SAS #112 and the Private Club Industry

In 2006 the Accounting Standards Board issued a Statement of Auditing Standards (SAS) # 112 that was closely related to internal control matters. This new regulation affects both profit and non-profit business. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how SAS #112 specifically affects internal control and audit in private clubs

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a 2-stage community-based hepatocellular carcinoma screening program in Taiwan

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been ranked as the top cause of death due to neoplasm malignancy in Taiwan for years. The high incidence of HCC in Taiwan is primarily attributed to high prevalence of hepatitis viral infection. Screening the subjects with liver cirrhosis for HCC was widely recommended by many previous studies. The latest practice guideline for management of HCC released by the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) in 2005 recommended that the high risk groups, including cirrhotic patients, chronic HBV/HCV carriers, and subjects with family history of HCC and etc., should undergo surveillance.^ This study aims to investigate (1) whether the HCC screening program can prolong survival period of the high risk group, (2) what is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the HCC screening program in Taiwan, as compared with a non-screening strategy from the payer perspective, (3) which high risk group has the lowest ICER for the HCC screening program from the insurer\u27s perspective, in comparison with no screening strategy of each group, and (4) the estimated total cost of providing the HCC screening program to all high risk groups.^ The high risk subjects in the study were identified from the communities with high prevalence of hepatitis viral infection and classified into three groups (cirrhosis group, early cirrhosis group, and no cirrhosis group) at different levels of risk to HCC by status of liver disease at the time of enrollment. The repeated ultrasound screenings at an interval of 3, 6, and 12 months were applied to cirrhosis group, early cirrhosis group, and no cirrhosis group, respectively. The Markov-based decision model was constructed to simulate progression of HCC and to estimate the ICER for each group of subjects.^ The screening group had longer survival in the statistical results and the model outcomes. Owing to the low HCC incidence rate in the community-based screening program, screening services only have limited effect on survival of the screening group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the HCC screening program was $3834 per year of life saved, in comparison with the non-screening strategy. The estimated total cost of each group from the screening model over 13.5 years approximately consumes 0.13%, 1.06%, and 0.71% of total amount of adjusted National Health Expenditure from Jan 1992 to Jun 2005. ^ The subjects at high risk of developing HCC to undergo repeated ultrasound screenings had longer survival than those without screening, but screening was not the only factor to cause longer survival in the screening group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the 2-stage community-based HCC screening program in Taiwan was small. The HCC screening program was worthy of investment in Taiwan. In comparison with early cirrhosis group and no cirrhosis group, cirrhosis group has the lowest ICER when the screening period is less than 19 years. The estimated total cost of providing the HCC screening program to all high risk groups consumes approximately 1.90% of total amount of adjusted 13.5-year NHE in Taiwan.

Which strategies reduce breast cancer mortality most?

BACKGROUND: US breast cancer mortality is declining, but thousands of women still die each year. METHODS: Two established simulation models examine 6 strategies that include increased screening and/or treatment or elimination of obesity versus continuation of current patterns. The models use common national data on incidence and obesity prevalence, competing causes of death, mammography characteristics, treatment effects, and survival/cure. Parameters are modified based on obesity (defined as BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)). Outcomes are presented for the year 2025 among women aged 25+ and include numbers of cases, deaths, mammograms and false-positives; age-adjusted incidence and mortality; breast cancer mortality reduction and deaths averted; and probability of dying of breast cancer. RESULTS: If current patterns continue, the models project that there would be about 50,100-57,400 (range across models) annual breast cancer deaths in 2025. If 90% of women were screened annually from ages 40 to 54 and biennially from ages 55 to 99 (or death), then 5100-6100 fewer deaths would occur versus current patterns, but incidence, mammograms, and false-positives would increase. If all women received the indicated systemic treatment (with no screening change), then 11,400-14,500 more deaths would be averted versus current patterns, but increased toxicity could occur. If 100% received screening plus indicated therapy, there would be 18,100-20,400 fewer deaths. Eliminating obesity yields 3300-5700 fewer breast cancer deaths versus continuation of current obesity levels. CONCLUSIONS: Maximal reductions in breast cancer deaths could be achieved through optimizing treatment use, followed by increasing screening use and obesity prevention. Cancer 2013;119:2541–2548. © 2013 American Cancer Society

Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies

BACKGROUND: Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate mammography strategies considering screening and treatment advances. DESIGN: Collaboration of six simulation models. DATA SOURCES: National data on incidence, risk, breast density, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. TARGET POPULATION: An average-risk cohort. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTIONS: Mammograms from age 40, 45 or 50 to 74 at annual or biennial intervals, or annually from 40 or 45 to 49 then biennially to 74, assuming 100% screening and treatment adherence. OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening benefits (vs. no screening) include percent breast cancer mortality reduction, deaths averted, and life-years gained. Harms include number of mammograms, false-positives, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis. RESULTS FOR AVERAGE-RISK WOMEN: Biennial strategies maintain 79.8%-81.3% (range across strategies and models: 68.3–98.9%) of annual screening benefits with almost half the false-positives and fewer overdiagnoses. Screening biennially from ages 50–74 achieves a median 25.8% (range: 24.1%-31.8%) breast cancer mortality reduction; annual screening from ages 40–74 years reduces mortality an additional 12.0% (range: 5.7%-17.2%) vs. no screening, but yields 1988 more false-positives and 7 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from ages 50–74 had similar benefits as other strategies but more harms, so would not be recommended. SUB-POPULATION RESULTS: Annual screening starting at age 40 for women who have a two- to four-fold increase in risk has a similar balance of harms and benefits as biennial screening of average-risk women from 50–74. LIMITATIONS: We do not consider other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, or non-adherence. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that biennial screening is efficient for average-risk groups, but decisions on strategies depend on the weight given to the balance of harms and benefits. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Healt

Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

BackgroundControversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies.ObjectiveTo evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer.DesignCollaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality.SettingUnited States.PatientsAverage-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity.InterventionEight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years.MeasurementsBenefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens.ResultsBiennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years.LimitationOther imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered.ConclusionBiennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health

Modeling the impact of population screening on breast cancer mortality in the United States

OBJECTIVE: Optimal US screening strategies remain controversial. We use six simulation models to evaluate screening outcomes under varying strategies. METHODS: The models incorporate common data on incidence, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects. We evaluate varying initiation and cessation ages applied annually or biennially and calculate mammograms, mortality reduction (vs. no screening), false-positives, unnecessary biopsies and over-diagnosis. RESULTS: The lifetime risk of breast cancer death starting at age 40 is 3% and is reduced by screening. Screening biennially maintains 81% (range 67% to 99%) of annual screening benefits with fewer false-positives. Biennial screening from 50–74 reduces the probability of breast cancer death from 3% to 2.3%. Screening annually from 40 to 84 only lowers mortality an additional one-half of one percent to 1.8% but requires substantially more mammograms and yields more false-positives and over-diagnosed cases. CONCLUSION: Decisions about screening strategy depend on preferences for benefits vs. potential harms and resource considerations

Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. Breast cancer screening strategies

Background: Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. Objective: To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer. Design: Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. Setting: United States. Patients: Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity. Intervention: Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years. Measurements: Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and qualityadjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens. Results: Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar bene-fits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2-to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years. Limitation: Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered. Conclusion: Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening