Sociodemographic differences in the receipt of colorectal cancer surveillance care following treatment with curative intent.

BACKGROUND: Despite limited evidence of its effectiveness, most guidelines recommend colorectal cancer survivors undergo posttreatment surveillance care. This article describes the posttreatment use of colon examinations, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing, and metastatic disease testing among a managed care population. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-one patients with colorectal cancer enrolled in a managed care organization at diagnosis (1/1/90-12/31/95) and treated with curative intent. Patients were identified via a Cancer Registry maintained by a large group practice. Cumulative incidences of service receipt were estimated using actuarial (Kaplan-Meier) survival analyses. Co- Proportional Hazard Models were used to evaluate the relation of patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics to service receipt. Average 8-year medical care expenditures were calculated. RESULTS: Within 18 months of treatment, 55% of the cohort received a colon examination, 71% received CEA testing, and 59% received metastatic disease testing. Whites were more likely than minorities to receive CEA testing (RR = 1.47, P = 0.04) and tended to be more likely to receive a colon examination (RR = 1.43, P = 0.09). As the median household income of a patient's zip code of residence increased, so too did the likelihood of colon examination and metastatic disease testing receipt (RR = 1.09, P = 0.03 and RR = 1.12, P <0.01, respectively). Average 8-year medical care expenditures among the cohort were $30,247. CONCLUSIONS: Among a population with financial access to care, differences were found in the receipt of colorectal cancer surveillance care by race and income. Additional investigations are needed to understand why minorities and those residing in low-income areas are less likely to receive surveillance care.

Prophylaxis for stress-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis for stress-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. DESIGN: Decision model of the cost and efficacy of sucralfate and cimetidine, two commonly used drugs for prophylaxis of stress-related hemorrhage. Outcome estimates were based on data from published studies. Cost data were based on cost of medications and costs of treatment protocols at our institutions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The marginal cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis, as compare with no prophylaxis, was calculated separately for sucralfate and cimetidine and expressed as cost per bleeding episode averted. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was subsequently employed to compare the two agents. Sensitivity analyses of the effects of the major clinical outcomes on the cost per bleeding episode averted were performed. At the base-case assumptions of 6% risk of developing stress-related hemorrhage and 50% risk-reduction due to prophylaxis, the cost of sucralfate was $1,144 per bleeding episode averted. The cost per bleeding episode averted was highly dependent on the risk of hemorrhage and, to a lesser degree, on the efficacy of sucralfate prophylaxis, ranging from a cost per bleeding episode averted of $103,725 for low-risk patients to cost savings for very high-risk patients. The cost per bleeding episode averted increased significantly if the risk of nosocomial pneumonia was included in the analysis. The effect of pneumonia was greater for populations at low risk of hemorrhage. Assuming equal efficacy, the cost per bleeding episode averted of cimetidine was 6.5-fold greater than the cost per bleeding episode averted of sucralfate. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of prophylaxis in patients at low risk of stress-related hemorrhage is substantial, and may be prohibitive. Further research is needed to identify patient populations that are at high risk of developing stress-related hemorrhage, and to determine whether prophylaxis increases the risk of nosocomial pneumonia.