Return on investment of self-management education and home visits for children with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Priorities of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 6|18 Initiative include outpatient asthma self-management education (ASME) and home-based asthma visits (home visit) as interventions for children with poorly-controlled asthma. ASME and home visit intervention programs are currently not widely available. This project was to assess the economic sustainability of these programs for state asthma control programs reimbursed by Medicaid. METHODS: We used a simulation model based on parameters from the literature and Medicaid claims, controlling for regression to the mean. We modeled scenarios under various selection criteria based on healthcare utilization and age to forecast the return on investment (ROI) using data from New York. The resulting tool is available in Excel or Python. RESULTS: Our model projected health improvement and cost savings for all simulated interventions. Compared against home visits alone, the simulated ASME alone intervention had a higher ROI for all healthcare utilization and age scenarios. Savings were primarily highest in simulated program participants who had two or more asthma-related emergency department visits or one inpatient visit compared to those participants who had one or more asthma-related emergency department visits. Segmenting the selection criteria by age did not significantly change the results. CONCLUSIONS: This model forecasts reduced healthcare costs and improved health outcomes as a result of ASME and home visits for children with high urgent healthcare utilization (more than two emergency department visits or one inpatient hospitalization) for asthma. Utilizing specific selection criteria, state based asthma control programs can improve health and reduce healthcare costs.

CDC's 6|18 Initiative: A Cross-Sector Approach to Translating Evidence Into Practice.

CONTEXT: As the US health care system continues to undergo dynamic change, the increased alignment between health care quality and payment has provided new opportunities for public health and health care sectors to work together. PROGRAM: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 6|18 Initiative accelerates cross-sector collaboration between public health and health care purchasers, payers, and providers and highlights 6 high-burden conditions and 18 associated interventions with evidence of cost reduction/neutrality and improved health outcomes. This evidence can inform payment, utilization, and quality of prevention and control interventions. IMPLEMENTATION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention focused initially on public payer health insurance interventions for asthma control, unintended pregnancy prevention, and tobacco cessation. Nine state Medicaid and public health agency teams-in Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, and South Carolina-participated in the initiative because they had previously prioritized the health condition(s) and specific intervention(s) and had secured state-level leadership support for state agency collaboration. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Center for Health Care Strategies, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and other partners supported state implementation and dissemination of early lessons learned. EVALUATION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted exploratory interviews to guide improvement of the 6|18 Initiative and to understand facilitators, barriers, and complementary roles played by each sector. Monthly technical assistance calls conducted with state teams documented collaborative activities between state Medicaid agencies and health departments and state processes to increase coverage and utilization. DISCUSSION: The 6|18 Initiative is strengthening partnerships between state health departments and Medicaid agencies and contributing to state progress in helping improve Medicaid coverage and utilization of effective prevention and control interventions. This initiative highlights early successes for others interested in strengthening collaboration between state agencies and between public and private sectors to improve payment, utilization, and quality of evidence-based interventions.

Electronic Information Standards to Support Obesity Prevention and Bridge Services Across Systems, 2010-2015.

Electronic information technology standards facilitate high-quality, uniform collection of data for improved delivery and measurement of health care services. Electronic information standards also aid information exchange between secure systems that link health care and public health for better coordination of patient care and better-informed population health improvement activities. We developed international data standards for healthy weight that provide common definitions for electronic information technology. The standards capture healthy weight data on the "ABCDs" of a visit to a health care provider that addresses initial obesity prevention and care: assessment, behaviors, continuity, identify resources, and set goals. The process of creating healthy weight standards consisted of identifying needs and priorities, developing and harmonizing standards, testing the exchange of data messages, and demonstrating use-cases. Healthy weight products include 2 message standards, 5 use-cases, 31 LOINC (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes) question codes, 7 healthy weight value sets, 15 public-private engagements with health information technology implementers, and 2 technical guides. A logic model and action steps outline activities toward better data capture, interoperable systems, and information use. Sharing experiences and leveraging this work in the context of broader priorities can inform the development of electronic information standards for similar core conditions and guide strategic activities in electronic systems.

Cost-Savings to Medicare From Pre-Medicare Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals have not received recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening before they become Medicare eligible at the age of 65. We aimed to estimate the long-term implications of increased CRC screening in the pre-Medicare population (50-64 y) on costs in the pre-Medicare and Medicare populations (65+ y). METHODS: We used 2 independently developed microsimulation models [Microsimulation Screening Analysis Colon (MISCAN) and Simulation Model of CRC (SimCRC)] to project CRC screening and treatment costs under 2 scenarios, starting in 2010: "current trends" (60% of the population up-to-date with screening recommendations) and "enhanced participation" (70% up-to-date). The population was scaled to the projected US population for each year between 2010 and 2060. Costs per year were derived by age group (50-64 and 65+ y). RESULTS: By 2060, the discounted cumulative total costs in the pre-Medicare population were $35.7 and $28.1 billion higher with enhanced screening participation, than in the current trends scenario ($252.1 billion with MISCAN and $239.5 billion with SimCRC, respectively). Because of CRC treatment savings with enhanced participation, cumulative costs in the Medicare population were $18.3 and $32.7 billion lower (current trends: $423.5 billion with MISCAN and $372.8 billion with SimCRC). Over the 50-year time horizon an estimated 60% (MISCAN) and 89% (SimCRC) of the increased screening costs could be offset by savings in Medicare CRC treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Increased CRC screening participation in the pre-Medicare population could reduce CRC incidence and mortality, whereas the additional screening costs can be largely offset by long-term Medicare treatment savings.

Lessons learned from the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.

This report briefly summarizes 13 articles in this dedicated supplement to Cancer documenting the full implementation and evaluation of CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP). The supplement includes 3 articles that describe clinical and quality outcomes; 2 articles that describe programmatic and clinical costs; 3 that were based on a multiple case study, using qualitative methods to describe the overall implementation experience of this initiative; and 4 articles written by and about individual program sites. The comprehensive, multi-methods evaluation conducted alongside the program produced many important lessons regarding the design, start-up, and implementation of colorectal cancer screening in this high-need population, and paved the way for the CDC to establish a larger, population-based colorectal cancer control initiative, broadly aligned with expectations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act through its population-based emphasis on using a health systems approach to increase colorectal cancer screening. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2817-9. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Outpatient colonoscopy complications in the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: a prospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: To the authors's knowledge, there are few published prospective cohort studies of colonoscopy complications in patients at average risk for colorectal cancer who received colorectal cancer screening from a community-based program. In this article, the authors report the rate of colonoscopy complications in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which provided colorectal cancer screening to a medically underserved population aged 50 years to 64 years for screening, diagnostic follow-up after positive stool blood tests, and surveillance purposes. METHODS: Clinical data were collected prospectively from 5 community-based colorectal cancer screening programs. Complications were identified by reviewing the standardized clinical data and medical complication reporting forms submitted by the programs to the CDC. Serious complications were defined as conditions or symptoms that resulted in hospital admission within 30 days after the procedure, including perforation, gastrointestinal bleeding requiring or not requiring blood transfusion, cardiopulmonary events, postpolypectomy syndrome, excessive abdominal pain, or death. RESULTS: A total of 3215 individuals underwent 3355 colonoscopies. Of these, 89% of the colonoscopies were conducted for screening, 9% were conducted for diagnostic follow-up, and 2% were conducted for surveillance purposes. The mean age of the individuals was 55.9 years. Eight individuals experienced serious complications, for an incidence of 2.38 per 1000 colonoscopies. Three patients experienced bowel perforations that required surgery, 1 patient was hospitalized for postpolypectomy bleeding, 3 patients experienced cardiopulmonary events, and 1 patient visited the emergency room for excessive abdominal pain and underwent surgery for an identified colorectal mass. No deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In the CDC's CRCSDP, in which a total of 3215 individuals underwent 3355 colonoscopies, the overall incidence of serious complications from colonoscopy was found to be low.

Clinical costs of colorectal cancer screening in 5 federally funded demonstration programs.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initiated the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to explore the feasibility of establishing a large-scale colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program for underserved populations in the United States. The authors of this report assessed the clinical costs incurred at each of the 5 participating sites during the demonstration period. METHODS: By using data on payments to providers by each of the 5 CRCSDP sites, the authors estimated costs for specific clinical services and overall clinical costs for each of the 2 CRC screening methods used by the sites: colonoscopy and fecal occult blood test (FOBT). RESULTS: Among CRCSDP clients who were at average risk for CRC and for whom complete cost data were available, 2131 were screened by FOBT, and 1888 were screened by colonoscopy. The total average clinical cost per individual screened by FOBT (including costs for screening, diagnosis, initial surveillance, office visits, and associated clinical services averaged across all individuals who received screening FOBT) ranged from $48 in Nebraska to $149 in Greater Seattle. This compared with an average clinical cost per individual for all services related to the colonoscopy screening ranging from $654 in St. Louis to $1600 in Baltimore City. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in how sites contracted with providers and in the services provided through CRCSDP affected the cost of clinical services and the complexity of collecting cost data. Health officials may find these data useful in program planning and budgeting.

Assessing screening quality in the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.

BACKGROUND: Gaps in screening quality in community practice have been well documented. The authors examined recommended indicators of screening quality in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which provided colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic services between 2005 and 2009 for asymptomatic, low-income, underinsured, or uninsured individuals at 5 sites around the United States. METHODS: For each client screened in the CRCSDP, a standardized set of colorectal cancer clinical data elements was collected. Data regarding client age, screening history, risk level, screening test indication, results, and recommendation for the next test were analyzed. For colonoscopies, data were analyzed regarding whether the cecum was reached, bowel preparation was adequate, and identified lesions were completely removed. RESULTS: Overall, 53% of the fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) (2295 tests) distributed were completed and returned. At the 2 sites with adequate numbers of FOBTs, 77% and 97%, respectively, of clients with positive results received follow-up colonoscopies. Site-specific cecal intubation rates ranged from 90% to 98%. Adenoma detection rates were 32% for men and 21% for women. For approximately one-third of colonoscopies, the recommended interval to the next test was shorter than recommended by national guidelines. At some sites, endoscopists failed to report on the adequacy of bowel preparation and completeness of polyp removal. CONCLUSIONS: Cecal intubation rates and adenoma detection rates met recommended levels. The authors identified the need for improvements in the follow-up of positive FOBTs, documentation of important elements in colonoscopy reports, and recommendations for rescreening or surveillance intervals after colonoscopy. Monitoring quality indicators is important to improve screening quality.

Costs of planning and implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiated the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to explore the feasibility of establishing a large-scale colorectal cancer screening program for underserved populations in the United States. The authors of the current report provide a detailed description of the total program costs (clinical and nonclinical) incurred during both the start-up and service delivery (screening) phases of the 4-year program. METHODS: Tailored cost questionnaires were completed by staff at the 5 CRCSDP sites. Cost data were collected for clinical services and nonclinical programmatic activities (program management, data collection, and tracking, etc). In-kind contributions also were measured and were assigned monetary values. RESULTS: Nearly $11.3 million was expended by the 5 sites over 4 years, and 71% was provided by the CDC. The proportion of funding spent on clinical service delivery and service delivery/patient support comprised the largest proportion of cost during the implementation phase (years 2-4). The per-person nonclinical cost comprised a substantial portion of total costs for all sites. The cost per person screened varied across the 5 sites and by screening method. Overall, economies of scale were observed, with lower costs resulting from larger numbers of individuals screened. CONCLUSIONS: Programs incur substantial variable costs related to clinical services and semivariable costs related to nonclinical services. Therefore, programs that serve large populations are likely to achieve a lower cost per person.

Moving forward: using the experience of the CDCs' Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program to guide future colorectal cancer programming efforts.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established and supported a 4-year Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) from 2005 to 2009 for low-income, under- or uninsured men and women aged 50-64 at 5 sites in the United States. METHODS: A multiple methods evaluation was conducted including 1) a longitudinal, comparative case study of program implementation, 2) the collection and analysis of client-level screening and diagnostic services outcome data, and 3) the collection and analysis of program- and patient-level cost data. RESULTS: Several themes emerged from the results reported in the series of articles in this Supplement. These included the benefit of building on an existing infrastructure, strengths and weakness of both the 2 most frequently used screening tests (colonoscopy and fecal occult blood tests), variability in costs of maintaining this screening program, and the importance of measuring the quality of screening tests. Population-level evaluation questions could not be answered because of the small size of the participating population and the limited time frame of the evaluation. The comprehensive evaluation of the program determined overall feasibility of this effort. CONCLUSIONS: Critical lessons learned through the implementation and evaluation of the CDC's CRCSDP led to the development of a larger population-based program, the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP).

Clinical outcomes from the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among US men and women. Screening rates have been slow to increase, and disparities in screening remain. METHODS: To address the disparity in screening for this high burden but largely preventable disease, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designed and established a 4-year Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) in 2005 for low-income, under-insured or uninsured men and women aged 50 to 64 years in 5 participating US program sites. In this report, the authors describe the design of the CRCSDP and the overall clinical findings and screening test performance characteristics, including the positive fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) rate; the rates of polyp, adenoma, and cancer detection with FOBTs and colonoscopies; and the positive predicative value for polyps, adenomas, and cancers. RESULTS: In total, 5233 individuals at average risk and increased risk were screened for colorectal cancer across all 5 sites, including 44% who underwent screening FOBT and 56% who underwent screening colonoscopy. Overall, 77% of all individuals screened were women. The FOBT positivity rate was 10%. Results from all screening or diagnostic colonoscopies indicated that 75% had negative results and required a repeat screening colonoscopy in 10 years, 16% had low-risk adenomas and required surveillance colonoscopy in 5 to 10 years, 8% had high-risk adenomas and required surveillance colonoscopy in 3 years, and 0.6% had invasive cancers. CONCLUSIONS: This report documents the successes and challenges in implementing the CDC's CRCSDP and describes the clinical outcomes of this 4-year initiative, the patterns in program uptake and test choice, and the comparative test performance characteristics of FOBT versus colonoscopy. Patterns in final outcomes from the follow-up of positive screening tests were consistent with national registry data.

Serious complications within 30 days of screening and surveillance colonoscopy are uncommon.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of serious complications after colonoscopy has important implications for the overall benefits of colorectal cancer screening programs. We evaluated the incidence of serious complications within 30 days after screening or surveillance colonoscopies in diverse clinical settings and sought to identify potential risk factors for complications. METHODS: Patients age 40 and over undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or evaluation based an abnormal result from another screening test were enrolled through the National Endoscopic Database (CORI). Patients completed a standardized telephone interview approximately 7 and 30 days after their colonoscopy. We estimated the incidence of serious complications within 30 days of colonoscopy and identified risk factors associated with complications using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: We enrolled 21,375 patients. Gastrointestinal bleeding requiring hospitalization occurred in 34 patients (incidence 1.59/1000 exams; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-2.22). Perforations occurred in 4 patients (0.19/1000 exams; 95% CI, 0.05-0.48), diverticulitis requiring hospitalization in 5 patients (0.23/1000 exams; 95% CI, 0.08-0.54), and postpolypectomy syndrome in 2 patients (0.09/1000 exams; 95% CI, 0.02-0.30). The overall incidence of complications directly related to colonoscopy was 2.01 per 1000 exams (95% CI, 1.46-2.71). Two of the 4 perforations occurred without biopsy or polypectomy. The risk of complications increased with preprocedure warfarin use and performance of polypectomy with cautery. CONCLUSIONS: Complications after screening or surveillance colonoscopy are uncommon. Risk factors for complications include warfarin use and polypectomy with cautery.

Comprehensive cancer control programs and coalitions: partnering to launch successful colorectal cancer screening initiatives.

Colorectal cancer control has long been a focus area for Comprehensive Cancer Control programs and their coalitions, given the high burden of disease and the availability of effective screening interventions. Colorectal cancer control has been a growing priority at the national, state, territorial, tribal, and local level. This paper summarizes several national initiatives and features several Comprehensive Cancer Control Program colorectal cancer control successes.

The impact of detection and treatment on lifetime medical costs for patients with precancerous polyps and colorectal cancer.

Understanding the costs associated with early detection of disease is important for determining the fiscal implications of government-funded screening programs. We estimate the lifetime medical costs for patients with screen-detected versus undetected polyps and early-stage colorectal cancer. Typically, cost-effectiveness studies of screening account only for the direct costs of screening and cancer care. Our estimates include costs for unrelated conditions. We applied the Kaplan-Meier Smoothing Estimator to estimate lifetime costs for beneficiaries with screen-detected polyps and cancer. Phase-specific costs and survival probabilities were calculated from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database for Medicare beneficiaries aged >or=65. We estimate costs from the point of detection onward; therefore, our results do not include the costs associated with screening. We used a modified version of the model to estimate what lifetime costs for these patients would have been if the polyps or cancer remained undetected, based on assumptions about the 'lead time' for polyps and early-stage cancer. For younger patients, polyp removal is cost saving. Treatment of early-stage cancer is cost increasing.

Colorectal cancer test use from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey.

BACKGROUND: Screening is effective in reducing colorectal cancer mortality. Recommended colorectal cancer screening options include a home fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or colorectal endoscopy (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy). Past surveys have indicated that colorectal cancer screening prevalence in the United States is low. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the prevalence of colorectal cancer test use in the United States by various factors and to examine reasons for not having a colorectal cancer test. METHODS: Data on respondents ages > or =50 years from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey (n = 13,269) were analyzed. The proportion of the U.S. population that had home FOBT within the past year or endoscopy within the past 10 years was examined by sociodemographic, health-care access, and other health-related factors. Reported reasons for not having FOBT or endoscopy were also analyzed. RESULTS: The age-standardized proportion of respondents who reported FOBT within the past year and/or endoscopy within the past 10 years was 50.0% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 48.8-51.2]. Colorectal cancer testing rates were particularly low among people without health-care coverage (24.1%; 95% CI, 19.2-29.7) or without a usual source of health care (24.7%; 95% CI, 20.8-29.0). The most commonly reported reason for not having a colorectal cancer test was "never thought about it." CONCLUSIONS: In 2005, about half of Americans ages > or =50 years did not have appropriate colorectal cancer testing. Increased efforts to expand health-care coverage or to provide colorectal cancer tests to people without health-care coverage are needed to increase colorectal cancer screening.

Facilitators and challenges to start-up of the colorectal cancer screening demonstration program.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program in 2005. To assess the feasibility of providing community-based colorectal cancer screening, CDC is conducting a multiple-case study as part of a larger evaluation effort. This article highlights key facilitators and challenges common to the five programs studied during the start-up period. METHODS: The multiple-case study that includes all five program sites is being conducted during the 3-year program as part of process evaluation efforts. Data collection for program start-up occurred during August 2005 through September 2006. Data include approximately 70 interviews with program staff and stakeholders, document review, and observations. Both case-specific and cross-case analyses were conducted. RESULTS: On the basis of the cross-case analysis, we identified four factors that facilitated program start-up and four factors that challenged program start-up. Facilitating factors included 1) pre-existing program infrastructure, 2) partnerships, 3) clinical expertise, and 4) program champions. Factors challenging program start-up included 1) contracts with endoscopists, 2) resources for treating medical complications of screening and for cancer treatment, 3) administrative barriers, and 4) resource limitations. Additionally, preplanning was critical, allowing programs to efficiently initiate activities once funds became available. CONCLUSION: The most important facilitator identified was the ability to build on pre-existing infrastructure, which provided experienced staff, partnerships, and provider relationships, as well as aided program integration with other chronic disease programs. Results also suggest that substantial planning and partnership development can begin before funds are secured to implement a colorectal cancer screening program.

Start-up of the colorectal cancer screening demonstration program.

INTRODUCTION: In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded five sites to implement the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP). An evaluation is being conducted that includes a multiple case study. Case study results for the start-up period, the time between initial funding and screening initiation, provide details about the program models and start-up process and reveal important lessons learned. METHODS: The multiple case study includes all five CRCSDP sites, each representing a unique case. Data were collected from August 2005 through September 2006 from documents, observations, and more than 70 interviews with program staff and stakeholders. RESULTS: Sites differed by geographic service area, screening modality selected, and service delivery structure. Program models were influenced by two factors: preexisting infrastructure and the need to adapt programs to fit local service delivery structures. Several sites modeled program components after their National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Medical advisory boards convened by all sites provided clinical support for developing program policies and quality assurance plans. Partnerships with comprehensive cancer control programs facilitated access to financial and in-kind resources. CONCLUSION: The program models developed by the CRCSDP sites offer a range of prototypes. Case study results suggest benefits in employing a multidisciplinary staff team, assembling a medical advisory board, collaborating with local partners, using preexisting resources, designing programs that are easily incorporated into existing service delivery systems, and planning for adequate start-up time.

Cost of starting colorectal cancer screening programs: results from five federally funded demonstration programs.

INTRODUCTION: In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) started a 3-year colorectal cancer screening demonstration project and funded five programs to explore the feasibility of a colorectal cancer program for the underserved U.S. population. CDC is evaluating the five programs to estimate implementation cost, identify best practices, and determine the most cost-effective approach. The objectives are to calculate start-up costs and estimate funding requirements for widespread implementation of colorectal cancer screening programs. METHODS: An instrument was developed to collect data on resource use and related costs. Costs were estimated for start-up activities, including program management, database development, creation of partnerships, public education and outreach, quality assurance and professional development, and patient support. Monetary value of in-kind contributions to start-up programs was also estimated. RESULTS: Start-up time ranged from 9 to 11 months for the five programs; costs ranged from $60,602 to $337,715. CDC funding and in-kind contributions were key resources for the program start-up activities. The budget category with the largest expenditure was labor, which on average accounted for 67% of start-up costs. The largest cost categories by activities were management (28%), database development (17%), administrative (17%), and quality assurance (12%). Other significant expenditures included public education and outreach (9%) and patient support (8%). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, no previous reports detail the costs to begin a colorectal cancer screening program for the underserved population. Start-up costs were significant, an important consideration in planning and budgeting. In-kind contributions were also critical in overall program funding. Start-up costs varied by the infrastructure available and the unique design of programs. These findings can inform development of organized colorectal cancer programs.

Development of a federally funded demonstration colorectal cancer screening program.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality among U.S. adults. In 2004, treatment costs for colorectal cancer were $8.4 billion. There is substantial evidence that colorectal cancer incidence and mortality are reduced with regular screening. The natural history of this disease is also well described: most colorectal cancers develop slowly from preexisting polyps. This slow development provides an opportunity to intervene with screening tests, which can either prevent colorectal cancer through the removal of polyps or detect it at an early stage. However, much less is known about how best to implement an effective colorectal cancer screening program. Screening rates are low, and uninsured persons, low-income persons, and persons who have not visited a physician within a year are least likely to be screened. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has 15 years of experience supporting the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program for the underserved population, a similar national program for colorectal cancer is not in place. To explore the feasibility of implementing a national program for the underserved U.S. population and to learn which settings and which program models are most viable and cost-effective, CDC began a 3-year colorectal cancer screening demonstration program in 2005. This article describes briefly this demonstration program and the process CDC used to design it and to select program sites. The multiple-methods evaluation now under way to assess the program's feasibility and describe key outcomes is also detailed. Evaluation results will be used to inform future activities related to organized screening for colorectal cancer.

Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system.

BACKGROUND: Information about colonoscopy complications, particularly postpolypectomy bleeding, is limited. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the magnitude and severity of colonoscopy complications. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente of Northern California. PATIENTS: 16, 318 members 40 years of age or older undergoing colonoscopy between January 1994 and July 2002. MEASUREMENTS: Electronic records reviewed for serious complications, including hospital admission within 30 days of colonoscopy for colonic perforation, colonic bleeding, diverticulitis, the postpolypectomy syndrome, or other serious illnesses directly related to colonoscopy. RESULTS: 82 serious complications occurred (5.0 per 1000 colonoscopies [95% CI, 4.0 to 6.2 per 1000 colonoscopies]). Serious complications occurred in 0.8 per 1000 colonoscopies without biopsy or polypectomy and in 7.0 per 1000 colonoscopies with biopsy or polypectomy. Perforations occurred in 0.9 per 1000 colonoscopies (CI, 0.5 to 1.5 per 1000 colonoscopies) (0.6 per 1000 without biopsy or polypectomy and 1.1 per 1000 with biopsy or polypectomy). Postbiopsy or postpolypectomy bleeding occurred in 4.8 per 1000 colonoscopies with biopsy (CI, 3.6 to 6.2 per 1000 colonoscopies). Biopsy or polypectomy was associated with an increased risk for any serious complication (rate ratio, 9.2 [CI, 2.9 to 29.0] vs. colonoscopy without biopsy). Ten deaths (1 attributable to colonoscopy) occurred within 30 days of the colonoscopy. LIMITATIONS: 99.3% (16 204) of colonoscopies were nonscreening examinations. The rate of complications may be lower in a primary screening sample. The small number of observed adverse events limited power to detect risk factors for complications. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy with biopsy or polypectomy is associated with increased risk for complications. Perforation may also occur during colonoscopies without biopsies.