Cited by 25Economic and Financial Impacts of CancerGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging

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

Open access
Hughes, Danny R., Espinoza, William, Fein, Sarah, Rula, Elizabeth Y., McGinty, Geraldine·2023·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.4893

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Financial constraints threaten accurate diagnosis as patients with high out-of-pocket expenses usually decline more advanced but costly imaging or tests.

    “Financial constraints often threaten accurate diagnosis as patients with high out-of-pocket expenses usually decline more advanced but costly imaging or tests [320].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [320]

    The Results and Discussion (page not provided) associate higher cost-sharing with less subsequent diagnostic breast imaging, especially MRI, and describe a potential barrier to early diagnosis. But the study concerns breast-imaging follow-up, not advanced tests generally; it does not show that patients usually decline testing, and it found no significant difference in breast biopsy use. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. [1]Morrissey MA. Health Insurance. 3rd ed. Health Administration Press; 2020.
  2. [2]Agarwal R, Mazurenko O, Menachemi N. High-deductible health plans reduce health care cost and utilization, including use of needed preventive services. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017; 36(10): 1762- 1768. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0610 28971921 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [3]Solanki G, Schauffler HH. Cost-sharing and the utilization of clinical preventive services. Am J Prev Med. 1999; 17(2): 127- 133. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00057-4 10490055 · DOI
  4. [4]Rezayatmand R, Pavlova M, Groot W. The impact of out-of-pocket payments on prevention and health-related lifestyle: a systematic literature review. Eur J Public Health. 2013; 23(1): 74- 79. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cks034 22544911 · DOI
  5. [5]Han X, Robin Yabroff K, Guy GP Jr, Zheng Z, Jemal A. Has recommended preventive service use increased after elimination of cost-sharing as part of the Affordable Care Act in the United States? Prev Med. 2015; 78: 85- 91. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.07.012 26209914 PMC4589867 · DOI
  6. [6]Carlos RC, Fendrick AM, Kolenic G,. Breast screening utilization and cost sharing among employed insured women after the Affordable Care Act. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16(6): 788- 796. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.01.028 30833168 PMC7384237 · DOI
  7. [9]Lowry KP, Bell S, Fendrick AM, Carlos RC. Out-of-pocket costs of diagnostic breast imaging services after screening mammography among commercially insured women from 2010 to 2017. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(8): e2121347. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21347 34402892 PMC8371567 · DOI
  8. [10]Fu SJ, Rose L, Dawes AJ, Knowlton LM, Ruddy KJ, Morris AM. Out-of-pocket costs among patients with a new cancer diagnosis enrolled in high-deductible health plans vs traditional insurance. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(12): e2134282. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.34282 34935922 PMC8696568 · DOI
  9. [11]Mahajan AP, Brook RH. High-deductible health plans and better benefit design. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148(9): 704- 706. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-9-200805060-00011 18458284 · DOI
  10. [12]Beeuwkes Buntin M, Haviland AM, McDevitt R, Sood N. Healthcare spending and preventive care in high-deductible and consumer-directed health plans. Am J Manag Care. 2011; 17(3): 222- 230. 21504258
  11. [13]Wharam JF, Zhang F, Lu CY,. Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment after high-deductible insurance enrollment. J Clin Oncol. 2018; 36(11): 1121- 1127. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.2501 29489428 PMC5891127 · DOI
  12. [14]Wharam JF, Zhang F, Wallace J,. Vulnerable and less vulnerable women in high-deductible health plans experienced delayed breast cancer care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019; 38(3): 408- 415. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05026 30830830 PMC7268048 · DOI
  13. [15]Ong MS, Mandl KD. National expenditure for false-positive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnoses estimated at $4 billion a year. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015; 34(4): 576- 583. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.1087 25847639 · DOI
  14. [16]Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL,. National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology. 2017; 283(1): 49- 58. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016161174 27918707 PMC5375631 · DOI
  15. [17]Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P,. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005; 43(11): 1130- 1139. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83 16224307 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [18]Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer; 2001.
  17. [19]Lee CS, Parise C, Burleson J, Seidenwurm D. Assessing the recall rate for screening mammography: comparing the Medicare Hospital Compare dataset with the National Mammography Database. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 211(1): 127- 132. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.19229 29792737 · DOI
  18. [20]Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press; 2005. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811241 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [21]Duan N, Manning WG, Morris CN, Newhouse JP. Choosing between the sample-selection model and the multi-part model. J Bus Econ Stat. 1984; 2(3): 283- 289. doi: 10.2307/1391711 · DOI
  20. [22]Reddy SR, Ross-Degnan D, Zaslavsky AM, Soumerai SB, Wharam JF. Impact of a high-deductible health plan on outpatient visits and associated diagnostic tests. Med Care. 2014; 52(1): 86- 92. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000008 24322990 PMC5147026 · DOI
  21. [24]Ganguli I, Keating NL, Thakore N, Lii J, Raza S, Pace LE. Downstream mammary and extramammary cascade services and spending following screening breast magnetic resonance imaging vs mammography among commercially insured women. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(4): e227234. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.7234 35416989 PMC9008498 · DOI
  22. [25]Rosenkrantz AB, Hirsch JA, Allen B Jr, Harvey HB, Nicola GN. Identifying radiology’s place in the expanding landscape of episode payment models. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14(7): 882- 888. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.023 28291598 · DOI
  23. [26]Hughes DRM, Jiang M, McGinty G, Shetty SK, Duszak R. An empirical framework for breast screening bundled payments. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14(1): 17- 23.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.008 27544355 · DOI
  24. [27]Fleming MM, Hughes DR, Golding LP, McGinty GB, MacFarlane D, Duszak R Jr. Digital breast tomosynthesis implementation: considerations for emerging breast cancer screening bundled payment models. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16(7): 902- 907. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.11.025 30679104 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hughes, D. R., Espinoza, W., Fein, S., Rula, E. Y., & McGinty, G.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Hughes, Danny R.
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2023-03-27
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
e234893
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4361000518
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Keywords
patient cost sharing, out-of-pocket costs, breast cancer, diagnostic imaging utilization, mammography screening, follow-up testing, coinsurance, copayments, deductibles, insurance plans, commercial health insurance, Medicare Advantage, women's health disparities, racial and ethnic disparities
MeSH terms
Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Medicare, Humans, Mammography, Retrospective Studies, United States, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review