Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Interventions to Increase Female Breast and Cervical Cancer Screens: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review published cost-effectiveness analyses of Evidence-Based Interventions (EBIs) recommended by the United States Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) to increase breast and cervical cancer screening. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for prospective cost-effectiveness evaluations of EBIs for breast and cervical cancer screening since 1999. We reviewed studies according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs), defined as cost per additional woman screened, adjusted to 2021 USD, within and across EBIs by cancer type. RESULTS: We identified eleven studies meeting our review criteria: nine were breast cancer-focused, one breast and cervical cancer combined, and one cervical only, which together reported twenty-four cost-effectiveness assessments of outreach programs spanning eight EBIs. One-on-one education programs were the most common EBI evaluated. The average ICER across breast cancer studies was USD 545 (standard deviation [SD] = USD 729.3), while that for cervical cancer studies was USD 197 (SD = 186.6. Provider reminder/recall systems for women already linked to formal care were the most cost-effective, with an average ICERs of USD 41.3 and USD 10.6 for breast and cervical cancer, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in ICERs across and within EBIs reflect the population studied, the specific EBI, and study settings, and was relatively high. ICER estimate uncertainty and the potential for program replicability in other settings and with other populations were not addressed. Given these limitations, using existing cost-effectiveness estimates to inform program funding allocations is not warranted at this time. Additional research is needed on outreach programs for cervical cancer and those which serve minority populations for either of the female cancer screens.

Elementary School-Based Health Centers and Access to Preventive and Asthma-Related Care Among Publicly Insured Children With Asthma in Georgia.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effects of 3 new elementary school-based health centers (SBHCs) in disparate Georgia communities-predominantly non-Hispanic Black semi-urban, predominantly Hispanic urban, and predominantly non-Hispanic White rural-on asthma case management among children insured by Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). METHODS: We used a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences analysis to measure changes in the treatment of children with asthma, Medicaid/CHIP, and access to an SBHC (treatment, n = 193) and children in the same county without such access (control, n = 163) in school years 2011-2013 and 2013-2018. Among children with access to an SBHC (n = 193), we tested for differences between users (34%) and nonusers of SBHCs. We used International Classification of Diseases diagnosis codes, Current Procedural Terminology codes, and National Drug Codes to measure well-child visits and influenza immunization; ≥3 asthma-related visits, asthma-relief medication, asthma-control medication, and ≥2 asthma-control medications; and emergency department visits during the child-school year. RESULTS: We found an increase of about 19 (P = .01) to 33 (P < .001) percentage points in the probability of having ≥3 asthma-related visits per child-school year and an increase of about 22 (P = .003) to 24 (P < .001) percentage points in the receipt of asthma-relief medication, among users of the predominantly non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SBHCs. We found a 19 (P = .01) to 29 (P < .001) percentage-point increase in receipt of asthma-control medication and a 15 (P = .03) to 30 (P < .001) percentage-point increase in receipt of ≥2 asthma-control medications among users. Increases were largest in the predominantly non-Hispanic Black SBHC. CONCLUSION: Implementation and use of elementary SBHCs can increase case management and recommended medications among racial/ethnic minority and publicly insured children with asthma.

Medicaid Managed Care's Effects on Costs, Access, and Quality: An Update.

Medicaid is integral to public health because it insures one in five Americans and half of the nation's births. Nearly two-thirds of all Medicaid recipients are currently enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO). Proponents of HMOs argue that they can lower costs while maintaining access and quality. We critically reviewed 32 studies on Medicaid managed care (2011-2019). Authors reported state-specific cost savings and instances of increased access or quality with implementation or redesign of Medicaid managed-care programs. Studies on high-risk populations (e.g., disabled) found improvements in quality specific to a state or a high-risk population. A unique model of managed care (i.e., the Oregon Health Plan) was associated with reduced costs and improved access and quality, but results varied by comparison state. New trends in the literature focused on analysis of auto-assignment algorithms, provider networks, and plan quality. More analysis of costs jointly with access/quality is needed, as is research on managing long-term care among elderly and disabled Medicaid recipients.