Zurück
ProColon 1x p.a. ist in 3 Jahren genauso teuer wie Cologuard: 192,- x 3 Jahre. 576$
Insofern ist Deine Argumentation nicht ganz schlüssig. Ohne bessere Adherence durch Blut, also einen neuen Ansatz hätte ProColon niemals eine Chance. Aber da diese Problem adressiert wird, ist ProColon sehr relevant. Zwei Aspekte spielen bei der Erstattung die Rolle: reasonable und necessary
Reasonable
Food and Drug Administration (FDAApproved)
- Safe and Effective
Clinical Utility
- Provides clear benefits by reducing Colorectal Cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality
- Benefits are equivalent or better in comparison to other methods currently covered by CMS
Low Risk
- Blood collection is a standard procedure in clinical care and considered to be minimal risk
- Positives are referred to colonoscopy, which is an approved method routinely used in CRC screening
- Overall colonoscopy burden is lower as compared to the gold standard
Cost Effective
- Increased CRC screening participation in the pre-Medicare population reduces CRC incidence and mortality, while the additional screening costs can be largely offset by long term Medicare treatment savings
Necessary
An estimated nine million Medicare beneficiaries are not up to date with CRC screening
- Approximately one out of every three eligible adults 65 years of age (YOA) and older remain unscreened for CRC
Blood-based tests have demonstrated significantly higher adherence rates than existing methods
Epi proColon® has the potential to:
- Save over 225,000 lives and
- Detect nearly 400,000 cancers among all the Medicare
beneficiaries currently unscreened for CRC
Insofern ist Deine Argumentation nicht ganz schlüssig. Ohne bessere Adherence durch Blut, also einen neuen Ansatz hätte ProColon niemals eine Chance. Aber da diese Problem adressiert wird, ist ProColon sehr relevant. Zwei Aspekte spielen bei der Erstattung die Rolle: reasonable und necessary
Reasonable
Food and Drug Administration (FDAApproved)
- Safe and Effective
Clinical Utility
- Provides clear benefits by reducing Colorectal Cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality
- Benefits are equivalent or better in comparison to other methods currently covered by CMS
Low Risk
- Blood collection is a standard procedure in clinical care and considered to be minimal risk
- Positives are referred to colonoscopy, which is an approved method routinely used in CRC screening
- Overall colonoscopy burden is lower as compared to the gold standard
Cost Effective
- Increased CRC screening participation in the pre-Medicare population reduces CRC incidence and mortality, while the additional screening costs can be largely offset by long term Medicare treatment savings
Necessary
An estimated nine million Medicare beneficiaries are not up to date with CRC screening
- Approximately one out of every three eligible adults 65 years of age (YOA) and older remain unscreened for CRC
Blood-based tests have demonstrated significantly higher adherence rates than existing methods
Epi proColon® has the potential to:
- Save over 225,000 lives and
- Detect nearly 400,000 cancers among all the Medicare
beneficiaries currently unscreened for CRC
