Cost-Effectiveness of Outreach Strategies for Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Medicaid Population.

Outreach, including patient navigation, has been shown to increase the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in underserved populations. This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) versus outreach, with or without a mailed annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), in a Medicaid population. A microsimulation model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY), direct costs, and clinical outcomes in a cohort of Medicaid beneficiaries aged 50-64 years, over a lifetime time horizon. The base case model explored scenarios of either 100% adherence or real-world reported adherence (51.3% for mt-sDNA, 21.1% for outreach with FIT and 12.3% for outreach without FIT) with or without real-world adherence for follow-up colonoscopy (66.7% for all). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0%. At 100% adherence to both screening tests and follow-up colonoscopy, mt-sDNA costed more and was less effective compared with outreach with or without FIT. When real-world adherence rates were considered for screening strategies (with 100% adherence for follow-up colonoscopy), mt-sDNA resulted in the greatest reduction in incidence and mortality from CRC (41.5% and 45.8%, respectively) compared with outreach with or without FIT; mt-sDNA also was cost-effective versus outreach with and without FIT ($32,150/QALY and $22,707/QALY, respectively). mt-sDNA remained cost-effective versus FIT, with or without outreach, under real-world adherence rates for follow-up colonoscopy. Outreach or navigation interventions, with associated real-world adherence rates to screening tests, should be considered when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies in underserved populations.

Facilitators and Barriers of a Health Department-based Mailed Fecal Testing Program.

BACKGROUND Mailed at-home stool testing offers a promising strategy for overcoming barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in vulnerable populations. This paper evaluates the facilitators and barriers of successful implementation of a mailed fecal testing program among Medicaid populations within a health department setting.METHOD Interviews were conducted with key informants involved in intervention start-up and implementation tasks. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to design the interview guide and structure the analysis. Axial coding was used to connect the themes to each other under the major categories of facilitators and barriers.RESULTS Overall, the process evaluation suggests that with strong partnerships, effective champions, and existing infrastructure, a large county health department can successfully implement a mailed fecal testing program targeted at Medicaid beneficiaries. The identified facilitators and challenges to implementation provide important information for similar emerging programs.LIMITATIONS The sample size of this evaluation is small. Additionally, we are unable to discern whether participating stakeholders' responses represent the feelings of non-interviewed staff, program implementers, or participants. We were not able to collect data on patient perspectives of the intervention. The nursing staff and interns were not able to be included in the process evaluation. Lastly, the information taken from this process evaluation may not be applicable to organizations and systems with different attributes.CONCLUSION The process evaluation suggests strong partnerships, effective champions, and elegant program designs were key contributors to successful implementation of a CRC screening program targeted at Medicaid beneficiaries in a large county health department.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the Medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: Mailed reminders to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) have been shown to be effective in the Medicaid population, in which screening is underused. However, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, with or without an included FIT kit. METHODS: The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of a reminder + FIT intervention versus a reminder-only intervention in increasing FIT screening. The analysis compared the costs per person screened for CRC screening associated with the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative using a 1-year time horizon. Input data for a cohort of 35,000 unscreened North Carolina Medicaid enrollees ages 52 to 64 years were derived from the trial and microcosting. Inputs and outputs were estimated from 2 perspectives-the Medicaid/state perspective and the health clinic/facility perspective-using probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate uncertainty. RESULTS: The anticipated number of CRC screenings, including both FIT and screening colonoscopies, was higher for the reminder + FIT alternative (n = 8131; 23.2%) than for the reminder-only alternative (n = 5533; 15.8%). From the Medicaid/state perspective, the reminder + FIT alternative dominated the reminder-only alternative, with lower costs and higher screening rates. From the health clinic/facility perspective, the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 per person screened. CONCLUSIONS: The reminder + FIT alternative was cost saving per additional Medicaid enrollee screened compared with the reminder-only alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective and likely cost-effective from the health clinic/facility perspective. The results also demonstrate that health departments and state Medicaid programs can efficiently mail FIT kits to large numbers of Medicaid enrollees to increase CRC screening completion.

Comparative effectiveness of mailed reminders with and without fecal immunochemical tests for Medicaid beneficiaries at a large county health department: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective but underused. Screening rates are lower among Medicaid beneficiaries versus other insured populations. No studies have examined mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based outreach programs for Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: In a patient-level randomized controlled trial, a mailed CRC screening reminder plus FIT, sent from an urban health department to Medicaid beneficiaries, was compared with the same reminder without FIT. The reminder group could request FIT. Completed FIT kits were processed by the health department laboratory. Respondents were notified of normal results by mail. Abnormal results were given via phone by a patient navigator who provided counselling and assistance with follow-up care. The primary outcome was FIT return. RESULTS: In all, 2144 beneficiaries at average CRC risk were identified, and there was no evidence of screening with Medicaid claims data. To the reminder+FIT group, 1071 were randomized, and 1073 were randomized to the reminder group; 307 (28.7%) in the reminder+FIT group and 347 (32.3%) in the reminder group were unreachable or ineligible (previous screening). The FIT return rate was significantly higher in the reminder+FIT group than the reminder group (21.1% vs 12.3%; difference, 8.8%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7%-13.9%; P < .01). Eighteen individuals (7.2%) who completed FIT tests had abnormal results, and 15 were eligible for follow-up colonoscopy; 66.7% (n = 10) completed follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: A health department-based, mailed FIT program targeting Medicaid beneficiaries was feasible. Including a FIT kit resulted in greater screening completion than a reminder letter alone. Further research is needed to understand the comparative cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

CDC Grand Rounds: the future of cancer screening.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, with 52% of deaths caused by cancers of the lung and bronchus, female breast, uterine cervix, colon and rectum, oral cavity and pharynx, prostate, and skin (melanoma). In the 1930s, uterine cancer, including cancer of the uterine cervix, was the leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States. With the advent of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test in the 1950s to detect cellular level changes in the cervix, cervical cancer death rates declined significantly. Since this first cancer screening test, others have been developed that detect the presence of cancer through imaging procedures (e.g., mammography, endoscopy, and computed tomography) and laboratory tests (e.g., fecal occult blood tests).

Alcohol control efforts in comprehensive cancer control plans and alcohol use among adults in the USA.

AIMS: To understand how US cancer control plans address alcohol use, an important but frequently overlooked cancer risk factor, and how many US adults are at risk. METHODS: We reviewed alcohol control efforts in 69 comprehensive cancer control plans in US states, tribes and jurisdictions. Using the 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we assessed the prevalence of current alcohol use among US adults and the proportion of these drinkers who exceeded guidelines for moderate drinking. RESULTS: Most comprehensive cancer control plans acknowledged alcohol use as a cancer risk factor but fewer than half included a goal, objective or strategy to address alcohol use. More than half of US adults reported current alcohol use in 2011, and two of three drinkers exceeded moderate drinking guidelines at least once in the past month. Many states that did not address alcohol use in comprehensive cancer control plans also had a high proportion of adults at risk. CONCLUSION: Alcohol use is a common cancer risk factor in the USA, but alcohol control strategies are not commonly included in comprehensive cancer control plans. Supporting the implementation of evidence-based strategies to prevent the excessive use of alcohol is one tool the cancer control community can use to reduce the risk of cancer.

Public health national approach to reducing breast and cervical cancer disparities.

Breast and cervical cancer have had disparate impact on the lives of women. The burden of breast and cervical cancer is more prominent among some racial and ethnic minority women. Providing comprehensive care to all medically underserved women is a critical element in continuing the battle to reduce cancer burden and eliminate disparities. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program is the only nationally organized cancer screening program for underserved women in the United States. Its public health goal is to ensure access to high-quality screening, follow-up, and treatment services for diverse and vulnerable populations that, in turn, may reduce disparities.

The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program in the era of health reform: a vision forward.

For the last 22 years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) has provided high quality breast and cervical cancer screening to women who do not have health insurance or who have inadequate insurance. As the health care landscape changes, it is time for CDC to address new identified needs and opportunities to increase cancer screening and to further explore new or expanded roles for the program looking to the future. The NBCCEDP is well positioned to build upon its experience, established clinical and community partnerships, and success in serving disadvantaged and diverse populations to address important barriers to cancer screening that will persist as health reform is implemented. Additionally, the program can adapt its extensive experience with establishing and managing an organized system of delivering cancer screening and apply it to promote a more organized approach to screening through health care systems on a population level. Emphasis is placed on the implementation of evidenced-based interventions proven effective in increasing cancer screening rates, promising practices and other organizational policy and health systems interventions.

Costs and benefits of an organized fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite clear recommendations and evidence linking colorectal cancer screening to lower incidence and mortality, > 40% of adults are not up to date with screening. Existing domestic and international models of organized cancer screening programs have been effective in increasing screening rates. Implementing an organized, evidence-based, national screening program may be an effective approach to increasing screening rates. METHODS: In the current study, the authors estimated the initial investment required and the cost per person screened of a nationwide fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening program among adults aged 50 years to 75 years. RESULTS: The initial additional investment required was estimated at $277.9 to $318.2 million annually, with an estimated 8.7 to 9.4 million individuals screened at a cost of $32 to $39 per person screened. The program was estimated to prevent 2900 to 3100 deaths annually. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study indicate that implementing a national screening program would make a substantial public health impact at a moderate cost per person screened. Results from this analysis may provide useful information for understanding the public health benefit of an organized screening delivery system and the potential resources required to implement a nationwide colorectal cancer screening program, and help guide decisions about program planning, design, and implementation.

Leading causes of death and all-cause mortality in American Indians and Alaska Natives.

OBJECTIVES: We present regional patterns and trends in all-cause mortality and leading causes of death in American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs). METHODS: US National Death Index records were linked with Indian Health Service (IHS) registration records to identify AI/AN deaths misclassified as non-AI/AN. We analyzed temporal trends for 1990 to 2009 and comparisons between non-Hispanic AI/AN and non-Hispanic White persons by geographic region for 1999 to 2009. Results focus on IHS Contract Health Service Delivery Area counties in which less race misclassification occurs. RESULTS: From 1990 to 2009 AI/AN persons did not experience the significant decreases in all-cause mortality seen for Whites. For 1999 to 2009 the all-cause death rate in CHSDA counties for AI/AN persons was 46% more than that for Whites. Death rates for AI/AN persons varied as much as 50% among regions. Except for heart disease and cancer, subsequent ranking of specific causes of death differed considerably between AI/AN and White persons. CONCLUSIONS: AI/AN populations continue to experience much higher death rates than Whites. Patterns of mortality are strongly influenced by the high incidence of diabetes, smoking prevalence, problem drinking, and social determinants. Much of the observed excess mortality can be addressed through known public health interventions.

Lung cancer deaths among American Indians and Alaska Natives, 1990-2009.

OBJECTIVES: We examined regional differences in lung cancer among American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) using linked data sets to minimize racial misclassification. METHODS: On the basis of federal lung cancer incidence data for 1999 to 2009 and deaths for 1990 to 2009 linked with Indian Health Service (IHS) registration records, we calculated age-adjusted incidence and death rates for non-Hispanic AI/AN and White persons by IHS region, focusing on Contract Health Service Delivery Area (CHSDA) counties. We correlated death rates with cigarette smoking prevalence and calculated mortality-to-incidence ratios. RESULTS: Lung cancer death rates among AI/AN persons in CHSDA counties varied across IHS regions, from 94.0 per 100,000 in the Northern Plains to 15.2 in the Southwest, reflecting the strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer. For every 100 lung cancers diagnosed, there were 6 more deaths among AI/AN persons than among White persons. Lung cancer death rates began to decline in 1997 among AI/AN men and are still increasing among AI/AN women. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of regional lung cancer death rates between AI/AN and White populations indicates disparities in tobacco control and prevention interventions. Efforts should be made to ensure that AI/AN persons receive equal benefit from current and emerging lung cancer prevention and control interventions.

Lung cancer incidence trends among men and women--United States, 2005-2009.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death and the second most commonly diagnosed cancer (excluding skin cancer) among men and women in the United States. Although lung cancer can be caused by environmental exposures, most efforts to prevent lung cancer emphasize tobacco control because 80%-90% of lung cancers are attributed to cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke. One sentinel health consequence of tobacco use is lung cancer, and one way to measure the impact of tobacco control is by examining trends in lung cancer incidence rates, particularly among younger adults. Changes in lung cancer rates among younger adults likely reflect recent changes in risk exposure. To assess lung cancer incidence and trends among men and women by age group, CDC used data from the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program for the period 2005-2009, the most recent data available. During the study period, lung cancer incidence decreased among men in all age groups except <35 years and decreased among women aged 35-44 years and 54-64 years. Lung cancer incidence decreased more rapidly among men than among women and more rapidly among adults aged 35-44 years than among other age groups. To further reduce lung cancer incidence in the United States, proven population-based tobacco prevention and control strategies should receive sustained attention and support.

US Primary Care Physicians' Prostate Cancer Screening Practices: A Vignette-Based Analysis of Screening Men at High Risk.

BACKGROUND: Limited information exists on primary care physicians' (PCPs) use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test by patient risk category. We describe PCP responses to hypothetical patient scenario (PS) involving PSA testing among high-risk asymptomatic men. METHODS: Data were from the 2007 to 2008 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Practices Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening. PS#1: healthy 55-year-old white male with no family history of prostate cancer; PS#2: healthy 45-year-old African American male with no family history of prostate cancer; and PS#3: healthy 50-year-old male with a family history of prostate cancer. Data were analyzed in SAS/SUDAAN. RESULTS: Most PCPs indicated that they generally discuss the possible benefits/risks of PSA testing with the patient and then recommend the test (PS#1-PS#3 range, 53.4%-68.7%; P < .001); only about 1% reported discussing and then recommending against the test. For PS#3, compared to PS#1 and #2, PCPs were more likely to discuss and recommend the test or attempt to persuade the patient who initially declines the test. For PS#3, all clinicians generally would order/discuss the PSA test and not rely on the patient to ask. CONCLUSION: Clinicians treat family history as an important reason to recommend, persuade, and initiate PSA testing.

The National Prevention Strategy and breast cancer screening: scientific evidence for public health action.

Mammography screening rates in the United States have remained fairly stable over the past decade, and screening rates remain low for some groups. We examined insights from recent public health research on breast cancer screening to identify promising new approaches to improve screening rates and address persistent health disparities in mammography use. We considered this research in the context of the four strategic directions of the National Prevention Strategy: elimination of health disparities, empowered people, healthy and safe community environments, and clinical and community preventive services. This research points to the value of direct outreach and case management services, interventions to support more patient-centered models of care, and more organized, population-based approaches to identify women who are eligible to be screened, encourage participation, and monitor results.

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).

Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care: recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men. OBJECTIVE: In July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians. DESIGN: Two-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations). MAIN MEASURES: Panelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTank(TM)). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified. KEY RESULTS: Highly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training. CONCLUSIONS: Conference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.

Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2008, featuring cancers associated with excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity.

BACKGROUND: Annual updates on cancer occurrence and trends in the United States are provided through collaboration between the American Cancer Society (ACS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR). This year's report highlights the increased cancer risk associated with excess weight (overweight or obesity) and lack of sufficient physical activity (<150 minutes of physical activity per week). METHODS: Data on cancer incidence were obtained from the CDC, NCI, and NAACCR; data on cancer deaths were obtained from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Annual percent changes in incidence and death rates (age-standardized to the 2000 US population) for all cancers combined and for the leading cancers among men and among women were estimated by joinpoint analysis of long-term trends (incidence for 1992-2008 and mortality for 1975-2008) and short-term trends (1999-2008). Information was obtained from national surveys about the proportion of US children, adolescents, and adults who are overweight, obese, insufficiently physically active, or physically inactive. RESULTS: Death rates from all cancers combined decreased from 1999 to 2008, continuing a decline that began in the early 1990s, among men and among women in most racial and ethnic groups. Death rates decreased from 1999 to 2008 for most cancer sites, including the 4 most common cancers (lung, colorectum, breast, and prostate). The incidence of prostate and colorectal cancers also decreased from 1999 to 2008. Lung cancer incidence declined from 1999 to 2008 among men and from 2004 to 2008 among women. Breast cancer incidence decreased from 1999 to 2004 but was stable from 2004 to 2008. Incidence increased for several cancers, including pancreas, kidney, and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, which are associated with excess weight. CONCLUSIONS: Although improvements are reported in the US cancer burden, excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity contribute to the increased incidence of many cancers, adversely affect quality of life for cancer survivors, and may worsen prognosis for several cancers. The current report highlights the importance of efforts to promote healthy weight and sufficient physical activity in reducing the cancer burden in the United States.