income women and the funding required for treatment programs established by the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000. METHODS: Administrative data from the North Carolina Medicaid program linked with cancer registry data were used to analyze total Medicaid costs for these patients and the incremental costs of cervical cancer care at 6 and 12 months from diagnosis. We compared 207 beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer during the years 2002 to 2004 with 414 controls. FINDINGS: Total Medicaid costs at 6 months after diagnosis were $3,807, $23,187, $35,853, and $45,028 for in situ, local, regional, and distant cancers, respectively. The incremental cost of cancer treatment for local and regional cancers was $13,935 and $26,174 and by 12 months increased to $15,868 and $30,917, respectively. CONCLUSION: Medicaid coverage may be required for many months after diagnosis to ensure the provision of comprehensive care, especially for women with late-stage cancers. Given the great differences in cost of early versus late-stage cancers, interventions aimed at increasing screening among low-income women are likely to be cost effective.

Outcome of women referred to colposcopy for persistently inadequate smears.

The outcome of referral to colposcopy of 240 women who had persistently inadequate smears was investigated. Of 232 women who attended colposcopy, 214 (92.2%) had a normal outcome, 12 (5.2%) had low grade abnormalities, and six (2.6%) had high grade abnormalities. This group of women therefore has a negligibly increased risk of harbouring cervical neoplasia. Although not directly comparable, women with a history of previous abnormal cytology did not have a higher risk than those without such a history. Unnecessary colposcopy could have been avoided in the majority of cases if a good quality repeat smear had been taken. Improved smear taker training could decrease the number of referrals. A hospital cytology clinic is proposed as a cost-effective alternative to colposcopy at the first attendance.