Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Low‐Value Cancer Screenings and Distributional Effects in Medicare
Objective Consuming low‐value health care not only highlights inefficient resource use but also brings an important concern regarding the economics of disparities. We identify the relation of socioeconomic characteristics to the use of low‐value cancer screenings in Medicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) se...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Health services research 2017-10, Vol.52 (5), p.1772-1793 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1793 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 1772 |
container_title | Health services research |
container_volume | 52 |
creator | Xu, Wendy Yi Jung, Jeah Kyoungrae |
description | Objective
Consuming low‐value health care not only highlights inefficient resource use but also brings an important concern regarding the economics of disparities. We identify the relation of socioeconomic characteristics to the use of low‐value cancer screenings in Medicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) settings, and quantify the amount subsidized from nonusers and taxpayers to users of these screenings.
Data Sources
2007–2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Medicare FFS claims, and the Area Health Resource Files.
Study Design
Our sample included enrollees in FFS Part B for the entire calendar year. We excluded beneficiaries with a claims‐documented or self‐reported history of targeted cancers, or those enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare Advantage plans. We identified use of low‐value Pap smears, mammograms, and prostate‐specific antigen tests based on established algorithms, and estimated a logistic model with year dummies separately for each test.
Data Collection/Extraction Methods
Secondary data analyses.
Principal Findings
We found a statistically significant positive association between privileged socioeconomic characteristics and use of low‐value screenings. Having higher income and supplemental private insurance strongly predicted more net subsidies from Medicare.
Conclusions
FFS enrollees who are better off in terms of sociodemographic characteristics receive greater subsidies from taxpayers for using low‐value cancer screenings. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1475-6773.12559 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5583315</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A507012790</galeid><sourcerecordid>A507012790</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c7839-e3c73e6319189157a0d439333c8f43087fa5676da077295a5a26a8f45e418bc43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFk99rFDEQxxdR7Fl99k0WBFFwr8lms0lehHKerXBS8KyvIZed3UvZS9pk19o3_wT_Rv8Scz88bqVoAgnMfOabYWaSJM8xGuO4TnDBaFYyRsY4p1Q8SEZ7y8NkhBBmmcB5cZQ8CeEKIcQJLx4nRzkr84IzOkqWc6eNA-2sWxmdvjd1DR6shpAam14GSF2dztztrx8_v6q2h3SiotOnc-0BrLFNSJWtYlzovFn0nXFWtek0quhuI_EJKqOVh6fJo1q1AZ7t7uPk8sP0y-Q8m12cfZyczjLNOBEZEM0IlAQLzAWmTKGqIIIQonldEMRZrWjJykohxnJBFVV5qaKLQoH5QhfkOHm31b3uFyuoNNjOq1Zee7NS_k46ZeTQY81SNu6bpJQTgmkUeL0T8O6mh9DJlQka2lZZcH2QmFPB8kLkeURf_oVeud7HAkRKEIpzxg-pRrUgja1dfFevReUpRQxFTKBIZfdQDViISToLtYnmAT--h4-7gtjIewPeDAIi08H3rlF9CJKfzf6VzI7Vrm2hARkbNrkY8q8O-CWotlsG127GIQzBtwfgog_GQohHMM2yC9tcBvjJFtfeheCh3vcRI7n-AHI97nI97nLzAWLEi8P27_k_Ex-Bcgvcxvrc_U9Pnk_nn7fKvwE3JQsp</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1935127822</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Low‐Value Cancer Screenings and Distributional Effects in Medicare</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Xu, Wendy Yi ; Jung, Jeah Kyoungrae</creator><creatorcontrib>Xu, Wendy Yi ; Jung, Jeah Kyoungrae</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
Consuming low‐value health care not only highlights inefficient resource use but also brings an important concern regarding the economics of disparities. We identify the relation of socioeconomic characteristics to the use of low‐value cancer screenings in Medicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) settings, and quantify the amount subsidized from nonusers and taxpayers to users of these screenings.
Data Sources
2007–2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Medicare FFS claims, and the Area Health Resource Files.
Study Design
Our sample included enrollees in FFS Part B for the entire calendar year. We excluded beneficiaries with a claims‐documented or self‐reported history of targeted cancers, or those enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare Advantage plans. We identified use of low‐value Pap smears, mammograms, and prostate‐specific antigen tests based on established algorithms, and estimated a logistic model with year dummies separately for each test.
Data Collection/Extraction Methods
Secondary data analyses.
Principal Findings
We found a statistically significant positive association between privileged socioeconomic characteristics and use of low‐value screenings. Having higher income and supplemental private insurance strongly predicted more net subsidies from Medicare.
Conclusions
FFS enrollees who are better off in terms of sociodemographic characteristics receive greater subsidies from taxpayers for using low‐value cancer screenings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0017-9124</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-6773</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12559</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27624875</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Health Research and Educational Trust</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Age Factors ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Beneficiaries ; Cancer ; Claims ; Data collection ; Data processing ; Distributional effects ; Dummies ; Early Detection of Cancer - statistics & numerical data ; Extraction ; Fee-for-Service Plans - statistics & numerical data ; Female ; Government programs ; Health care ; Health care delivery ; Health disparities ; Health insurance ; Health status ; Humans ; Income - statistics & numerical data ; Low income groups ; low‐value cancer screenings ; Male ; Mammography - statistics & numerical data ; Medicaid ; Medicare ; Medicare - statistics & numerical data ; Medicare and Medicaid ; Papanicolaou Test - statistics & numerical data ; Prostate ; Prostate-specific antigen ; Prostate-Specific Antigen - blood ; Sociodemographics ; Socioeconomic Factors ; Statistical analysis ; Subsidies ; Surveys ; Test procedures ; United States ; Value]]></subject><ispartof>Health services research, 2017-10, Vol.52 (5), p.1772-1793</ispartof><rights>Health Research and Educational Trust</rights><rights>Health Research and Educational Trust.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Health Research and Educational Trust</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Health Research and Educational Trust</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c7839-e3c73e6319189157a0d439333c8f43087fa5676da077295a5a26a8f45e418bc43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c7839-e3c73e6319189157a0d439333c8f43087fa5676da077295a5a26a8f45e418bc43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5583315/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5583315/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,30999,45574,45575,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27624875$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Xu, Wendy Yi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Jeah Kyoungrae</creatorcontrib><title>Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Low‐Value Cancer Screenings and Distributional Effects in Medicare</title><title>Health services research</title><addtitle>Health Serv Res</addtitle><description>Objective
Consuming low‐value health care not only highlights inefficient resource use but also brings an important concern regarding the economics of disparities. We identify the relation of socioeconomic characteristics to the use of low‐value cancer screenings in Medicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) settings, and quantify the amount subsidized from nonusers and taxpayers to users of these screenings.
Data Sources
2007–2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Medicare FFS claims, and the Area Health Resource Files.
Study Design
Our sample included enrollees in FFS Part B for the entire calendar year. We excluded beneficiaries with a claims‐documented or self‐reported history of targeted cancers, or those enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare Advantage plans. We identified use of low‐value Pap smears, mammograms, and prostate‐specific antigen tests based on established algorithms, and estimated a logistic model with year dummies separately for each test.
Data Collection/Extraction Methods
Secondary data analyses.
Principal Findings
We found a statistically significant positive association between privileged socioeconomic characteristics and use of low‐value screenings. Having higher income and supplemental private insurance strongly predicted more net subsidies from Medicare.
Conclusions
FFS enrollees who are better off in terms of sociodemographic characteristics receive greater subsidies from taxpayers for using low‐value cancer screenings.</description><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Beneficiaries</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Claims</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Distributional effects</subject><subject>Dummies</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Extraction</subject><subject>Fee-for-Service Plans - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Government programs</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health care delivery</subject><subject>Health disparities</subject><subject>Health insurance</subject><subject>Health status</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Income - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Low income groups</subject><subject>low‐value cancer screenings</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mammography - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Medicaid</subject><subject>Medicare</subject><subject>Medicare - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Medicare and Medicaid</subject><subject>Papanicolaou Test - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Prostate</subject><subject>Prostate-specific antigen</subject><subject>Prostate-Specific Antigen - blood</subject><subject>Sociodemographics</subject><subject>Socioeconomic Factors</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Subsidies</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Test procedures</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Value</subject><issn>0017-9124</issn><issn>1475-6773</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>N95</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFk99rFDEQxxdR7Fl99k0WBFFwr8lms0lehHKerXBS8KyvIZed3UvZS9pk19o3_wT_Rv8Scz88bqVoAgnMfOabYWaSJM8xGuO4TnDBaFYyRsY4p1Q8SEZ7y8NkhBBmmcB5cZQ8CeEKIcQJLx4nRzkr84IzOkqWc6eNA-2sWxmdvjd1DR6shpAam14GSF2dztztrx8_v6q2h3SiotOnc-0BrLFNSJWtYlzovFn0nXFWtek0quhuI_EJKqOVh6fJo1q1AZ7t7uPk8sP0y-Q8m12cfZyczjLNOBEZEM0IlAQLzAWmTKGqIIIQonldEMRZrWjJykohxnJBFVV5qaKLQoH5QhfkOHm31b3uFyuoNNjOq1Zee7NS_k46ZeTQY81SNu6bpJQTgmkUeL0T8O6mh9DJlQka2lZZcH2QmFPB8kLkeURf_oVeud7HAkRKEIpzxg-pRrUgja1dfFevReUpRQxFTKBIZfdQDViISToLtYnmAT--h4-7gtjIewPeDAIi08H3rlF9CJKfzf6VzI7Vrm2hARkbNrkY8q8O-CWotlsG127GIQzBtwfgog_GQohHMM2yC9tcBvjJFtfeheCh3vcRI7n-AHI97nI97nLzAWLEi8P27_k_Ex-Bcgvcxvrc_U9Pnk_nn7fKvwE3JQsp</recordid><startdate>201710</startdate><enddate>201710</enddate><creator>Xu, Wendy Yi</creator><creator>Jung, Jeah Kyoungrae</creator><general>Health Research and Educational Trust</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>N95</scope><scope>XI7</scope><scope>8GL</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201710</creationdate><title>Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Low‐Value Cancer Screenings and Distributional Effects in Medicare</title><author>Xu, Wendy Yi ; Jung, Jeah Kyoungrae</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c7839-e3c73e6319189157a0d439333c8f43087fa5676da077295a5a26a8f45e418bc43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Beneficiaries</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Claims</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Distributional effects</topic><topic>Dummies</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Extraction</topic><topic>Fee-for-Service Plans - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Government programs</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health care delivery</topic><topic>Health disparities</topic><topic>Health insurance</topic><topic>Health status</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Income - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Low income groups</topic><topic>low‐value cancer screenings</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mammography - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Medicaid</topic><topic>Medicare</topic><topic>Medicare - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Medicare and Medicaid</topic><topic>Papanicolaou Test - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Prostate</topic><topic>Prostate-specific antigen</topic><topic>Prostate-Specific Antigen - blood</topic><topic>Sociodemographics</topic><topic>Socioeconomic Factors</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Subsidies</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Test procedures</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Value</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Xu, Wendy Yi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Jeah Kyoungrae</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Business: Insights</collection><collection>Business Insights: Essentials</collection><collection>Gale In Context: High School</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Health services research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Xu, Wendy Yi</au><au>Jung, Jeah Kyoungrae</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Low‐Value Cancer Screenings and Distributional Effects in Medicare</atitle><jtitle>Health services research</jtitle><addtitle>Health Serv Res</addtitle><date>2017-10</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1772</spage><epage>1793</epage><pages>1772-1793</pages><issn>0017-9124</issn><eissn>1475-6773</eissn><abstract>Objective
Consuming low‐value health care not only highlights inefficient resource use but also brings an important concern regarding the economics of disparities. We identify the relation of socioeconomic characteristics to the use of low‐value cancer screenings in Medicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) settings, and quantify the amount subsidized from nonusers and taxpayers to users of these screenings.
Data Sources
2007–2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Medicare FFS claims, and the Area Health Resource Files.
Study Design
Our sample included enrollees in FFS Part B for the entire calendar year. We excluded beneficiaries with a claims‐documented or self‐reported history of targeted cancers, or those enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare Advantage plans. We identified use of low‐value Pap smears, mammograms, and prostate‐specific antigen tests based on established algorithms, and estimated a logistic model with year dummies separately for each test.
Data Collection/Extraction Methods
Secondary data analyses.
Principal Findings
We found a statistically significant positive association between privileged socioeconomic characteristics and use of low‐value screenings. Having higher income and supplemental private insurance strongly predicted more net subsidies from Medicare.
Conclusions
FFS enrollees who are better off in terms of sociodemographic characteristics receive greater subsidies from taxpayers for using low‐value cancer screenings.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Health Research and Educational Trust</pub><pmid>27624875</pmid><doi>10.1111/1475-6773.12559</doi><tpages>22</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0017-9124 |
ispartof | Health services research, 2017-10, Vol.52 (5), p.1772-1793 |
issn | 0017-9124 1475-6773 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5583315 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Age Factors Aged Aged, 80 and over Beneficiaries Cancer Claims Data collection Data processing Distributional effects Dummies Early Detection of Cancer - statistics & numerical data Extraction Fee-for-Service Plans - statistics & numerical data Female Government programs Health care Health care delivery Health disparities Health insurance Health status Humans Income - statistics & numerical data Low income groups low‐value cancer screenings Male Mammography - statistics & numerical data Medicaid Medicare Medicare - statistics & numerical data Medicare and Medicaid Papanicolaou Test - statistics & numerical data Prostate Prostate-specific antigen Prostate-Specific Antigen - blood Sociodemographics Socioeconomic Factors Statistical analysis Subsidies Surveys Test procedures United States Value |
title | Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Low‐Value Cancer Screenings and Distributional Effects in Medicare |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T09%3A37%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Socioeconomic%20Differences%20in%20Use%20of%20Low%E2%80%90Value%20Cancer%20Screenings%20and%20Distributional%20Effects%20in%20Medicare&rft.jtitle=Health%20services%20research&rft.au=Xu,%20Wendy%20Yi&rft.date=2017-10&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1772&rft.epage=1793&rft.pages=1772-1793&rft.issn=0017-9124&rft.eissn=1475-6773&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1475-6773.12559&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA507012790%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1935127822&rft_id=info:pmid/27624875&rft_galeid=A507012790&rfr_iscdi=true |