Expenditures on Screening Promotion Activities in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009-2014.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and increase screening and follow-up as recommended. We estimate the cost for evidence-based intervention and non-evidence-based intervention screening promotion activities and examine expenditures on screening promotion activities. We also identify factors associated with the costs of these activities. METHODS: By using cost and resource use data collected from 25 state grantees over multiple years (July 2009 to June 2014), we analyzed the total cost for each screening promotion activity. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the factors associated with screening promotion costs reported by grantees. RESULTS: The promotion activities with the largest allocation of funding across the years and grantees were mass media, patient navigation, outreach and education, and small media. Across all years of the program and across grantees, the amount spent on specific promotion activities varied widely. The factor significantly associated with promotion costs was region in which the grantee was located. CONCLUSION: CDC's CRCCP grantees spent the largest amount of the screening promotion funds on mass media, which is not recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Given the large variation across grantees in the use of and expenditures on screening promotion interventions, a systematic assessment of the yield from investment in specific promotion activities could better guide optimal resource allocation.

Maryland's Global Hospital Budgets: Impacts on Medicare Cost and Utilization for the First 3 Years.

BACKGROUND: Global budgets have been proposed as a way to control health care expenditures, but experience with them in the United States is limited. Global budgets for Maryland hospitals, the All-Payer Model, began in January 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of hospital global budgets on health care utilization and expenditures. RESEARCH DESIGN: Quantitative analyses used a difference-in-differences design modified for nonparallel baseline trends, comparing trend changes from a 3-year baseline period to the first 3 years after All-Payer Model implementation for Maryland and a matched comparison group. SUBJECTS: Hospitals in Maryland and matched out-of-state comparison hospitals. Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries residing in Maryland and comparison hospital market areas. MEASURES: Medicare claims were used to measure total Medicare expenditures; utilization and expenditures for hospital and nonhospital services; admissions for avoidable conditions; hospital readmissions; and emergency department visits. Qualitative data on implementation were collected through interviews with senior hospital staff, state officials, provider organization representatives, and payers, as well as focus groups of physicians and nurses. RESULTS: Total Medicare and hospital service expenditures declined during the first 3 years, primarily because of reduced expenditures for outpatient hospital services. Nonhospital expenditures, including professional expenditures and postacute care expenditures, also declined. Inpatient admissions, including admissions for avoidable conditions, declined, but, there was no difference in the change in 30-day readmissions. Moreover, emergency department visits increased for Maryland relative to the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that hospital global budgets as implemented in Maryland can reduce expenditures and unnecessary utilization without shifting costs to other parts of the health care system.

Comparison of Program Resources Required for Colonoscopy and Fecal Screening: Findings From 5 Years of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy and guaiac fecal occult blood tests and fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) are the most common colorectal cancer screening methods in the United States. However, information is limited on the program resources required over time to use these tests. METHODS: We collected cost data from 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees by using a standardized data collection instrument for 5 program years (2009-2014). We created a panel data set with 124 records and assessed differences by screening test used. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of all programs (N = 124) offered colonoscopy (55 of 124), 32% (39 of 124) offered FOBT/FIT, and 24% (30 of 124) offered both. Overall, total cost per person was higher in program year 1 ($3,962), the beginning of CRCCP than in subsequent program years ($1,714). The cost per person was $3,153 for programs using colonoscopy and $1,291 for those using FOBT/FIT with diagnostic colonoscopy. The average clinical cost per person was $1,369 for colonoscopy and $280 for FOBT/FIT during the program (these do not reflect cost of repeated FOBT/FIT screens). Programs serving a large number of people had lower per-person costs than those serving a small volume, probably because of fixed costs related to nonclinical expenses. CONCLUSION: Colorectal cancer screening programs incur costs in addition to the clinical cost of the screening procedures to support planning and management, contracting with providers, and tracking patients. Because programs can achieve potential economies of scale, partnerships among smaller programs for screening delivery could decrease overall costs.

Patients and caregivers costs for colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening: Experience of low-income individuals undergoing free colonoscopies.

Many studies have documented barriers to colorectal cancer screenings. However, there is lack of comprehensive information on the time and costs borne by low-income patients and the persons accompanying the patient (caregiver) for colonoscopies in the United States. We surveyed patients in three health clinics in Philadelphia retrospectively who had undergone free colonoscopies in the previous 18-month period. Participants were asked questions about time and out-of-pockets expenses for themselves and their caregivers. Even when colonoscopies were free to the patient through Colorectal Cancer Control Program funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the patient and caregivers still incurred costs in relation to preparing for, undergoing, and recovering from a colonoscopy. These costs can be substantial and may account for some of the low colorectal cancer screening rates especially among the low-income populations. Patients' and caregivers' costs need to be considered when designing and implementing colorectal cancer control programs.

Resource requirements for cancer registration in areas with limited resources: Analysis of cost data from four low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The key aims of this study were to identify sources of support for cancer registry activities, to quantify resource use and estimate costs to operate registries in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) at different stages of development across three continents. METHODS: Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) International Registry Costing Tool (IntRegCosting Tool), cost and resource use data were collected from eight population-based cancer registries, including one in a low-income country (Uganda [Kampala)]), two in lower to middle-income countries (Kenya [Nairobi] and India [Mumbai]), and five in an upper to middle-income country (Colombia [Pasto, Barranquilla, Bucaramanga, Manizales and Cali cancer registries]). RESULTS: Host institution contributions accounted for 30%-70% of total investment in cancer registry activities. Cancer registration involves substantial fixed cost and labor. Labor accounts for more than 50% of all expenditures across all registries. The cost per cancer case registered in low-income and lower-middle-income countries ranged from US $3.77 to US $15.62 (United States dollars). In Colombia, an upper to middle-income country, the cost per case registered ranged from US $41.28 to US $113.39. Registries serving large populations (over 15 million inhabitants) had a lower cost per inhabitant (less than US $0.01 in Mumbai, India) than registries serving small populations (under 500,000 inhabitants) [US $0.22] in Pasto, Colombia. CONCLUSION: This study estimates the total cost and resources used for cancer registration across several countries in the limited-resource setting, and provides cancer registration stakeholders and registries with opportunities to identify cost savings and efficiency improvements. Our results suggest that cancer registration involve substantial fixed costs and labor, and that partnership with other institutions is critical for the operation and sustainability of cancer registries in limited resource settings. Although we included registries from a variety of limited-resource areas, information from eight registries in four countries may not be large enough to capture all the potential differences among the registries in limited-resource settings.

Developing and testing a cost data collection instrument for noncommunicable disease registry planning.

BACKGROUND: This article reports on the methods and framework we have developed to guide economic evaluation of noncommunicable disease registries. METHODS: We developed a cost data collection instrument, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) International Registry Costing Tool (IntRegCosting Tool), based on established economics methods We performed in-depth case studies, site visit interviews, and pilot testing in 11 registries from multiple countries including India, Kenya, Uganda, Colombia, and Barbados to assess the overall quality of the data collected from cancer and cardiovascular registries. RESULTS: Overall, the registries were able to use the IntRegCosting Tool to assign operating expenditures to specific activities. We verified that registries were able to provide accurate estimation of labor costs, which is the largest expenditure incurred by registries. We also identified several factors that can influence the cost of registry operations, including size of the geographic area served, data collection approach, local cost of living, presence of rural areas, volume of cases, extent of consolidation of records to cases, and continuity of funding. CONCLUSION: Internal and external registry factors reveal that a single estimate for the cost of registry operations is not feasible; costs will vary on the basis of factors that may be beyond the control of the registries. Some factors, such as data collection approach, can be modified to improve the efficiency of registry operations. These findings will inform both future economic data collection using a web-based tool and cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of registry operations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and other locations with similar characteristics.