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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Health services research 2017-10, Vol.52 (5), p.1772-1793
Hauptverfasser: Xu, Wendy Yi, Jung, Jeah Kyoungrae
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 &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Extraction</subject><subject>Fee-for-Service Plans - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Low income groups</subject><subject>low‐value cancer screenings</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mammography - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Medicaid</subject><subject>Medicare</subject><subject>Medicare - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Medicare and Medicaid</subject><subject>Papanicolaou Test - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Extraction</topic><topic>Fee-for-Service Plans - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Low income groups</topic><topic>low‐value cancer screenings</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mammography - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Medicaid</topic><topic>Medicare</topic><topic>Medicare - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Medicare and Medicaid</topic><topic>Papanicolaou Test - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; 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