Does place of service matter? A utilisation and cost analysis of sexually transmissible infection testing from 2012 claims data
- PMID: 26774890
- PMCID: PMC6805125
- DOI: 10.1071/SH15066
Does place of service matter? A utilisation and cost analysis of sexually transmissible infection testing from 2012 claims data
Abstract
Background In this study, a previous study on the utilisation and cost of sexually transmissible infection (STI) tests was augmented by focusing on outpatient place of service for the most utilised tests.
Methods: Claims for eight STI tests [chlamydia, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B virus (HBV), HIV, human papillomavirus (HPV), herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV2), syphilis and trichomoniasis] using the most utilised current procedural terminology (CPT) code for each STI from the 2012 MarketScan outpatient table were extracted. The volume and costs by gender and place of service were then summarised. Finally, semi-log regression analyses were used to further examine and compare costs.
Results: Females had a higher number of test claims than males in all places of service for each STI. Together, claims from 'Independent Laboratories', 'Office' and 'Outpatient hospital' accounted for over 93% of all the test claims. The cost of tests were slightly (<5%) different between males and females for most places of service. Except for the estimated average cost for 'Outpatient hospital', the estimated average costs for the other categories were significantly lower (15-80%, P<0.01) than the estimated average cost for 'Emergency Room - Hospital' for all the STIs. Among the predominant service venues, test costs from 'Independent Laboratory' and 'Office' were 30% to 69% lower (P<0.01) than those from 'Outpatient Hospital'.
Conclusions: Even though the results from this study are not generalisable, our study shows that almost all STI tests from outpatient claims data were performed in three service venues with considerable cost variations.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of interest
None declared.
Figures




Similar articles
-
Utilization and cost of diagnostic methods for sexually transmitted infection screening among insured American youth, 2008.Sex Transm Dis. 2013 May;40(5):354-61. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318285c58f. Sex Transm Dis. 2013. PMID: 23588123
-
Productivity costs of nonviral sexually transmissible infections among patients who miss work to seek medical care: evidence from claims data.Sex Health. 2013 Nov;10(5):434-7. doi: 10.1071/SH13021. Sex Health. 2013. PMID: 23987746
-
The Estimated Direct Lifetime Medical Costs of Sexually Transmitted Infections Acquired in the United States in 2018.Sex Transm Dis. 2021 Apr 1;48(4):215-221. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001380. Sex Transm Dis. 2021. PMID: 33492093 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnosis and Treatment of Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Review.JAMA. 2022 Jan 11;327(2):161-172. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.23487. JAMA. 2022. PMID: 35015033 Review.
-
Rebound in sexually transmitted infections after the COVID-19 pandemic.AIDS Rev. 2023;26(3):127-135. doi: 10.24875/AIDSRev.23000015. AIDS Rev. 2023. PMID: 37879632 Review.
Cited by
-
An increase in sexually transmitted infections seen in US emergency departments.Prev Med. 2017 Jul;100:143-144. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.04.028. Epub 2017 Apr 26. Prev Med. 2017. PMID: 28455221 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Workowski KA, Berman S. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010; 59: 1–110. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical