Internal validation of procedure codes on medicare claims for digital mammograms and computer-aided detection

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

Volumn 18, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 2186-2189

  Fenton, Joshua J ^a   Green, Pamela ^b   Baldwin, Laura Mae ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNAL VALIDITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL SERVICE; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MEDICARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

FEMALE; FORMS AND RECORDS CONTROL; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICARE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEER PROGRAM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 68949113810     PISSN: 10559965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0338     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): U.S. Food and Drug Administration; c2007-2009 [updated June 2, 2008; accessed June 23, 2008] Mammography: MQSA Facility Scorecard, 2008. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/scorecard-statistics.html.
2. Hendrick RE, Cutter GR, Berns EA, et al. Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:433-8.
3. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1399-409.
4. Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-554, (December 21, 2000).
5. Gromet M. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:854-9.
6. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection-prospective evaluation. Radiology 2006;239:375-83.
7. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-83.
8. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007;244:708-17.
9. McCarthy EP, Burns RB, Coughlin SS, et al. A. Mammography use helps to explain differences in breast cancer stage at diagnosis between older black and white women. Ann Intern Med 1998;128: 729-36.
10. Randolph WM, Goodwin JS, Mahnken JD, Freeman JL. Regular mammography use is associated with elimination of age-related disparities in size and stage of breast cancer at diagnosis. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137:783-90.
11. Smith-Bindman R, Quale C, Chu PW, Rosenberg R, Kerlikowske K. Can Medicare billingcl aims data be used to assess mammography utilization among women ages 65 and older?. Med Care 2006;44: 463-70.
12. Baron JA, Lu-Yao G, Barrett J, McLerran D, Fisher ES. Internal validation of Medicare claims data. Epidemiology 1994;5:541-4.
13. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care 2002;40: IV-3-18.
14. Annual Estimates of the Population by Sex and Five-Year Age Groups for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1 [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; c2000-2007 [updated July 1, 2007; accessed July 5, 2008]. Available from: http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2007/NC- EST2007-01.xls.
15. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, Mariotto A, Miller BA, Feuer EJ, Clegg L, Horner MJ, Howlander N, editors. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2004. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute; 2007.
16. Linver MN. Coding and billing in breast imaging. Imaging Economics 2002; April.