Expanding utilization and regional coverage of diagnostic CT colonography: early Medicare claims experience

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess national and regional trends in utilization and Medicare coverage of diagnostic CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

Medicare claims for diagnostic CTC were identified for the first 4 complete years for which Current Procedural Terminology® tracking codes existed (2005-2008). The frequencies of billed and denied services were extracted on a national and regional basis, along with physician provider specialty and site of service.

RESULTS

Total annual claims for diagnostic CTC for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries increased from 3,660 to 10,802 (+195%) between 2005 and 2008. Overall, 50.1% (14,051 of 28,048) of all claims were denied, with annual national denial rate decreasing from 70.0% to 43.4% (2,562 of 3,660 to 4,692 of 10,802, P < .001). Annual regional denial rates ranged from 16.5% to 98.3%. Of all 28,048 CTC claims, 25,893 (92.3%) were submitted by radiologists, 286 (1.0%) by gastroenterologists, and 369 (1.3%) by other specialists (specialties were indeterminate for 1,550). Most services were performed in office (n = 13,764 [49.1%]) and outpatient hospital (n = 12,110 [43.2%]) settings, with only a small number in the inpatient hospital (n = 1,768 [6.3%]) and other miscellaneous (n = 406 [1.4%]) settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic CTC is performed predominantly by radiologists in private office and outpatient hospital settings. Since the advent of Current Procedural Terminology tracking codes, the utilization of diagnostic CTC by Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries has tripled. Despite perceptions that new technology tracking codes are not payable, more than half of all examinations are now reimbursed by Medicare. Coverage varies regionally but overall is improving annually, setting the stage for expanded patient access.

Computed tomographic colonography: Hope or hype?

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a promising emerging technology for imaging of the colon. This concise review discusses the currently available data on CTC technique, test characteristics, acceptance, safety, cost-effectiveness, follow-up strategy, and extracolonic findings. In summary, CTC technique is still evolving, and further research is needed to clarify the role of automated colonic insufflation, smooth-muscle relaxants, intravenous and oral contrast, software rendering, and patient positioning. Currently, full bowel preparation is still required to achieve optimal results. The sensitivity for detecting large polyps (> 1 cm) can be as high as 85%, with specificity of up to 97%. These test characteristics are almost comparable to those of conventional colonoscopy. Patient acceptance of CTC is generally higher than that for colonoscopy, especially in patients who have never undergone either procedure. CTC is generally safe, although uncommon instances of colonic perforation have been documented. In terms of cost-effectiveness, most decision analyses have concluded that CTC would only be cost-effective if it were considerably cheaper than conventional colonoscopy. The proper follow-up strategy for small polyps or incidental extracolonic findings discovered during CTC is still under debate. At present, the exact clinical role of virtual colonoscopy still awaits determination. Even though widespread CTC screening is not available today, in the future there may eventually be a role for this technology. Technological advances in this area will undoubtedly continue, with multi-detector row CT scanners allowing thinner collimation and higher resolution images. Stool-tagging techniques are likely to evolve and may eventually allow for low-preparation CTC. Perceptual and fatigue-related reading errors can potentially be minimized with the help of computer-aided detection software. Further research will define the exact role of this promising technology in our diagnostic armamentarium.

ACR Colon Cancer Committee white paper: status of CT colonography 2009

PURPOSE

To review the current status and rationale of the updated ACR practice guidelines for CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

Clinical validation trials in both the United States and Europe are reviewed. Key technical aspects of the CTC examination are emphasized, including low-dose protocols, proper insufflation, and bowel preparation. Important issues of implementation are discussed, including training and certification, definition of the target lesion, reporting of colonic and extracolonic findings, quality metrics, reimbursement, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Successful validation trials in screening cohorts both in the United States with ACRIN and in Germany demonstrated sensitivity > or = 90% for patients with polyps >10 mm. Proper technique is critical, including low-dose techniques in screening cohorts, with an upper limit of the CT dose index by volume of 12.5 mGy per examination. Training new readers includes the requirement of interactive workstation training with 2-D and 3-D image display techniques. The target lesion is defined as a polyp > or = 6 mm, consistent with the American Cancer Society joint guidelines. Five quality metrics have been defined for CTC, with pilot data entered. Although the CMS national noncoverage decision in May 2009 was a disappointment, multiple third-party payers are reimbursing for screening CTC. Cost-effective modeling has shown CTC to be a dominant strategy, including in a Medicare cohort.

CONCLUSION

Supported by third-party payer reimbursement for screening, CTC will continue to further transition into community practice and can provide an important adjunctive examination for colorectal screening.

Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography: key concepts regarding polyp prevalence, size, histology, morphology, and natural history

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to provide a timely update on a variety of key polyp topics to construct a proper framework for physicians who are interested in providing CT colonography screening as a clinical service.

CONCLUSION

As the medical community considers the expansion of CT colonography for screening, we believe it is prudent to update and review several key concepts regarding colorectal polyps. In particular, it is important to replace the older literature derived from high-risk and symptomatic cohorts with the wealth of newer and more applicable data from average-risk and asymptomatic screening cohorts. Familiarity with current concepts regarding flat (nonpolypoid) lesions and the natural history of small colorectal polyps is also vital to the effective application of this technique.

Computed tomographic colonography: current perspectives and future directions

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography, also known as virtual colonoscopy or CT colography, is capable of detecting colon polyps and cancers. It is emerging rapidly and has gained great momentum over the past several years, to the point where it has been proposed to be a viable primary colon cancer screening option. Despite the current publicity, many issues concerning CT colonography remain. As of 2009, the following topics are of paramount importance: (1) accuracy, including both sensitivity and specificity, (2) bowel preparation, (3) safety, (4) extracolonic findings, (5) patient acceptability, (6) training and standardization, and (7) implementation of CT colonography. Although much about CT colonography has already been learned, more remains to be learned in the future.

Impact of whole-body CT screening on the cost-effectiveness of CT colonography

PURPOSE

To analyze the impact of adding computed tomographic (CT) imaging of the chest on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CT colonography to determine whether performing CT colonography and whole-body CT is a more clinically and cost-effective strategy than CT colonography alone when screening average-risk subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model simulated the occurrence of colorectal neoplasia, extracolonic abominal-pelvic malignancy, lung cancer, coronary artery disease (CAD), and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a cohort of 100,000 U.S. subjects aged 50 to 100 years. Cost-effectiveness of CT colonography and whole-body CT was compared with that of CT colonography alone; each test was assumed to be repeated every 10 years between ages of 50 and 80 years.

RESULTS

Performing CT colonography and whole-body CT was more effective and costly than was CT colonography alone. The addition of chest CT was associated with a 22% increase in efficacy (life-years gained: 14,662 vs 11,990) and with a 48% increase in cost per person ($13,605 vs $9,223). Both strategies were cost effective as compared with no screening, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $17,672 (CT colonography alone) and $44,337 (CT colonography and whole-body CT), respectively, but performing CT colonography and whole-body CT was not a cost-effective option when compared with CT colonography alone (ICER, $164,020). This was mainly a result of the high cost of false-positive follow-up for CAD and to the poor efficacy of lung cancer screening. Expected value of perfect information was $520 per patient.

CONCLUSION

The addition of chest CT to CT colonography does not appear to be a cost-effective alternative. Further research is needed before whole-body CT can be recommended in clinical practice.