Applied health economics and health policy · 2025
The Role of Price Variation in Economic Analyses for Cancer Screenings: A Rapid Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Triana Austin J, Alford-Holloway Mason N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Health care spending continues to rise, and recent policies have made prices more visible.
PURPOSE: To assess how cost effectiveness analyses obtain price information for common cancer screenings and account for price variation.
METHODS: A systematic search of PUBMED was conducted, extracting studies from 2021 to 2024 in English and evaluating health care services in the USA. Cost-effectiveness analyses were included for four common cancer screenings: prostate cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer. A single investigator extracted data and assessed quality, reviewed by a second investigator.
RESULTS: A total of 16 articles met inclusion criteria. Nearly all (94%) cited the Medicare Fee Schedule as the data source for pricing information. About half (44%) of analyses included a degree of price variation. Only three articles (19%) performed a cost-effectiveness analysis with a wide degree of price variation that accurately reflected the true degree of price variation observed in empirical data.
LIMITATIONS: The sample size of included studies was modest, and generalizability is limited beyond these four common cancer screenings.
CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses in the USA need to reflect the wide price variation that exists in health care, and publicly available price transparency data should guide future work.
PURPOSE: To assess how cost effectiveness analyses obtain price information for common cancer screenings and account for price variation.
METHODS: A systematic search of PUBMED was conducted, extracting studies from 2021 to 2024 in English and evaluating health care services in the USA. Cost-effectiveness analyses were included for four common cancer screenings: prostate cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer. A single investigator extracted data and assessed quality, reviewed by a second investigator.
RESULTS: A total of 16 articles met inclusion criteria. Nearly all (94%) cited the Medicare Fee Schedule as the data source for pricing information. About half (44%) of analyses included a degree of price variation. Only three articles (19%) performed a cost-effectiveness analysis with a wide degree of price variation that accurately reflected the true degree of price variation observed in empirical data.
LIMITATIONS: The sample size of included studies was modest, and generalizability is limited beyond these four common cancer screenings.
CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses in the USA need to reflect the wide price variation that exists in health care, and publicly available price transparency data should guide future work.