Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Implementation: Considerations for Emerging Breast Cancer Screening Bundled Payment Models

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

Importance

Out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) have been largely eliminated for screening mammography. However, patients still face OOPCs when undergoing subsequent diagnostic tests after the initial screening, which represents a potential barrier to those who require follow-up testing after initial testing.

Objective

To examine the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after undergoing a screening mammogram.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used medical claims from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, a commercial claims database derived from a database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The large commercially insured cohort included female patients aged 40 years or older with no prior history of breast cancer undergoing a screening mammogram examination. Data were collected from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, and analysis was conducted from January 2021 to September 2022.

Exposures

A k-means clustering machine learning algorithm was used to classify patient insurance plans by dominant cost-sharing mechanism. Plan types were then ranked by OOPCs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A multivariable 2-part hurdle regression model was used to examine the association between patient OOPCs and the number and type of diagnostic breast services undergone by patients observed to undergo subsequent testing.

Results

In our sample, 230 845 women (220 023 [95.3%] aged 40 to 64 years; 16 810 [7.3%] Black, 16 398 [7.1%] Hispanic, and 164 702 [71.3%] White) underwent a screening mammogram in 2016. These patients were covered by 22 828 distinct insurance plans associated with 6 025 741 enrollees and 44 911 473 distinct medical claims. Plans dominated by coinsurance were found to have the lowest mean (SD) OOPCs ($945 [$1456]), followed by balanced plans ($1017 [$1386]), plans dominated by copays ($1020 [$1408]), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1186 [$1522]). Women underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast imaging procedures in dominantly copay (24 [95% CI, 11-37] procedures per 1000 women) and dominantly deductible (16 [95% CI, 5-28] procedures per 1000 women) plans compared with coinsurance plans. Patients from all plan types underwent fewer breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans than patients in the lowest OOPC plan (balanced, 5 [95% CI, 2-12] MRIs per 1000 women; copay, 6 [95% CI, 3-6] MRI per 100 women; deductible, 6 [95% CI, 3-9] MRIs per 1000 women.

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite policies designed to remove financial barriers to access for breast cancer screening, significant financial barriers remain for women at risk of breast cancer.

Economic potential of abbreviated breast MRI for screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) was introduced to reduce both examination and image reading times and to improve cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. The aim of this model-based economic study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of full protocol breast MRI (FB-MRI) vs. AB-MRI in screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer.

METHODS

Decision analysis and a Markov model were designed to model the cumulative costs and effects of biennial screening in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from a US healthcare system perspective. Model input parameters for a cohort of women with dense breast tissue were adopted from recent literature. The impact of varying AB-MRI costs per examination as well as specificity on the resulting cost-effectiveness was modeled within deterministic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

At an assumed cost per examination of $ 263 for AB-MRI (84% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination), the discounted cumulative costs of both MR-based strategies accounted comparably. Reducing the costs of AB-MRI below $ 259 (82% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination, respectively), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FB-MRI exceeded the willingness to pay threshold and the AB-MRI-strategy should be considered preferable in terms of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary findings indicate that AB-MRI may be considered cost-effective compared to FB-MRI for screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer, as long as the costs per examination do not exceed 82% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination.

KEY POINTS

• Cost-effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI is affected by reductions in specificity and resulting false positive findings and increased recall rates. • Abbreviated breast MRI may be cost-effective up to a cost per examination of 82% of the cost of a full protocol examination. • Abbreviated breast MRI could be an economically preferable alternative to full protocol breast MRI in screening women with dense breast tissue.

The Impact of Health Delivery Integration on Cancer Outcomes

Although integrated health care has largely been associated with increases in prices and static or decreased quality across many disease states, it has shown some successes in improving cancer care. However, its impact is largely equivocal, making consensus statements difficult. Critically, integration does not necessarily translate to clinical coordination, which might be the true driver behind the success of integrated health care delivery. Moving forward, it is important to establish payment models that support clinical care coordination. Shifting from a fragmented health system to a coordinated one may improve evidence-based cancer care, outcomes, and value for patients.

Evaluation of Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies for High-Risk Women in Beijing, China: A Real-World Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Mammography-based breast cancer screening has been widely implemented in many developed countries. Evidence was needed on participation and diagnostic performance of population-based breast cancer screening using ultrasound in China.

METHODS

We used data from the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China in Beijing from 2014 to 2019 and was followed up until July 2020 by matching with the Beijing Cancer Registry database. Eligible women between the ages of 45 and 69 years were recruited from six districts and assessed their risk of breast cancer through an established risk scoring system. Women evaluated to be at high risk of breast cancer were invited to undergo both ultrasound and mammography. Participation rates were calculated, and their associated factors were explored. In addition, the performance of five different breast cancer screening modalities was evaluated in this study.

RESULTS

A total of 49,161 eligible women were recruited in this study. Among them, 15,550 women were assessed as high risk for breast cancer, and 7,500 women underwent ultrasound and/or mammography as recommended, with a participation rate of 48.2%. The sensitivity of mammography alone, ultrasound alone, combined of ultrasound and mammography, ultrasound for primary screening followed by mammography for triage, and mammography for preliminary screening followed by ultrasound for triage were19.2%, 38.5%, 50.0%, 46.2%, and 19.2%, and the specificity were 96.1%, 98.6%, 94.7%, 97.6%, 95.7%, respectively. The sensitivity of combined ultrasound and mammography, ultrasound for primary screening followed by mammography for triage, was significantly higher than mammography alone (p=0.008 and p=0.039). Additionally, ultrasound alone (48,323 RMB ($7,550)) and ultrasound for primary screening followed by mammography for triage (55,927 RMB ($8,739)) were the most cost-effective methods for breast cancer screening than other modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound alone and ultrasound for primary screening and mammography are superior to mammography for breast cancer screening in high-risk Chinese women.

Implementation of Abbreviated Breast MRI for Screening: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) is being rapidly adopted to harness the high sensitivity of screening MRI while addressing issues related to access, cost, and workflow. The successful implementation of an ABI-MRI program requires collaboration across administrative, operational, financial, technical, and clinical providers. Institutions must be thoughtful in defining AB-MRI patient eligibility and providing recommendations for screening intervals, as existing practices are heterogeneous. Similarly, there is no universally accepted AB-MRI protocol, though guiding principles should harmonize abbreviated and full protocols while being mindful of scan duration and table time. The interpretation of AB-MRI will be a new experience for many radiologists and may require a phased rollout as well as a careful audit of performance metrics over time to ensure benchmark metrics are achieved. AB-MRI finances, which are driven by patient self-payment, will require buy-in from hospital administration with the recognition that downstream revenues will be needed to support initial costs. Finally, successful startup of an AB-MRI program requires active engagement with the larger community of patients and referring providers. As AB-MRI becomes more widely accepted and available, best practices and community standards will continue to evolve to ensure high quality patient care.

Breast Imaging Radiologists' Role in Value Pathways

The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) has fallen short of its intended goal to substantially transform the delivery of healthcare by tying clinician payments to quality and cost reduction. Policy makers made changes to the program over its first five years in efforts to address concerns about complexity and lack of meaningful impact on outcomes for our patients. One of these changes, the creation of MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs), aims to streamline reporting of increasingly aligned measures and serve as a stepping-stone for the transition to alternative payment models. As MIPS continues to evolve, these value pathways will provide new opportunities for breast imaging radiologists to participate in value-based care.

Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs. Abbreviated Breast MRI for Screening Women with Intermediate Risk of Breast Cancer-How Low-Cost Must MRI Be?

BACKGROUND

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) offer superior diagnostic performance compared to conventional mammography in screening women with intermediate risk of breast cancer due to dense breast tissue. The aim of this model-based economic evaluation was to analyze whether AB-MRI is cost-effective in this cohort compared to DBT.

METHODS

Decision analysis and Markov simulations were used to model the cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a time horizon of 30 years. Model input parameters were adopted from recent literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to test the stability of the model.

RESULTS

In the base-case scenario, the costs of an AB-MRI examination were defined to equal the costs of a full protocol acquisition. Two-yearly screening of women with dense breasts resulted in cumulative discounted costs of $8798 and $9505 for DBT and AB-MRI, and cumulative discounted effects of 19.23 and 19.27 QALYs, respectively, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $20,807 per QALY gained in the base-case scenario. By reducing the cost of an AB-MRI examination below a threshold of $241 in sensitivity analyses, AB-MRI would become cost-saving compared to DBT.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to DBT, AB-MRI can be considered cost-effective up to a price per examination of $593 in screening patients at intermediate risk of breast cancer.

Impact of specificity on cost-effectiveness of screening women at high risk of breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging, mammography and ultrasound

PURPOSE

Aim of this study was to analyze the comparative cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography vs conventional imaging in a screening setting for women with high risk of breast cancer, with particular focus on the impact of specificity of MRM.

METHOD

Decision analytic modelling and Markov Modelling were applied to evaluate cumulative costs of each screening modality and their subsequent treatments as well as cumulative outcomes in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). For the selected time horizon of 30 years, false positive and false negative results were included. Model input parameters for women with high risk of breast cancer were estimated based on published data from a US healthcare system perspective. Major influence factors were identified and evaluated in a deterministic sensitivity analysis. Based on current recommendations for economic evaluations, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the model stability.

RESULTS

In a base-case analysis, screening with XM vs. MRM and treatment resulted in overall costs of $36,201.57 vs. $39,050.97 and a cumulative effectiveness of 19.53 QALYs vs. 19.59 QALYs. This led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $ 45,373.94 per QALY for MRM. US and XM + US resulted in ICER values higher than the willingness to pay (WTP). In the sensitivity analyses, MRM remained a cost-effective strategy for screening high-risk patients as long as the specificity of MRM did not drop below 86.7 %.

CONCLUSION

In high-risk breast cancer patients, MRM can be regarded as a cost-effective alternative to XM in a yearly screening setting. Specificity may be an important cost driver in settings with yearly screening intervals.

Abbreviated Protocol Breast MRI

OBJECTIVE. Patients with dense breast tissue are seeking supplemental screening because of the limited sensitivity of mammography. Abbreviated protocol (AP) breast MRI is attractive because it offers a higher cancer detection rate, shorter scan time, and lower cost than full MRI. This article explores the issues of balancing the benefits of AP MRI with safety concerns about gadolinium-based contrast agents, lack of standardization of protocols and field strengths, potential decrease in performance metrics, and potential for overdiagnosis. CONCLUSION. Important questions need to be addressed before AP MRI can be used routinely for breast cancer screening. Evidence is lacking from well-designed prospective trials that can confirm the accuracy and efficacy of AP MRI are comparable with those of other breast imaging modalities. Determining which patients benefit most from AP MRI will help shape future screening guidelines.