Race/Ethnicity and Adoption of a Population Health Management Approach to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Community-Based Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Screening outreach programs using population health management principles offer services uniformly to all eligible persons, but racial/ethnic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening patterns in such programs are not well known. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between race/ethnicity and the receipt of CRC screening and timely follow-up of positive results before and after implementation of a screening program. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of screen-eligible individuals at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California community-based integrated healthcare delivery system (2004-2013). SUBJECTS: A total of 868,934 screen-eligible individuals 51-74 years of age at cohort entry, which included 662,872 persons in the period before program implementation (2004-2006), 654,633 during the first 3 years after implementation (2007-2009), and 665,268 in the period from 4 to 7 years (2010-2013) after program implementation. INTERVENTION: A comprehensive system-wide long-term effort to increase CRC that included leadership alignment, goal-setting, and quality assurance through a PHM approach, using mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) along with offering screening at office visits. MAIN MEASURES: Differences over time and by race/ethnicity in up-to-date CRC screening (overall and by test type) and timely follow-up of a positive screen. Race/ethnicity categories included non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and multiple races. KEY RESULTS: From 2004 to 2013, age/sex-adjusted CRC screening rates increased in all groups, including 35.2 to 81.1 % among whites and 35.6 to 78.0 % among blacks. Screening rates among Hispanics (33.1 to 78.3 %) and Native Americans (29.4 to 74.5 %) remained lower than those for whites both before and after program implementation. Blacks, who had slightly higher rates before program implementation (adjusted rate ratio [RR] = 1.04, 99 % CI: 1.02-1.05), had lower rates after program implementation (RR for period from 4 to 7 years = 0.97, 99 % CI: 0.96-0.97). There were also substantial improvements in timely follow-up of positive screening results. CONCLUSIONS: In this screening program using core PHM principles, CRC screening increased markedly in all racial/ethnic groups, but disparities persisted for some groups and developed in others, which correlated with levels of adoption of mailed FIT.

Screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer diagnosis in average-risk adults: a nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in average-risk adults is uncertain, particularly for right colon cancer. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC). DESIGN: Nested case-control study. SETTING: Four U.S. health plans. PATIENTS: 1039 average-risk adults enrolled for at least 5 years in one of the health plans. Case patients were aged 55 to 85 years on their diagnosis date (reference date) of stage IIB or higher (late-stage) CRC during 2006 to 2008. One or 2 control patients were selected for each case patient, matched on birth year, sex, health plan, and prior enrollment duration. MEASUREMENTS: Receipt of CRC screening 3 months to 10 years before the reference date, ascertained through medical record audits. Case patients and control patients were compared on receipt of screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy by using conditional logistic regression that accounted for health history, socioeconomic status, and other screening exposures. RESULTS: In analyses restricted to 471 eligible case patients and their 509 matched control patients, 13 case patients (2.8%) and 46 control patients (9.0%) had undergone screening colonoscopy, which corresponded to an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.58) for any late-stage CRC, 0.36 (CI, 0.16 to 0.80) for right colon cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.06 to 1.11; P = 0.069) for left colon/rectum cancer. Ninety-two case patients (19.5%) and 173 control patients (34.0%) had screening sigmoidoscopy, corresponding to an AOR of 0.50 (CI, 0.36 to 0.70) overall, 0.79 (CI, 0.51 to 1.23) for right colon late-stage cancer, and 0.26 (CI, 0.14 to 0.48) for left colon cancer. LIMITATION: The small number of screening colonoscopies affected the precision of the estimates. CONCLUSION: Screening with colonoscopy in average-risk persons was associated with reduced risk for diagnosis of incident late-stage CRC, including right-sided colon cancer. For sigmoidoscopy, this association was seen for left CRC, but the association for right colon late-stage cancer was not statistically significant.

Neighborhood socioeconomic status and use of colonoscopy in an insured population--a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Low-socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Screening with colonoscopy, the most commonly used test in the US, has been shown to reduce the risk of death from CRC. This study examined if, among insured persons receiving care in integrated healthcare delivery systems, differences exist in colonoscopy use according to neighborhood SES. METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort of 100,566 men and women, 50-74 years old, who had been enrolled in one of three US health plans for ≥1 year on January 1, 2000. Subjects were followed until the date of first colonoscopy, date of disenrollment from the health plan, or December 31, 2007, whichever occurred first. We obtained data on colonoscopy use from administrative records. We defined screening colonoscopy as an examination that was not preceded by gastrointestinal conditions in the prior 6-month period. Neighborhood SES was measured using the percentage of households in each subject's census-tract with an income below 1999 federal poverty levels based on 2000 US census data. Analyses, adjusted for demographics and comorbidity index, were performed using Weibull regression models. RESULTS: The average age of the cohort was 60 years and 52.7% were female. During 449,738 person-years of follow-up, fewer subjects in the lowest SES quartile (Q1) compared to the highest quartile (Q4) had any colonoscopy (26.7% vs. 37.1%) or a screening colonoscopy (7.6% vs. 13.3%). In regression analyses, compared to Q4, subjects in Q1 were 16% (adjusted HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.80-0.88) less likely to undergo any colonoscopy and 30%(adjusted HR = 0.70, CI: 0.65-0.75) less likely to undergo a screening colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: People in lower-SES neighborhoods are less likely to undergo a colonoscopy, even among insured subjects receiving care in integrated healthcare systems. Removing health insurance barriers alone is unlikely to eliminate disparities in colonoscopy use.

Colorectal cancer screening among ethnically diverse, low-income patients: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient navigators may increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among adults in underserved communities, but prior randomized trials have been small or conducted at single sites and have not included substantial numbers of Haitian Creole-speaking or Portuguese-speaking patients. METHODS: We identified 465 primary care patients from 4 community health centers and 2 public hospital-based clinics who were not up-to-date with CRC screening and spoke English, Haitian Creole, Portuguese, or Spanish as their primary language. We enrolled participants from September 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009, and followed them up for 1 year after enrollment. We randomly allocated patients to receive a patient navigation-based intervention or usual care. Intervention patients received an introductory letter from their primary care provider with educational material, followed by telephone calls from a language-concordant navigator. The navigators offered patients the option of being screened by fecal occult blood testing or colonoscopy. The primary outcome was completion of any CRC screening within 1 year. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of patients screened by colonoscopy who had adenomas or cancer detected. RESULTS: During a 1-year period, intervention patients were more likely to undergo CRC screening than control patients (33.6% vs 20.0%; P < .001), to be screened by colonoscopy (26.4% vs 13.0%; P < .001), and to have adenomas detected (8.1% vs 3.9%; P = .06). In prespecified subgroup analyses, the navigator intervention was particularly beneficial for patients whose primary language was other than English (39.8% vs 18.6%; P < .001) and black patients (39.7% vs 16.7%; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Patient navigation increased completion of CRC screening among ethnically diverse patients. Targeting patient navigation to black and non-English-speaking patients may be a useful approach to reducing disparities in CRC screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01141114.

Primary care, economic barriers to health care, and use of colorectal cancer screening tests among Medicare enrollees over time.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of primary care and economic barriers to health care on CRC testing relative to the 2001 Medicare expansion of screening coverage. METHODS: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data were use to study community-dwelling enrollees aged 65 to 80 years, free of renal disease and CRC, and who participated in the survey in 2000 (n = 8,330), 2003 (n = 7,889), or 2005 (n = 7,614). Three outcomes were examined: colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy within 5 years (recent endoscopy), endoscopy more than 5 years previously, and fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 2 years. RESULTS: Endoscopy use increased and FOBT use decreased during the 6-year period, with no significant independent differences between those receiving care from primary care physicians and those receiving care from other physicians. Beneficiaries without a usual place of health care were the least likely to undergo CRC testing, and that gap widened with time: adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.39) for FOBT, and AOR = 0.35 (95% CI, 0.27-0.46) for endoscopy in 2000 compared with AOR = 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.30) for FOBT and AOR = 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.30) for endoscopy in 2005. Disparities in use of recent endoscopy by type of health insurance coverage in both 2000 and 2005 were greater for enrollees with a high school education or higher than they were for less-educated enrollees. There were no statistically significant differences by delayed care due to cost after adjustment for health insurance. CONCLUSION: Despite expanding coverage for screening, complex CRC screening disparities persisted based on differences in the usual place and cost of health care, type of health insurance coverage, and level of education.

Racial and ethnic trends of colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have remained lower than the Healthy People 2010 goal, particularly among minority populations. PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the racial-ethnic trends in CRC screening and the continued impact of healthcare access indicators on screening differences after Medicare expanded coverage. METHODS: The study used data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey for 2000, 2003, and 2005. The sample was restricted to non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Hispanics. The primary outcome was the proportion of enrollees who underwent lower-gastrointestinal endoscopy within 5 years and/or home fecal occult blood test within 1 year. RESULTS: Over the 6-year period under study, the proportion screened increased among each of the three racial-ethnic groups, but lower proportions of blacks and Hispanics underwent screening compared with whites at each time point. Hispanic-white differences persisted but black-white differences narrowed in 2003 and widened in 2005. In each survey year, racial differences attenuated after adjustment for type of supplemental health insurance and disappeared after further adjustment for educational and income levels. CONCLUSIONS: Despite expanding benefits for CRC screening, which would be expected to disproportionally benefit racial and ethnic minorities, racial disparities in use of screening persist in part because of differences in the types of health insurance coverage, education, and income. There was a slight reversal of the initial attenuation of the black-white difference after the Medicare policy change. Efforts are needed to increase the reach of CRC screening to minority populations, particularly those lacking adequate health insurance coverage or with less education or income.

Socioeconomic and racial patterns of colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees in 2000 to 2005.

BACKGROUND: Lower rates of screening among minorities and low-income populations contribute to colorectal cancer health disparities. Therefore, we examined patterns of colorectal cancer screening and associations with race-ethnicity, education, and income over time. METHODS: Repeated cross-sectional data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey of noninstitutionalized colorectal cancer-free Medicare enrollees ages 65 to 80 years interviewed in 2000 (n = 8,355), 2003 (n = 7,922), and 2005 (n = 7,646). We examined rates of colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy use within 5 years (recent endoscopy), colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy use >5 years previously, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 2 years. RESULTS: Among those included in the analyses, there was a steady increase in recent endoscopy rates and decrease in FOBT use over the 6-year period among all racial, educational, and income groups. During each of the survey years, those less educated or in lower-income groups were less likely to undergo colorectal cancer screening in a dose-response fashion. In multinomial regression analyses that adjusted for factors including health insurance, there were no significant differences in recent endoscopy or FOBT rates between Blacks or Hispanics and Whites, but differences by education and income remained. Compared with those in higher-income group, lower-income enrollees had lower rates of screening, and differences by income were larger for enrollees residing in metropolitan areas. CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries, there are persistent colorectal cancer screening disparities due to a complex combination of socioeconomic disadvantages from lower education and income, place of residence, and inadequate insurance. However, insurance alone does not eliminate socioeconomic differences in colorectal cancer screening.

Familial risk and colorectal cancer screening health beliefs and attitudes in an insured population.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between health beliefs and attitudes toward colorectal cancer screening, strength of family history risk, and being appropriately screened for colorectal cancer. METHODS: In February 2004, 7000 randomly selected members of a multi-specialty group practice located in Boston, MA were mailed a brief survey that was used to ascertain colorectal cancer family history. A follow-up survey that contained questions representing selected constructs of the Health Belief Model, Theory of Planned Behavior, and healthcare experiences was then mailed to all 355 individuals who reported a family history in the initial survey and 710 randomly selected participants with no colorectal cancer family history. RESULTS: Participants who were appropriately screened had higher mean scores for perceived cancer risk, subjective norms, and perceived benefits and lower scores for perceived barriers. Multivariate findings indicate that having high perceptions of risk for colorectal cancer was a significant correlate of being screened appropriately among individuals with a strong family history. CONCLUSIONS: For those at greatest colorectal cancer risk due to family history, ensuring that these individuals understand their personal risk might lead to increased colorectal cancer screening participation. Future intervention research is warranted to examine if raising perceptions of risk can increase screening behaviors in individuals with colorectal cancer risk due to family history.

Improving colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice: innovative strategies and future directions.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been supported by strong research evidence and recommended in clinical practice guidelines for more than a decade. Yet screening rates in the United States remain low, especially relative to other preventable diseases such as breast and cervical cancer. To understand the reasons, the National Cancer Institute and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored a review of CRC screening implementation in primary care and a program of research funded by these organizations. The evidence base for improving CRC screening supports the value of a New Model of Primary Care Delivery: 1. a team approach, in which responsibility for screening tasks is shared among other members of the practice, would help address physicians' lack of time for preventive care; 2. information systems can identify eligible patients and remind them when screening is due; 3. involving patients in decisions about their own care may enhance screening participation; 4. monitoring practice performance, supported by information systems, can help target patients at increased risk because of family history or social disadvantage; 5. reimbursement for services outside the traditional provider-patient encounter, such as telephone and e-mail contacts, may foster enhanced screening delivery; 6. training opportunities in communication, cultural competence, and use of information technologies would improve provider competence in core elements of screening programs. Improvement in CRC screening rates largely depends on the efforts of primary care practices to implement effective systems and procedures for screening delivery. Active engagement and support of practices are essential for the enormous potential of CRC screening to be realized.

Implementation of a cancer prevention program for working class, multiethnic populations.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the implementation of the Healthy Directions-Health Centers intervention and examines the characteristics of participants associated with completion of intervention activities. Healthy Directions-Health Centers was designed to address social contextual factors relevant to cancer prevention interventions for working class, multi-ethnic populations. METHODS: Ten community health centers were paired and randomly assigned to intervention or control. Patients who resided in low income, multi-ethnic neighborhoods were approached for participation. This study targeted fruit and vegetable consumption, red meat consumption, multi-vitamin intake, and physical activity. The intervention components consisted of: (1) a brief study endorsement from a clinician; (2) an in-person counseling session with a health advisor; (3) four follow-up telephone counseling sessions; and (4) multiple distributions of tailored materials. RESULTS: Among the 1,088 intervention group participants, 978 participants (90%) completed at least five out of six intervention activities. Participants who missed clinical appointments were less likely to complete all components of the intervention. Participant characteristics that predicted receipt of clinician endorsement differed from characteristics that predicted completion of health advisor activities. Low acculturation did not present a barrier to delivery of the intervention once the participant was enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: Collection and reporting on process evaluation results can help explain variations in program implementation.

Preparing faculty to teach managing care competencies: lessons learned from a national faculty development program.

BACKGROUND: Although competencies for managing care are often described in the medical literature, educators have been slow to integrate these competencies into clinical curricula. Backlash against managed care has created a skeptical educational environment. Many faculty feel unprepared to teach the competencies in clinical settings. METHODS: From 1999 to 2001, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a faculty development program, funded by the Bureau of Health Professions, Division of Medicine. The goal of the program was to increase Undergraduate Medical Education for the 21st Century (UME-21) and Partnerships for Quality Education (PQE) faculty skills in teaching quality improvement and costeffectiveness in the clinical setting and to prepare them to teach these topics to other faculty. RESULTS: Thirty-nine faculty attended the 4-month faculty development program. The program, in a train-the-trainer model, consisted of two 2-day workshops as well as pre-, mid-, and end-program activities and teaching experiences. Readings, brief lectures followed by focused discussion, and active learning experiences were used to teach content, provide experience and feedback with teaching skills, and model a variety of teaching approaches. CONCLUSIONS: By the end of the program, participants believed that they had learned content (knowledge) and gained practical teaching skills. To be successful in effecting curriculum change around new topics, such as the managing care competencies, faculty need to not only master new content and methods but also learn how to be change agents in their schools. Because this work can be lonely, faculty need support within the school and connections with others, locally and nationally, who have similar ideas.

Pearls and pitfalls in patient care: need to revive traditional clinical values.

Medicine has achieved phenomenal progress in recent years, yet there is ample evidence of dysfunction, reflected in persistently high rates of misdiagnosis, frequent iatrogenic illness, the popularity of 'alternative' medicine, and rising healthcare costs. An urgent need for a change is indicated. True adherence to basic clinical and personal values may avoid significant pitfalls in patient care. These include the immense value of a really careful history and physical examination; the wealth of information that can be obtained through patient's families, physicians, past records, and a search of electronic databases for the best evidence; restraint in management decisions; making the most of simple preventive measures and effective nonpharmacological interventions; appropriate "bed-to-door" intervals; a more personal care of the patient as a unique person, paying more attention to emotional factors that affect medical illness; constructive management of medical errors; and humility. The great potential of the many recent advances in medicine may be more fully realized if we accept that new capabilities should complement, not replace, old values and skills, which still make the essential foundation for medical decision making and patient care.

Evaluation of a faculty development program in managing care.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a faculty development program that teaches quality improvement and cost-effectiveness. METHOD: From October 2000 to February 2001, a two-part faculty development program was offered to 39 physicians from 19 U.S. medical schools supported by grants from the Partnerships for Quality Education (PQE) and Undergraduate Medical Education in the 21st Century (UME-21). Special features of the program included partnerships between academic and community physicians from each school, development of an educational innovation of interest to the participants, concurrent development of teaching skills and new medical knowledge, learning leadership skills (e.g., how to train colleagues to teach), and practice periods. The program focused on quality improvement and cost-effectiveness, but included other "managing care" topics. Prior to and after the course, participants assessed their knowledge of and competence to teach these topics, as well as other managing care topics. They also assessed their competence as medical educators and leaders. After the course, they indicated their progress in implementing their proposed educational innovations. RESULTS: Thirty-two of the 39 physicians completed evaluations both before and after the program. Self-assessed knowledge and competence to teach quality improvement and cost-effectiveness were significantly higher at the end of the course, as were all self-assessed teaching and leadership skills. The largest change scores occurred in assessments of competency to teach the new topics and to teach in new ways. Participants who implemented their innovations rated their competencies to teach quality improvement and cost-effectiveness higher than did non-implementers. CONCLUSION: Opportunities for faculty to learn how to teach a topic of stated importance to them, to practice what they have learned, and to work collaboratively with partners improved teaching skills.

Screening for colorectal cancer: the business case.

Colorectal cancer screening is advocated by expert groups based on strong evidence of effectiveness, yet only approximately 1 in 3 Americans are screened. For a screening program to be effective, it is necessary for providers to offer and patients to accept screening, insurers to pay for screening, and provider groups to have monitoring and reminder systems and the expertise and facilities to perform the tests well. Whether and when such screening programs become successful depends on the priorities of healthcare decision makers as much as on the efforts of individual physicians and patients. There are strong arguments for decision makers giving colorectal cancer screening programs high priority: it saves as many lives as other services now in common use; it is a good use of scarce resources, costing less than $20,000 per year of life saved; and members of insurance programs increasingly expect screening benefits and programs, and failure to offer them might lead to member dissatisfaction and malpractice claims. Screening is costly, however, taking into account the cost of screening, follow-up tests, and treatments, and the costs occur many years before the benefits. Programs that are promoted to members but not fully implemented could create disappointment and backlash. Also, this screening can cause medical complications. Nevertheless, successful programs have been developed, proving that they are feasible in today's cost-conscious environment. We believe that colorectal cancer screening programs are integral to any organization purporting to provide high-quality care. Organizations without such programs should give them high priority for implementation.