Patient Cost-Sharing and Utilization of Breast Cancer Diagnostic Imaging by Patients Undergoing Subsequent Testing After a Screening Mammogram

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost Comparison Between Palbociclib, Abemaciclib, and Ribociclib Among Patients with HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer

Purpose

To evaluate economic outcomes in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated with a first- or second-line cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i).

Methods

This retrospective analysis utilized Optum's Clinformatics DataMart (January 1, 2014-September 30, 2021). Included patients had ≥1 pharmacy claim for palbociclib, abemaciclib, or ribociclib in first or second-line and ≥6 months of continuous health plan enrollment in preindex (index: date of first CDK4/6i claim) and follow-up periods. Mean all-cause per patient per month (PPPM) medical, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs, and outpatient pharmacy prescriptions costs were compared among CDK4/6is using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW).

Results

We identified 3,182 patients taking palbociclib, 286 taking abemaciclib, and 149 taking ribociclib, with median follow-ups of 20.8, 16.6, and 19.9 months, respectively. After sIPTW, palbociclib was associated with a lower risk of inpatient (IP) admissions versus abemaciclib (35.8% vs 41.6%; odds ratio: 1.31; P=0.034). No other significant differences were seen for HCRU. PPPM outpatient costs were significantly lower with palbociclib versus abemaciclib ($754; P=0.05). PPPM IP ($2,252 vs $6,286), medical ($6,948 vs $11,717), and total ($19,370 vs $23,639) costs were also lower with palbociclib versus abemaciclib, although not significant. There were no significant differences in PPPM HCRU or costs between palbociclib and ribociclib. In patients with Medicare, PPPM total medical costs were lower with palbociclib versus abemaciclib by $1,608 (P=0.04), while other costs were not significantly different. No significant differences in costs were seen with palbociclib versus ribociclib.

Conclusion

All-cause HCRU and costs were generally not different between the CDK4/6is but favored palbociclib for medical (including IP) costs versus abemaciclib. Due to limited patient numbers, uncertainty exists about abemaciclib and ribociclib cost estimations. Further studies of HCRU and costs are needed to support a cost-minimizing strategy for mBC.

Downstream healthcare use following breast cancer screening: a register-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

For evaluation of breast cancer screening and informed prioritisation, it is important to examine the downstream healthcare use associated to participation. The objective of this study is to determine the healthcare use among breast cancer screening participants compared with screening-naïve controls.

METHODS

The study is a register-based cohort study with 14 years of follow-up. We compare healthcare use among women who participated in the initial phase of the stepwise breast cancer screening implementation in Denmark (stratified on screening result: normal, false positive and breast cancer) compared with those invited in subsequent phases.

RESULTS

Screening participants, especially those with false-positive results, tended to use primary healthcare services more than the screening-naïve group. Women with breast cancer and false positives received more breast imaging compared with the screening-naïve group. False positives consistently had the highest use of drugs compared with the control group. All screening groups had significantly higher use of outpatient clinic visits in the year of and following screening compared with the screening-naïve group. Screening groups were more likely to receive additional diagnoses in the years following screening than the screening-naïve group. There were no significant differences in medical procedures and days of hospitalisation.

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights differences in primary healthcare use among screening groups compared with the screening-naïve group. Since use of primary care services is at the discretion of the women, this implies increased worries about health. Thus, these results indicate increased healthcare-seeking behaviour, especially among women with false-positive results.

Developing Financial Acumen as a Breast Imaging Radiologist

The economics of health care and payment policy are complex and continually evolving. Breast imaging radiologists may not feel equipped to understand the financial aspect of their practice, but this is a critical competency from residency to senior leadership, especially for breast imaging radiologists. From conducting effective negotiations for new equipment as technology evolves to understanding how insurance benefit design affects patient access to care, breast imaging radiologists need to grasp the financial structures that underpins their practice. Fortunately, resources exist that are appropriate for each career stage, and this article directs the breast imaging radiologist to those resources.

Association Between False-Positive Results and Return to Screening Mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort

BACKGROUND

False-positive results on screening mammography may affect women's willingness to return for future screening.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between screening mammography results and the probability of subsequent screening.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

177 facilities participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC).

PATIENTS

3 529 825 screening mammograms (3 184 482 true negatives and 345 343 false positives) performed from 2005 to 2017 among 1 053 672 women aged 40 to 73 years without a breast cancer diagnosis.

MEASUREMENTS

Mammography results (true-negative result or false-positive recall with a recommendation for immediate additional imaging only, short-interval follow-up, or biopsy) from 1 or 2 screening mammograms. Absolute differences in the probability of returning for screening within 9 to 30 months of false-positive versus true-negative screening results were estimated, adjusting for race, ethnicity, age, time since last mammogram, BCSC registry, and clustering within women and facilities.

RESULTS

Women were more likely to return after a true-negative result (76.9% [95% CI, 75.1% to 78.6%]) than after a false-positive recall for additional imaging only (adjusted absolute difference, -1.9 percentage points [CI, -3.1 to -0.7 percentage points]), short-interval follow-up (-15.9 percentage points [CI, -19.7 to -12.0 percentage points]), or biopsy (-10.0 percentage points [CI, -14.2 to -5.9 percentage points]). Asian and Hispanic/Latinx women had the largest decreases in the probability of returning after a false positive with a recommendation for short-interval follow-up (-20 to -25 percentage points) or biopsy (-13 to -14 percentage points) versus a true negative. Among women with 2 screening mammograms within 5 years, a false-positive result on the second was associated with a decreased probability of returning for a third regardless of the first screening result.

LIMITATION

Women could receive care at non-BCSC facilities.

CONCLUSION

Women were less likely to return to screening after false-positive mammography results, especially with recommendations for short-interval follow-up or biopsy, raising concerns about continued participation in routine screening among these women at increased breast cancer risk.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Redefining Cancer Screening Coverage-Screening to Diagnosis

This Viewpoint discusses financial barriers for additional diagnostic steps after patients receive abnormal cancer screening test results.

Social Determinants of Health and Insurance Claim Denials for Preventive Care

Importance

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) eliminated out-of-pocket cost-sharing for recommended preventive care for most privately insured patients. However, patients seeking preventive care continue to face cost-sharing and administrative hurdles, including claim denials, which may exacerbate inequitable access to care.

Objective

To determine whether patient demographics and social determinants of health are associated with denials of insurance claims for preventive care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study of patients insured through their employers or the ACA Marketplaces used claims and remittance data from Symphony Health Solutions' Integrated DataVerse from 2017 to 2020; analysis was completed from January to July 2024.

Exposure

Seeking preventive care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the frequency of insurer denials for preventive services across 5 categories: specific benefit denials, billing errors, coverage lapses, inadequate coverage, and other. Subgroup analysis was performed across patient household income, education, and race and ethnicity. Secondary outcomes included charges for denied claims, approximating patients' remaining financial responsibility for care.

Results

A total of 1 535 181 patients received 4 218 512 preventive services in 2 507 943 unique visits (mean [SD] age at visits, 54.02 [13.19] years; 1 804 637 visits for female patients [71.96%]); 585 299 patients (23.30%) had an annual household income $100 000 or higher, and 824 540 patients had some college education (32.88%). A total of 20 658 individuals (0.82%) were Asian, 139 950 (5.58%) were Hispanic, 219 646 (8.76%) were non-Hispanic Black, 1 372 223 (54.72%) were non-Hispanic White, and 25 412 (1.0%1) were other races and ethnicities not included in the other 4 groups. Of preventive claims, 1.34% (95% CI, 1.32%-1.36%) were denied, consisting mainly of specific benefit denials (0.67%; 95% CI, 0.66%-0.68%) and billing errors (0.51%; 95% CI, 0.50%-0.52%). The lowest-income patients had 43.0% higher odds of experiencing a denial than the highest-income patients (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.37-1.50; P < .001). The least educated enrollees had a denial rate of 1.79% (95% CI, 1.76%-1.82%) compared with 1.14% (95% CI, 1.12%-1.16%) for enrollees with college degrees. Denial rates for Asian (2.72%; 95% CI, 2.55%-2.90%), Hispanic (2.44%; 95% CI, 2.38%-2.50%), and non-Hispanic Black (2.04%; 95% CI, 1.99%-2.08%) patients were significantly higher than those for non-Hispanic White patients (1.13%; 95% CI, 1.12%-1.15%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of 1 535 181 patients seeking preventive care, denials of insurance claims for preventive care were disproportionately more common among at-risk patient populations. This administrative burden potentially perpetuates inequitable access to high-value health care.

Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Screening Mammography in a Medically Underserved Community

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Breast cancer mortality is 40% higher for Black women compared to White women. This study seeks to assess knowledge of breast cancer screening recommendations and identify barriers to risk assessment and mammographic screening among a medically underserved, low-income, predominantly Black community in West Philadelphia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During a free mobile mammography screening event, women were offered surveys to assess perceptions of and barriers to breast cancer risk assessment and screening. Among those who subsequently underwent mobile screening, health insurance and time to additional diagnostic imaging and biopsy, when relevant, were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

233 women completed surveys (mean age 54 ± 13 years). Ninety-three percent of respondents identified as Black. The most frequently cited barrier to screening mammography was cost and/or lack of insurance coverage (30%). Women under 50 reported more barriers to screening compared to older women. Among those recalled from screening and recommended to undergo biopsy, there was a trend toward longer delays between screening and biopsy among those without a PCP (median 45 days, IQR 25-53) compared to those with a PCP (median 24 days, IQR 16-29) (p = 0.072).

CONCLUSION

In a study of a medically underserved community of primarily Black patients, barriers to breast cancer risk assessment, screening, and diagnosis were identified by self-report and by documented care delays. While free mobile mammography initiatives that bring medical professionals into communities can help mitigate barriers to screening, strategies for navigation and coordination of follow-up are critical to promote timely diagnostic resolution for all patients.

American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2023

In 2021, the American Cancer Society published its first biennial report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States. In this second report, the authors provide updated data on racial, ethnic, socioeconomic (educational attainment as a marker), and geographic (metropolitan status) disparities in cancer occurrence and outcomes and contributing factors to these disparities in the country. The authors also review programs that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. There are substantial variations in risk factors, stage at diagnosis, receipt of care, survival, and mortality for many cancers by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and metropolitan status. During 2016 through 2020, Black and American Indian/Alaska Native people continued to bear a disproportionately higher burden of cancer deaths, both overall and from major cancers. By educational attainment, overall cancer mortality rates were about 1.6-2.8 times higher in individuals with ≤12 years of education than in those with ≥16 years of education among Black and White men and women. These disparities by educational attainment within each race were considerably larger than the Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality within each educational attainment, ranging from 1.03 to 1.5 times higher among Black people, suggesting a major role for socioeconomic status disparities in racial disparities in cancer mortality given the disproportionally larger representation of Black people in lower socioeconomic status groups. Of note, the largest Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality were among those who had ≥16 years of education. By area of residence, mortality from all cancer and from leading causes of cancer death were substantially higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in large metropolitan areas. For colorectal cancer, for example, mortality rates in nonmetropolitan areas versus large metropolitan areas were 23% higher among males and 21% higher among females. By age group, the racial and geographic disparities in cancer mortality were greater among individuals younger than 65 years than among those aged 65 years and older. Many of the observed racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in cancer mortality align with disparities in exposure to risk factors and access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, which are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health. Equitable policies at all levels of government, broad interdisciplinary engagement to address these inequities, and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage, are needed to reduce cancer disparities.

Social Determinants of Health Framework to Identify and Reduce Barriers to Imaging in Marginalized Communities

Social determinants of health (SDOH) are conditions influencing individuals' health based on their environment of birth, living, working, and aging. Addressing SDOH is crucial for promoting health equity and reducing health outcome disparities. For conditions such as stroke and cancer screening where imaging is central to diagnosis and management, access to high-quality medical imaging is necessary. This article applies a previously described structural framework characterizing the impact of SDOH on patients who require imaging for their clinical indications. SDOH factors can be broadly categorized into five sectors: economic stability, education access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, social and community context, and health care access and quality. As patients navigate the health care system, they experience barriers at each step, which are significantly influenced by SDOH factors. Marginalized communities are prone to disparities due to the inability to complete the required diagnostic or screening imaging work-up. This article highlights SDOH that disproportionately affect marginalized communities, using stroke and cancer as examples of disease processes where imaging is needed for care. Potential strategies to mitigate these disparities include dedicating resources for clinical care coordinators, transportation, language assistance, and financial hardship subsidies. Last, various national and international health initiatives are tackling SDOH and fostering health equity.