Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammograms

Medical Care

Volumn 48, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 815-820

  Chubak, Jessica ^a,b   Boudreau, Denise M ^a,b   Fishman, Paul A ^a,b   Elmore, Joann G ^c  

^a GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

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

Author keywords

breast cancer; cost; false positives; mammography; recall; screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COST; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; REGISTRIES; WASHINGTON;

EID: 77955982681     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e57918     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, et al. Breast cancer screening: A summary of the evidence for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:347-360. (Pubitemid 34977137)
2. Armstrong K, Moye E, Williams S, et al. Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: A systematic review for the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:516-526.
3. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U. S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716-726.
4. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. US Preventive Services Task Force and breast cancer screening. JAMA. 2010;303:172-173.
5. Berg WA. Benefits of screening mammography. JAMA. 2010;303:168-169.
6. Murphy AM. Mammography screening for breast cancer: A view from 2 worlds. JAMA. 2010;303:166-167.
7. Woolf SH. The 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2010;303:162-163.
8. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. The benefits and harms of mammography screening: Understanding the trade-offs. JAMA. 2010;303:164-165.
9. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, et al. Screening for breast cancer: An update for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:727-737.
10. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: Model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:738-747.
11. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, et al. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1384-1393.
12. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA. 2003;290:2129-2137.
13. Christiansen CL, Wang F, Barton MB, et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1657-1666.
14. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1089-1096.
15. Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE. Systematic review: The long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:502-510.
16. OANDA Corporation. FxHistory. 2009. Available at: http://www.oanda. com/convert/fxhistory. Accessed October 12, 2009.
17. Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Frisell J, et al. Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: Analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial. BMJ. 1996;312:273-276.
18. Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Buist DS, et al. Evaluating organized breast cancer screening implementation: The prevention of late-stage disease? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:225-234.
19. Taplin SH, Thompson RS, Schnitzer F, et al. Revisions in the risk-based breast cancer screening program at group health cooperative. Cancer. 1990;66:812-818.
20. Boudreau DM, Buist DS, Rutter CM, et al. Impact of hormone therapy on false-positive recall and costs among women undergoing screening mammography. Med Care. 2006;44:62-69.
21. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology 2003.
22. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Mammography claims data tables: bienniel national and state data for women 49 and under, 50-67, and older, and all women, 2000-2001. 2002. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs. gov/Mammography/downloads/00-01biennialnatstate3agegroupsHEDIS02. pdf. Accessed October 14, 2009.
23. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mammography Quality Standards Act and Program National Statistics. 2009. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation- EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandards ActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ ucm113858.htm. Accessed October 12, 2009.
24. Hsiao WC, Braun P, Dunn DL, et al. An overview of the development and refinement of the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. The foundation for reform of U.S. physician payment. Med Care. 1992;30:NS1-NS12.
25. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast cancer surveillance consortium: A national mammography screening and outcomes database. Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1001-1008.
26. Clark DO, Von Korff M, Saunders K, et al. A chronic disease score with empirically derived weights. Med Care. 1995;33:783-795.
27. Fishman PA, Goodman MJ, Hornbrook MC, et al. Risk adjustment using automated ambulatory pharmacy data: The RxRisk model. Med Care. 2003;41:84-99.
28. Hornbrook MC, Goodman MJ. Chronic disease, functional health status, and demographics: A multi-dimensional approach to risk adjustment. Health Serv Res. 1996;31:283-307.
29. Hornbrook MC, Goodman MJ, Bennett MD, et al. Assessing health plancase mix in employed populations: self-reported health status models. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 1991;12:233-272.
30. Boudreau DM, Doescher MP, Saver BG, et al. Reliability of group health cooperative automated pharmacy data by drug benefit status. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14:877-884.
31. Lumley T, Diehr P, Emerson S, et al. The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:151-169.
32. Lee DW, Stang PE, Goldberg GA, et al. Resource use and cost of diagnostic workup of women with suspected breast cancer. Breast J. 2009;15:85-92.
33. Fishman PA, Wagner EH. Managed care data and public health: The experience of Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:477-491.
34. Saunders KW, Davis RL, Stergachis A. Group health cooperative. In: Strom BL, ed. Pharmacoepidemiology. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2005:223-239.
35. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. False-positive mammograms\can the USA learn from Europe? Lancet. 2005;365:7-8.