Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 1994 Aug;48(4):391–399. doi: 10.1136/jech.48.4.391

Mammographic screening: measurement of the cost in a population based programme in Victoria, Australia.

S F Hurley 1, P M Livingston 1, N Thane 1, L Quang 1
PMCID: PMC1059990  PMID: 7964340

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES--To estimate the cost per woman participating in a mammographic screening programme, and to describe methods for measuring costs. DESIGN--Expenditure, resource usage, and throughput were monitored over a 12 month period. Unit costs for each phase of the screening process were estimated and linked with the probabilities of each screening outcome to obtain the cost per woman screened and the cost per breast cancer detected. SETTING--A pilot, population based Australian programme offering free two-view mammographic screening. PARTICIPANTS--A total of 5986 women aged 50-69 years who lived in the target area, were listed on the electoral roll, had no previous breast cancer, and attended the programme. RESULTS--Unit costs for recruitment, screening, and recall mammography were $17.54, $60.04, and $175.54, respectively. The costs of clinical assessment for women with subsequent clear, benign, malignant (palpable), and malignant (impalpable) diagnoses were $173.71, $527.29, $436.62, and $567.22, respectively. The cost per woman screened was $117.70, and the cost per breast cancer detected was $11,550. CONCLUSIONS--The cost per woman screened is a key variable in assessment of the cost effectiveness of mammographic screening, and is likely to vary between health care settings. Its measurement is justified if decisions about health care services are to be based on cost effectiveness criteria.

Full text

PDF
391

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Eddy D. M. Screening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Sep 1;111(5):389–399. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-111-5-389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Finkler S. A. The distinction between cost and charges. Ann Intern Med. 1982 Jan;96(1):102–109. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-96-1-102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gravelle H. S., Simpson P. R., Chamberlain J. Breast cancer screening and health service costs. J Health Econ. 1982 Aug;1(2):185–207. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(82)90014-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hull R. D., Hirsh J., Sackett D. L., Stoddart G. L. Cost-effectiveness of primary and secondary prevention of fatal pulmonary embolism in high-risk surgical patients. Can Med Assoc J. 1982 Nov 15;127(10):990–995. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hurley S. F., Huggins R. M., Snyder R. D., Bishop J. F. The cost of breast cancer recurrences. Br J Cancer. 1992 Mar;65(3):449–455. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1992.91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hurley S. F., Jolley D. J., Livingston P. M., Reading D., Cockburn J., Flint-Richter D. Effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of recruitment strategies for a mammographic screening program to detect breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992 Jun 3;84(11):855–863. doi: 10.1093/jnci/84.11.855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hurley S. F., Kaldor J. M. The benefits and risks of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev. 1992;14:101–130. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hurley S. F., Livingston P. M. Personal costs incurred by women attending a mammographic screening programme. Med J Aust. 1991 Jan 21;154(2):132–134. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1991.tb121001.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hurley S. F. Screening: the need for a population register. Med J Aust. 1990 Sep 17;153(6):310–311. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1990.tb136935.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Klein R. On the Oregon trail: rationing health care. BMJ. 1991 Jan 5;302(6767):1–2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.302.6767.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kodlin D. A note on the cost-benefit problem in screening for breast cancer. Methods Inf Med. 1972 Oct;11(4):242–247. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Wirth P., Kahn L., Perkoff G. T. Comparability of two methods of time and motion study used in a clinical setting: work sampling and continuous observation. Med Care. 1977 Nov;15(11):953–960. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197711000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. van der Maas P. J., de Koning H. J., van Ineveld B. M., van Oortmarssen G. J., Habbema J. D., Lubbe K. T., Geerts A. T., Collette H. J., Verbeek A. L., Hendriks J. H. The cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Int J Cancer. 1989 Jun 15;43(6):1055–1060. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910430617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES