| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Health Policy and Practice |
1 From the Research Department, American College of Radiology, 1891 Preston White Dr, Reston, VA 20191-4397. Received April 3, 1998; revision requested June 29; final revision received November 18; accepted January 7, 1999. Supported in part by National Cancer Institute grant U01CA62462 and in part by the American College of Radiology. Address reprint requests to J.H.B.
PURPOSE: To compare and evaluate the measures of costs for core-needle and surgical breast biopsies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three measures of costs were evaluated: (a) input resources, (b) actual payments, and (c) billed charges. A combination of methods were used for data collection from 10 sites enrolled in a large-scale, multiinstitutional, randomized controlled clinical trial.
RESULTS: Input resource cost data (42 core-needle and eight surgical biopsies) were the most difficult to obtain. Actual payments and billed charges data collection (32 core-needle and 44 surgical biopsies) was hampered by the difficulty of obtaining data from all providers involved in the procedures. Average direct input resource costs for surgical biopsy (including needle localization) were almost three times as high as those for core-needle biopsy ($698 vs $243). Actual payments ($2,398 vs $799) and billed charges ($3,764 vs $1,496) for surgical biopsy averaged two and a half to three times higher than those for core biopsy (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: There was remarkable consistency in relative costs. Input resource costs were much more difficult to obtain than were either actual payments or billed charges. However, input resource costs present a more reliable indication of the actual costs of a procedure than do the other measures. Given the difficulty in obtaining input resource costs, analyses by using actual payments may be preferred.
Index terms: Breast, biopsy, 00.125, 00.1261, 00.1267 • Cost-effectiveness
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. L. Warren, K. R. Yabroff, A. Meekins, M. Topor, E. B. Lamont, and M. L. Brown Evaluation of Trends in the Cost of Initial Cancer Treatment J Natl Cancer Inst, June 18, 2008; 100(12): 888 - 897. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Mandelblatt, C. Armetta, K. R. Yabroff, W. Liang, and W. Lawrence Descriptive Review of the Literature on Breast Cancer Outcomes: 1990 Through 2000 J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2004; 2004(33): 8 - 44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Chang, S. R. Long, L. Kutikova, L. Bowman, D. Finley, W. H. Crown, and C. L. Bennett Estimating the Cost of Cancer: Results on the Basis of Claims Data Analyses for Cancer Patients Diagnosed With Seven Types of Cancer During 1999 to 2000 J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2004; 22(17): 3524 - 3530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, B.-M. Ljung, and D. Grady Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities Ann Intern Med, August 19, 2003; 139(4): 274 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. R. Parisky, A. Sardi, R. Hamm, K. Hughes, L. Esserman, S. Rust, and K. Callahan Efficacy of Computerized Infrared Imaging Analysis to Evaluate Mammographically Suspicious Lesions Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2003; 180(1): 263 - 269. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Warren, M. L. Brown, M. P. Fay, N. Schussler, A. L. Potosky, and G. F. Riley Costs of Treatment for Elderly Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer in Fee-for-Service Settings J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2002; 20(1): 307 - 316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
