Uptake and Short-term Outcomes of High-risk Screening Colonoscopy Billing Codes: A Population-based Study Among Young Adults

Validation of Insurance Billing Codes for Monitoring Antenatal Screening

BACKGROUND

Prevalence statistics for pregnancy complications identified through screening such as gestational diabetes usually assume universal screening. However, rates of screening completion in pregnancy are not available in many birth registries or hospital databases. We validated screening-test completion by comparing public insurance laboratory and radiology billing records with medical records at three hospitals in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

We abstracted a random sample of 140 delivery medical records (2014-2019), and successfully linked 127 to valid provincial insurance billings and maternal-newborn registry data. We compared billing records for gestational diabetes screening, any ultrasound before 14 weeks gestational age, and Group B streptococcus screening during each pregnancy to the gold standard of medical records by calculating sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Gestational diabetes screening (screened vs. unscreened) in billing records had a high sensitivity (98% [95% CI = 93, 100]) and specificity (>99% [95% CI = 86, 100]). The use of specific glucose screening approaches (two-step vs. one-step) were also well characterized by billing data. Other tests showed high sensitivity (ultrasound 97% [95% CI = 92, 99]; Group B streptococcus 96% [95% CI = 89, 99]) but lower negative predictive values (ultrasound 64% [95% CI = 33, 99]; Group B streptococcus 70% [95% CI = 40, 89]). Lower negative predictive values were due to the high prevalence of these screening tests in our sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Laboratory and radiology insurance billing codes accurately identified those who completed routine antenatal screening tests with relatively low false-positive rates.

Single CT Appointment for Double Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is the Time Ripe?

Annual screening of lung cancer (LC) with chest low-dose computed tomography (CT) and screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) with CT colonography every 5 years are recommended by the United States Prevention Service Task Force. We review epidemiological and pathological data on LC and CRC, and the features of screening chest low-dose CT and CT colonography comprising execution, reading, radiation exposure and harm, and the cost effectiveness of the two CT screening interventions. The possibility of combining chest low-dose CT and CT colonography examinations for double LC and CRC screening in a single CT appointment is then addressed. We demonstrate how this approach appears feasible and is already reasonable as an opportunistic screening intervention in 50–75-year-old subjects with smoking history and average CRC risk. In addition to the crucial role Computer Assisted Diagnosis systems play in decreasing the test reading times and the need to educate radiologists in screening chest LDCT and CT colonography, in view of a single CT appointment for double screening, the following uncertainties need to be solved: (1) the schedule of the screening CT; (2) the effectiveness of iterative reconstruction and deep learning algorithms affording an ultra-low-dose CT acquisition technique and (3) management of incidental findings. Resolving these issues will imply new cost-effectiveness analyses for LC screening with chest low dose CT and for CRC screening with CT colonography and, especially, for the double LC and CRC screening with a single-appointment CT.