Paying for prevention: Standardizing the measurement of the value of health care interventions

Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 613-643

  Vasilev, Steven A ^a  

^a Building M ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER SCREENING; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; MASS SCREENING; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STANDARDIZATION; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; WART VIRUS;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION TREES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MASS SCREENING; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0036919810     PISSN: 08898545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0889-8545(02)00022-0     Document Type: Review

References (117)

1. Ries L, Miller B, Hankey B, et al, editors. SEER Cancer Statistic Review 1973-1991. National Cancer Institute, NIH publication no. 94-2789. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health; 1994. p. 136-44.
2. DiSaia P, Creasman W. Invasive cervical cancer. In: Clinical Gynecologic Oncology. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book; 1993. p. 58-125.
3. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2002. Available: http://www.cancer.org.
4. Singleton H, Orr J. Screening. In: Cancer of the Cervix. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1995. p. 17-35.
5. Reelick N, de Haes W, Schuurman J. Psychological side effects of the mass screening of cervical cancer. Soc Sci Med 1984;18:1089-93.
6. National Cancer Institute. Healthy People 2000. DHS Pub. No. (PHS) 91-50212. Bethesda, MD: US Department Health and Human Services; 1990.
7. Black B, Scwitzer R, Dezelsky T. Report on the American Cancer Society workshop on community cancer detection, education, and prevention demonstration projects for underserved populations. CA Cancer J Clin 1993;43:226-33.
8. The National Cancer Institute Cancer Screening Consortium for Underserved Women. Breast and cervical cancer screening among underserved women: Baseline survey of results from six states. Arch Fam Med 1995;4:617-22.
9. Orbell S, Crombie I, Robertson A, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of a screening campaign: Who is missed by 80% cervical screening coverage? J R Soc Med 1995;88:389-94.
10. Macgregor J, Campbell M, Mann E, et al. Screening for CIN in northeast Scotland shows fall in incidence and mortality from invasive cancer with concomitant rise in preinvasive disease. BMJ 1994;308:1407-11.
11. Gay J, Donaldson L, Goellner J. False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol 1985;29:1043-6.
12. Fahey MT, lrwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy, Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:680-9.
13. Sox Jr HC, Blatt MA, Higgins MC, Marton KI. Decision analysis. In: Medical Decision Making. Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heimnemann; 1988. p. 103-45.
14. DATA Decision Analysis Program. Williamstown, MA: TreeAge Software. Phone 413-458-0104. Available: http://www.treeage.com.
15. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in decision making: A practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993;13:322-8.
16. Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA. Primer on medical decision analysis. Part 1: Getting started. Med Decis Making 1997;17:123-5.
17. Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, Redelmeier DA, Naimark D. Primer of medical decision analysis. Part 2: Building a tree. Med Decis Making 1997;17:126-35.
18. Naglie G, Murray D, Krahn MD, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. Primer on medical decision analysis. Part 3: Estimating probabilities and utilities. Med Decis Making 1997;17:136-41.
19. Krahn MD, Naglie G, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. Primer on medical decision analysis. Part 4: Analyzing the model and interpreting the results. Med Decis Making 1997;17:142-51.
20. Naimark D, Krahn MD, Naglie G, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. Primer on medical decision analysis. Part 5: Working with Markov processes. Med Decis Making 1997;17:152-9.
21. Schuette HL, Tucker TC, Brown ML. The costs of cancer care in the United States: Implications for action. Oncology 1995;9:19-22.
22. Doubilet PM, Weinstein MC, McNeil BJ. Use and abuse of the term "cost-effective" in medicine. N Engl J Med 1986;314:253-6.
23. Keeler EB, Cretin S. Discounting of lifesaving and other monetary benefits. Management Sci 1983;29:300-6.
24. Samuelson WF, Marks SG. Present value and discounting. In: Managerial Economics, 2nd Edition. Orlando, FL: Dryden Press/Harcourt Brace College Publishers; 1995. p. 700-15.
25. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
26. Finkler SA. The distinction between cost and charges. Ann Intern Med 1982;96:102-9.
27. Maher M. Activity based costing and management. In: Cost Accounting: Creating Value for Management, 5th Edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Companies; 1997. p. 231-85.
28. Meenan RT, Goodman MJ, Fishman PA, et al. Issues in pooling administrative data for economic valuation. Am J Mgd Care 2002;8:45-53.
29. Boyle MH, Torrance GW, Sinclair JC, Horwood SP. Economic evaluation of neonatal intensive care very-low-birth-weight infants. N Engl J Med 1983;308:1330-7.
30. Oldridge N, Furlong W, Feeny D. Economic evaluation of cardiac rehabilitation soon after myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1993;72:154-61.
31. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine: The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1172-7.
32. Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality adjusted life years, utility theory and health year equivalents. Med Decis Making 1989;9:142-9.
33. Nease Jr RF, Kneeland T, O'Connor GT. The Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team: Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina: Implications for clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 1995;273:1185-90.
34. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine: Recommendations on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996;275:1253-8.
35. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Recommendations for reporting cost effectiveness analysis. JAMA 1996;276:1339-41.
36. Smith WJ, Blackmore CC. Economic analysis in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:472-8.
37. Weinstein MC. Principles of cost effective resource allocation in health care organizations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990;6:93-103.
38. Massad L, Lonky N, Mutch D, et al. Use of speculoscopy in the evaluation of women with atypical Papanicolaou smears: Improved cost-effectiveness by selective colposcopy. J Reprod Med 1993;38:163-9.
39. van Ballegooijeen M, Koopmanschap M, Tjokrowardojo AJ, et al. Care and costs for advanced cervical cancer. Eur J Cancer 1992;28A:1703-8.
40. Miller A. The cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:529-30.
41. Roland P, Naumann R, Alvarez R, et al. A decision analysis of practice patterns used in evaluating and treating abnormal Pap smears. Gynecol Oncol 1995;59:75-80.
42. Hartmann KE, Nanda K, et al. Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: Is newer better? Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001;56:765-74.
43. Siegel J, Weinstein M, Russell L, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA 1996;276:1339-41.
44. Brown AD, Raab SS, et al. Cost-effectiveness studies on cervical cancer. Acta Cytol 2001;45:509-14.
45. National Cancer Institute. National Health Interview Survey Supplement on Cancer Control. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 1989.
46. Follen-Mitchell M, Schottenfeld D. The natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and the management of the abnormal Papanicolaou smear. In: Cervical Cancer and Preinvasive Neoplasia. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven, 1996; p. 103-13.
47. Miller A. Screening for cervical cancer. In: Rubin SC, Hoskins WJ, editors. Cervical Cancer and Preinvasive Neoplasia. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 13-25.
48. Eddy D. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:214-26.
49. Bibbo M, Keebler C, Wied G. Prevalence and incidence rates of cervical atypia: A computerized file analysis on 148,735 patients. J Reprod Med 1971;6:79-83.
50. Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Recommendations on the Frequency of Pap Test Screening. ACOG Committee Opinion Number 152. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; March 1995.
51. Knox E. Ages and frequencies for cervical cancer screening. Br J Cancer 1976;34:444-9.
52. Lynge E, Poll P. Incidence of cervical cancer following negative smear: A cohort study from Marido County. Denmark. Am J Epidemiol 1986;124:345-52.
53. Arneson A, Kao M, Long-term observations of cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:614-25.
54. Mandelblatt J, Gopaul F, Wistreich M. Gynecologic care of the elderly. JAMA 1986;256:367-73.
55. Norman S, Talbott E, Kuller L. The relationship of Papanicolaou testing and contacts with the medical care system to stage at diagnosis of cervical cancer. Arch Intern Med 1991;151:58-64.
56. Boss L, Guckes F. Medicaid coverage of screening tests for breast and cervical cancers. Am J Pub Health 1992;82:252-3.
57. Miller A, Anderson G, Brisson J. Report of a national workshop on screening for cancer of the cervix. Can Med Assoc J 1991;145:1301-25.
58. Baker B. Regular Pap testing held unnecessary past age 64. Ob-Gyn News 1997;Feb 15:18.
59. Fahs MC, Mandelbaltt J, Schecter C, Muller C. Cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for the elderly. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:520-7.
60. Mandelblatt JS, Fahs MC. The cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for low income elderly women, JAMA 1988;259:2409-13.
61. Brotzman GL, Julian T. The minimally abnormal Papanicolaou smear. Am Fam Physician 1996;53:1154-62.
62. Cox JT, Lorincz AT, Schiffman MH, Sherman ME, et al. Human Papillomavirus testing by hybrid capture appears useful in triaging women with a cytologic diagnosis atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:946-54.
63. Ferris DG, Wright Jr TC, Litaker MS, Richart RM, et al. Comparison of two tests for detecting carcinogenic HPV in women with Papanicolaou smear reports of ASCUS and LSIL. J Fam Pract 1998;46:136-41.
64. Manos M, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, Sherman ME, Shieh-Ngai J, Kurman RL, et al. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: Using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA 1999;281:1605-10.
65. Wright Jr TC, Lorincz A, Ferris DG, Richart RM, Ferenczy A, et al. Reflex human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid testing in women with abnormal Papanicolaou smears. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:962-6.
66. Bergeron C, Jeannel D, Poveda J, Cassonnet P, Orth G. Human papillomavirus testing in women with mild cytologic atypia. Obstet Gynecol 2001;95:821-7.
67. Davey DD, Woodhouse S, Styer P, Stasmy J, Mody D. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy: Current laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathology interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:203-11.
68. Kurman R, Henson D, Herbst A, et al. National Cancer Institute workshop: Interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology. JAMA 1994;271:1866-9.
69. Richart R, Wright T. Controversies in the management of low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cancer 1993;71:1413-21.
70. Raffle A, Alden B, Mackenzie E. Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: What are we screening for? Lancet 1995;345:1469-73.
71. Cramer D, Cutler S. Incidence and histopathology of malignancies of the female genital tract in the US. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1974;118:443-60.
72. Nash J, Burke T, Hoskins W. Biologic course of cervical human papillomavirus infection. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:160-2.
73. Montz F, Monk B, Fowler J, et al. Natural history of the minimally abnormal Papanicolaou smear. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:385-8.
74. Nasiell K, Roger V, Nasiell M. Behavior of mild cervical dysplasia during long-term follow-up. Obstet Gynecol 1986;67:665-9.
75. ACOG Technical Bulletin. Cervical Cytology: Evaluation and Management of Abnormalities. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, No. 183, Aug. 1993.
76. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R, ALTS Group. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: Baseline results of a randomized trial. JNCI 2001;93:293-9.
77. Higgins R, Hall J, McGee J, et al. Appraisal of the modalities to evaluate an initial abnormal Pap smear. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:174-8.
78. Burger R, Monk B, Van Nostrand K, et al. Single-visit program for cervical cancer prevention in a high-risk population. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:491-8.
79. Megevand E, Van Wyk W, Knight B, et al. Can cervical cancer be prevented by a see, screen, and treat program? A pilot study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:923-8.
80. US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 1994 National Health Interview Survey. Hyatsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; February 1997.
81. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers by Selected Characteristics, 1996. Washington DC: Bureau of the Census, 1997. Table 37.
82. Division of Vital Statistics. Abridged Life Table, United States 1993. Hyatsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 1993.
83. Kleinberg MJ, Straughn JM, Alvarez RD, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of management strategies for CIN II and CIN III. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. Chicago, IL: Society of Gynecologic Oncologists; 2002.
84. American Medical Association. Physician's Current Procedural Terminology CPT '96, Professional Edition. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1996.
85. St Anthony's DRG Optimizer 1998. Reston, VA: St Anthony Publishing; 1997.
86. Koss L. Cervical (Pap) smear: New directions. Cancer 1993;71:1406-12.
87. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 5. Evaluation of Cervical Cytology (AHCPR Publication No. 99-E010). Washington DC: Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research; 1999.
88. van der Graaf Y, Voois G, Gaillard H. False-negative results in cervical cytology screening. Acta Cytol 1987;31:434-8.
89. Felix JC, Lonky NM, Tamura K, Yu K, Naidu Y, Lai R, et al. Aberrant expression of E-cadherin in cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia correlates with a false negative Papanicolaou smear. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:1308-14.
90. Broadstock M. Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Automated and Semi-Automated Cervical Screening Devices: A Systematic Review. New Zealand Health Technology Assessment Clearing House (NZHTA) lSBN 1-877235-14-8, ISSN 1174-5142. NZHTA Report 2000;3:2000.
91. Bogdanich W. Lax laboratories: The Pap test misses much cervical cancer through lab errors. The Wall Street Journal Nov. 2, 1987:1.
92. Bogdanich W. Physician's carelessness with Pap tests is cited in procedure's high volume failure rate. The Wall Street Journal Dec. 29, 1987:17.
93. Lynge E, Arffmann E, Poll P, et al. Smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer 1993;68:368-73.
94. Wilbur DC, Cibas ES, Merritt S, et al. ThinPrep processor: Clinical trials demonstrate an increased detection rate of abnormal cytologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:209-14.
95. Takahashi M, Masatugu N. Application of CytoRich Monolayer preparation system for cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1997;41:1785-9.
96. Neuromedical Systems Inc. Industrial developments in automated cytology as submitted by their developers. Acta Cytol 1993;15:358-69.
97. Bishop JW. The cost production in cervical cytology: Comparison of conventional and automated primary screening systems. Am J Clin Pathol 1997;107:445-50.
98. Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA 1999;281:347-53.
99. McQuarrie HG, Ogden J, Costa M. Understanding the financial impact of covering new screening technologies. The case for automated Pap smears. J Repro Med 2000;45:898-906.
100. Ashfaq R, Saliger F, Solares B, et al. Evaluation of the PAPNET system for prescreening triage of cervico-vaginal smears. Acta Cytol 1997;41:1058-64.
101. Hutchinson ML. Assessing the costs and benefits of alternative screening strategies [editorial]. Acta Cytol 1996;40:4-8.
102. Montz FJ, Farber FL, Bristow RE, Cornelison T. Impact of increasing Papanicolaou test sensitivity and compliance: A modeled cost and outcomes analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97(5 Pt 1):781-8.
103. Genital human papillomavirus infections. ACOG Technical Bulletin 1994. p. 193-7.
104. Johnson K. Screening for HPV infection in asymptomatic women. Can Med Assoc J 1995;152:483-93.
105. Szarewski J, Ho G, Maddox P, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening. Lancet 1995;345:1533-6.
106. Koutsky L, Holmes K, Critchlow C, et al. A cohort study of the risk of CIN grade 2 or 3 in relation to papillomavirus infection. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1272-8.
107. Walker JL, The ALTS Group. ALTS:ASCUS/LSIL triage study: Management of women with LSIL. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. Chicago, IL: Society of Gynecologic Oncologists; 2002.
108. Lonky N, Edwards G. Comparison of chemiluminescent light versus incandescent light in the visualization of acetowhite epithelium. Am J Gynecol Health 1992; VI:II-5.
109. Mann W, Lonky N, Massad S, et al. Papanicolaou smear screening augmented by magnified chemiluminescent exam. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1993;43:289-96.
110. Lonky N, Mann W, Massad S, et al. Ability of visual tests to predict underlying cervical neoplasia: Colposcopy and speculoscopy. J Reprod Med 1995;40:530-6.
111. Taylor LA, Sorenson SV, Ray NF, Halpern MT, Harper DM. Cost-effectiveness of the conventional Papanicolaou test with a new adjunct to cytological screening for squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix and its precursors. Arch Fam Med 2000;9:713-21.
112. Spitzer M, Krumholz B, Chemys A, et al. Comparative utility of repeat Papanicolaou smears, cervicography, and colposcopy in the evaluation of atypical Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:731-5.
113. Schneider A, Zahm D, Kirchmayr R, et al. Screening for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3: Validity of cytologic study, cervicography, and human papillomavirus detection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:1534-41.
114. Kolata G. Medical groups reach compromise on frequency of giving Pap tests. New York Times, January 7, 1988:B13.
115. Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, Wright TC. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. JAMA 2001;285:3107-15.
116. Van Houtven G, Cropper ML. When Is A Life Too Costly to Save: Evidence from U.S. Environmental Regulations. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 1260. Herndon, VA: The World Bank; 1994.
117. Cropper ML, Subramanian U. Public Choices Between Life-Saving Programs: How Important Are Lives Saved? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 1497. Hemdon, VA: The World Bank; August 1995.