Costs and Projected Effect of a Federally Qualified Health Center-Based Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Texas.

Introduction: Mailed stool testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) may improve screening uptake and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC, especially among patients at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). To expand screening programs it is important to identify cost-effective approaches. Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost, effects on screening and patient outcomes (CRCs detected, CRCs prevented, CRC deaths prevented), and cost-effectiveness of implementing a state-wide mailed stool testing program over 5 years among unscreened, age-eligible (aged 50-75 y) patients at FQHCs in Texas. We compared various outreach strategies and organizational structures (centralized, regional, or a hybrid). We used data from our existing regional mailed stool testing program and recent systematic reviews to set parameters for the model. Costs included start-up and ongoing activities and were estimated in 2022 US dollars from the perspective of a hypothetical third-party payer. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by using both incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Using either a statewide centralized or hybrid organizational configuration to mail stool tests to newly eligible FQHC patients and patients who have responded at least once since program inception is likely to result in the best use of resources over 5 years, enabling more than 110,000 additional screens, detecting an incremental 181 to 194 CRCs, preventing 91 to 98 CRCs, and averting 46 to 50 CRC deaths, at a cost of $10 million to $11 million compared with no program. Conclusions: A statewide mailed stool testing program for FQHC patients can be implemented at reasonable cost with considerable effects on CRC screening outcomes, especially when its structure maximizes program efficiency while maintaining effectiveness.

Association of Receipt of Systemic Treatment for Melanoma With Insurance Type in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of hospital-based patients with metastatic melanoma suggest sociodemographic factors, including insurance type, may be associated with the receipt of systemic treatments. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether insurance type is associated with the receipt of systemic treatment among patients with melanoma in a broad cohort of patients in North Carolina. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between 2011 and 2017 of patients with stages III-IV melanoma using data from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry linked to Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurance claims across the state. The primary outcome was the receipt of any systemic treatment, and the secondary outcome was the receipt of immunotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 372 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average age was 68 years old (interquartile range: 56-76) and 61% were male. Within the cohort 48% had Medicare only, 29% had private insurance, 12% had both Medicare and Medicaid, and 11% had Medicaid only. A total of 186 (50%) patients received systemic treatment for melanoma, 125 (67%) of whom received immunotherapy. The use of systemic therapy, including immunotherapy, increased significantly over time. Having Medicaid-only insurance was independently associated with a 45% lower likelihood of receiving any systemic treatment [0.55 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.85)] and a 43% lower likelihood of receipt of immunotherapy [0.57 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.95)] compared with private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Stage III-IV melanoma patients with Medicaid-only insurance were less likely to receive systemic therapy or immunotherapy than patients with private insurance or Medicare insurance. This finding raises concerns about insurance-based disparities in treatment access.

Understanding the role of access in Hispanic cancer screening disparities.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic populations in the United States experience numerous barriers to care access. It is unclear how cancer screening disparities between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White individuals are explained by access to care, including having a usual source of care and health insurance coverage. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the 2019 National Health Interview Survey was conducted and included respondents who were sex- and age-eligible for cervical (n = 8316), breast (n = 6025), or colorectal cancer screening (n = 11,313). The proportion of ever screened and up to date for each screening type was compared.  Regression models evaluated whether controlling for reporting a usual source of care and type of health insurance (public, private, none) attenuated disparities between Hispanics and non-Hispanic White individuals. RESULTS: Hispanic individuals were less likely than non-Hispanic White individuals to be up to date with cervical cancer screening (71.6% vs. 74.6%) and colorectal cancer screening (52.9% vs. 70.3%), but up-to-date screening was similar for breast cancer (78.8% vs. 76.3%). Hispanic individuals (vs. non-Hispanic White) were less likely to have a usual source of care (77.9% vs. 86.0%) and more likely to be uninsured (23.6% vs. 7.1%). In regressions, insurance fully attenuated cervical cancer disparities. Controlling for both usual source of care and insurance type explained approximately half of the colorectal cancer screening disparities (adjusted risk difference: -8.3 [-11.2 to -4.8]). CONCLUSION: Addressing the high rate of uninsurance among Hispanic individuals could mitigate cancer screening disparities. Future research should build on the relative successes of breast cancer screening and investigate additional barriers for colorectal cancer screening. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study uses data from a national survey to compare cancer screening use those who identify as Hispanic with those who identify as non-Hispanic White. Those who identify as Hispanic are much less likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening than those who identify as non-Hispanic White, slightly less likely to be up to date on cervical cancer screening, and similarly likely to receive breast cancer screening. Improving insurance coverage is important for health equity, as is further exploring what drives higher use of breast cancer screening and lower use of colorectal cancer screening.

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Mailed FIT in a Safety Net Clinic Population.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, including for vulnerable patients, but its cost-effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the initial cycle of our mailed FIT program from November 2017 to July 2019 in a federally qualified health center (FQHC) system in Central Texas. DESIGN: Single group intervention and economic analysis PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were those ages 50-75 who had been seen recently in a system practice and were not up to date with screening. INTERVENTION: The program mailing packet included an introductory letter in plain language, the FIT itself, easy to read instructions, and a postage-paid lab mailer, supplemented with written and text messaging reminders. MAIN MEASURES: We measured effectiveness based on completion of mailed FIT and cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per person screened. Costs were measured using detailed micro-costing techniques from the perspective of a third-party payer and expressed in 2019 US dollars. Direct costs were based on material supply costs and detailed observations of labor required, valued at the wage rate. KEY RESULTS: Of the 22,838 eligible patients who received program materials, mean age was 59.0, 51.5% were female, and 43.9% were Latino. FIT were successfully completed by 19.2% (4395/22,838) patients at an average direct cost of $5275.70 per 500-patient mailing. Assuming completed tests from the mailed intervention represent incremental screening, the direct cost per patient screened, compared with no intervention, was $54.83. Incorporating start-up and indirect costs increases total costs to $7014.45 and cost per patient screened to $72.90. Alternately, assuming 2.5% and 5% screening without the intervention increased the direct (total) cost per patient screened to $60.03 ($80.80) and $67.05 ($91.47), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed FIT is an effective and cost-effective population health strategy for CRC screening in vulnerable patients.

A controlled trial of dissemination and implementation of a cardiovascular risk reduction strategy in small primary care practices.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of dissemination and implementation of an intervention consisting of practice facilitation and a risk-stratified, population management dashboard on cardiovascular risk reduction for patients at high risk in small, primary care practices. STUDY SETTING: A total of 219 small primary care practices (≤10 clinicians per site) across North Carolina with primary data collection from electronic health records (EHRs) from the fourth quarter of 2015 through the second quarter of 2018. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a stepped-wedge, stratified, cluster randomized trial of a one-year intervention consisting of practice facilitation utilizing quality improvement techniques coupled with a cardiovascular dashboard that included lists of risk-stratified adults, aged 40-79 years and their unmet treatment opportunities. The primary outcome was change in 10-Year ASCVD Risk score among all patients with a baseline score ≥10 percent from baseline to 3 months postintervention. DATA COLLECTION/ EXTRACTION METHODS: Data extracts were securely transferred from practices on a nightly basis from their EHR to the research team registry. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: ASCVD risk scores were assessed on 437 556 patients and 146 826 had a calculated 10-year risk ≥10 percent. The mean baseline risk was 23.4 percent (SD ± 12.6 percent). Postintervention, the absolute risk reduction was 6.3 percent (95% CI 6.3, 6.4). Models considering calendar time and stepped-wedge controls revealed most of the improvement (4.0 of 6.3 percent) was attributable to the intervention and not secular trends. In multivariate analysis, male gender, age >65 years, low-income (<$40 000), and Black race (P < .001 for all variables) were each associated with greater risk reductions. CONCLUSION: A risk-stratified, population management dashboard combined with practice facilitation led to substantial reductions of 10-year ASCVD risk for patients at high risk. Similar approaches could lead to effective dissemination and implementation of other new evidence, especially in rural and other under-resourced practices. Registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov 15-0479.

Impact of Social Distancing Measures on Coronavirus Disease Healthcare Demand, Central Texas, USA.

Social distancing orders have been enacted worldwide to slow the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, reduce strain on healthcare systems, and prevent deaths. To estimate the impact of the timing and intensity of such measures, we built a mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission that incorporates age-stratified risks and contact patterns and projects numbers of hospitalizations, patients in intensive care units, ventilator needs, and deaths within US cities. Focusing on the Austin metropolitan area of Texas, we found that immediate and extensive social distancing measures were required to ensure that COVID-19 cases did not exceed local hospital capacity by early May 2020. School closures alone hardly changed the epidemic curve. A 2-week delay in implementation was projected to accelerate the timing of peak healthcare needs by 4 weeks and cause a bed shortage in intensive care units. This analysis informed the Stay Home-Work Safe order enacted by Austin on March 24, 2020.

Screening for Melanoma in Men: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systematic screening skin examination has been proposed to reduce melanoma-related mortality. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential effectiveness of screening, in a demographic at high risk of melanoma mortality. DESIGN: A cohort Markov state-transition model was developed comparing systematic screening versus usual care (no systematic screening). In the base case, we evaluated a sensitivity and specificity of 20% and 85%, respectively, for usual care (incidental detection) and 50% sensitivity and 85% specificity from systematic screening. We examined a wide range of values in sensitivity analyses. PARTICIPANTS: Potential screening strategies applied to a hypothetical population of 10,000 white men from ages 50-75. MAIN MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, measured in cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). KEY RESULTS: Using base case assumptions, screening every 2 years beginning at age 60 reduced melanoma mortality by 20% with a cost-utility of $26,503 per QALY gained. Screening every 2 years beginning at age 50 reduced mortality by 30% with an incremental cost-utility of $67,970 per QALY. Results were sensitive to differences in accuracy of systematic screening versus usual care, and costs of screening, but were generally insensitive to costs of biopsy or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming moderate differences in accuracy with systematic screening versus usual care, screening for melanoma every 2 years starting at age 50 or 60 may be cost-effective in white men. Results are sensitive to degree of difference in sensitivity with screening compared to usual care. Better studies of the accuracy of systematic screening exams compared with usual care are required to determine whether a trial of screening should be undertaken.

Developing Faculty in Emerging Areas of Interdisciplinary Research.

The availability of new techniques and technologies to answer important medical questions is accelerating at a breathtaking pace. In response to these exciting new opportunities, clinical departments, in general, and departments of medicine, in particular, have broadened their research portfolios. Organization of the traditional structures of clinical departments, research infrastructure, training programs, and rewards for faculty has only begun to catalyze emerging research areas such as artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, bioengineering, cell and tissue engineering, cost effectiveness, health services, implementation science, integrative epidemiology, medical informatics, nanomedicine, and quality improvement. Success in these emerging areas of research requires interdisciplinary collaboration on a much larger scale than in the past. The effectiveness of efforts to recruit, develop, mentor, and promote faculty in these exciting areas will be critical to the success of departmental and institutional research programs. We describe examples of initiatives from our 5 departments of medicine designed to develop and promote faculty conducting research in emerging interdisciplinary areas. We focus on core resources, training, organizational structures, and recognition and promotion. Faculty have a compelling opportunity and obligation to pursue emerging research areas that have the potential to further improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. As departments prepare to meet this exciting opportunity in the future, the lessons learned must inform investments in faculty development. Although many of the strategies outlined herein could and should expand beyond any individual department, departments of medicine have a distinct obligation and opportunity to lead this effort.

Cardiovascular Genetic Risk Testing for Targeting Statin Therapy in the Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether testing for novel risk factors, such as a cardiovascular genetic risk score (cGRS), improves clinical decision making or health outcomes when used for targeting statin initiation in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of cGRS testing to inform clinical decision making about statin initiation in individuals with low-to-intermediate (2.5%-7.5%) 10-year predicted risk of ASCVD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for a 27-single-nucleotide polymorphism cGRS comparing 4 test/treat strategies: treat all, treat none, test/treat if cGRS is high, and test/treat if cGRS is intermediate or high. We tested a set of clinical scenarios of men and women, aged 45 to 65 years, with 10-year ASCVD risks between 2.5% and 7.5%. Our primary outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Under base case assumptions for statin disutility and cost, the preferred strategy is to treat all patients with ASCVD risk >2.5% without cGRS testing. For certain clinical scenarios, such as a 57-year-old man with a 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5%, cGRS testing can be cost-effective under a limited set of assumptions; for example, when statins cost $15 per month and statin disutility is 0.013 (ie, willing to trade 3 months of life in perfect health to avoid 20 years of statin therapy), the preferred strategy (using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) is to test and treat if cGRS is intermediate or high. Overall, the results were not sensitive to assumptions about statin efficacy and harms. CONCLUSIONS: Testing for a 27-single-nucleotide polymorphism cGRS is generally not a cost-effective approach for targeting statin therapy in the primary prevention of ASCVD for low- to intermediate-risk patients.

A pre-post study testing a lung cancer screening decision aid in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for older, heavy lifetime smokers to complete annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest as screening for lung cancer. The USPSTF recommends and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require shared decision making using a decision aid for lung cancer screening with annual LDCT. Little is known about how decision aids affect screening knowledge, preferences, and behavior. Thus, we tested a lung cancer screening decision aid video in screening-eligible primary care patients. METHODS: We conducted a single-group study with surveys before and after decision aid viewing and medical record review at 3 months. Participants were active patients of a large US academic primary care practice who were current or former smokers, ages 55-80 years, and eligible for screening based on current screening guidelines. Outcomes assessed pre-post decision aid viewing were screening-related knowledge score (9 items about screening-related harms of false positives and overdiagnosis, likelihood of benefit; score range = 0-9) and preference (preferred screening vs. not). Screening behavior measures, assessed via chart review, included provider visits, screening discussion, LDCT ordering, and LDCT completion within 3 months. RESULTS: Among 50 participants, knowledge increased from pre- to post-decision aid viewing (mean = 2.6 vs. 5.5, difference = 2.8; 95% CI 2.1, 3.6, p < 0.001). Preferences across the overall sample remained similar such that 54% preferred screening at baseline and 50% after viewing; however, 28% of participants changed their preference (to or away from screening) from baseline to after viewing. We assessed screening behavior for 36 participants who had a primary care visit during the 3-month period following enrollment. Eighteen of 36 preferred screening after decision aid viewing. Of these 18, 10 discussed screening, 8 had a test ordered, and 6 completed LDCT. Among the 18 who preferred no screening, 7 discussed screening, 5 had a test ordered, and 4 completed LDCT. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care patients, a lung cancer screening decision aid improved knowledge regarding screening-related benefits and harms. Screening preferences and behavior were heterogeneous. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov . NCT03077230 (registered retrospectively,November 22, 2016).

Reducing Unplanned Admissions: Focusing on Hospital Admissions and Emergency Department Visits for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer During Radiation Therapy
.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatments cause severe toxicities, leading to high rates of emergency department (ED) visits and unplanned hospital admissions (UHAs). 
. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to evaluate a quality improvement project to reduce ED visits and UHAs.
. METHODS: A weekly nurse/nurse practitioner-led symptom management clinic was created for patients with HNC receiving radiation therapy deemed at high risk for an ED visit or UHA. Primary quality metrics were rate of visits or unplanned admissions. Time-to-event actuarial analysis and log-rank tests (two-tailed) were performed to compare observed to historic rates. 
. FINDINGS: Rates of ED visits and UHAs were 11% and 16%, respectively. Having more symptom management visits marginally correlated with reduction in UHA. The authors estimate six ED visits and four UHAs were prevented, which is a $176,848 cost reduction.

Usability of a Novel Mobile Health iPad App by Vulnerable Populations.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in mobile technologies have created new opportunities to reach broadly into populations that are vulnerable to health disparities. However, mobile health (mHealth) strategies could paradoxically increase health disparities, if low socioeconomic status individuals lack the technical or literacy skills needed to navigate mHealth programs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether patients from vulnerable populations could successfully navigate and complete an mHealth patient decision aid. METHODS: We analyzed usability data from a randomized controlled trial of an iPad program designed to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The trial was conducted in six primary care practices and enrolled 450 patients, aged 50-74 years, who were due for CRC screening. The iPad program included a self-survey and randomly displayed either a screening decision aid or a video about diet and exercise. We measured participant ability to complete the program without assistance and participant-rated program usability. RESULTS: Two-thirds of the participants (305/450) were members of a vulnerable population (limited health literacy, annual income < US $20,000, or black race). Over 92% (417/450) of the participants rated the program highly on all three usability items (90.8% for vulnerable participants vs 96.6% for nonvulnerable participants, P=.006). Only 6.9% (31/450) of the participants needed some assistance to complete the program. In multivariable logistic regression, being a member of a vulnerable population was not associated with needing assistance. Only older age, less use of text messaging (short message service, SMS), and lack of Internet use predicted needing assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who are vulnerable to health disparities can successfully use well-designed mHealth programs. Future research should investigate whether mHealth interventions can reduce health disparities.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Four Simulated Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions, North Carolina.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among the uninsured and the under-insured and among rural and African American populations. Little guidance is available for state-level decision makers to use to prioritize investment in evidence-based interventions to improve their population's health. The objective of this study was to demonstrate use of a simulation model that incorporates synthetic census data and claims-based statistical models to project screening behavior in North Carolina. METHODS: We used individual-based modeling to simulate and compare intervention costs and results under 4 evidence-based and stakeholder-informed intervention scenarios for a 10-year intervention window, from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2023. We compared the proportion of people living in North Carolina who were aged 50 to 75 years at some point during the window (that is, age-eligible for screening) who were up to date with CRC screening recommendations across intervention scenarios, both overall and among groups with documented disparities in receipt of screening. RESULTS: We estimated that the costs of the 4 intervention scenarios considered would range from $1.6 million to $3.75 million. Our model showed that mailed reminders for Medicaid enrollees, mass media campaigns targeting African Americans, and colonoscopy vouchers for the uninsured reduced disparities in receipt of screening by 2023, but produced only small increases in overall screening rates (0.2-0.5 percentage-point increases in the percentage of age-eligible adults who were up to date with CRC screening recommendations). Increased screenings ranged from 41,709 additional life-years up to date with screening for the voucher intervention to 145,821 for the mass media intervention. Reminders mailed to Medicaid enrollees and the mass media campaign for African Americans were the most cost-effective interventions, with costs per additional life-year up to date with screening of $25 or less. The intervention expanding the number of endoscopy facilities cost more than the other 3 interventions and was less effective in increasing CRC screening. CONCLUSION: Cost-effective CRC screening interventions targeting observed disparities are available, but substantial investment (more than $3.75 million) and additional approaches beyond those considered here are required to realize greater increases population-wide.

Use of Decision Models in the Development of Evidence-Based Clinical Preventive Services Recommendations: Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) develops evidence-based recommendations about preventive care based on comprehensive systematic reviews of the best available evidence. Decision models provide a complementary, quantitative approach to support the USPSTF as it deliberates about the evidence and develops recommendations for clinical and policy use. This article describes the rationale for using modeling, an approach to selecting topics for modeling, and how modeling may inform recommendations about clinical preventive services. Decision modeling is useful when clinical questions remain about how to target an empirically established clinical preventive service at the individual or program level or when complex determinations of magnitude of net benefit, overall or among important subpopulations, are required. Before deciding whether to use decision modeling, the USPSTF assesses whether the benefits and harms of the preventive service have been established empirically, assesses whether there are key issues about applicability or implementation that modeling could address, and then defines the decision problem and key questions to address through modeling. Decision analyses conducted for the USPSTF are expected to follow best practices for modeling. For chosen topics, the USPSTF assesses the strengths and limitations of the systematically reviewed evidence and the modeling analyses and integrates the results of each to make preventive service recommendations.

Cluster Randomized Trial of a Church-Based Peer Counselor and Tailored Newsletter Intervention to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening and Physical Activity Among Older African Americans.

Action Through Churches in Time to Save Lives (ACTS) of Wellness was a cluster randomized controlled trial developed to promote colorectal cancer screening and physical activity (PA) within urban African American churches. Churches were recruited from North Carolina (n = 12) and Michigan (n = 7) and were randomized to intervention (n = 10) or comparison (n = 9). Intervention participants received three mailed tailored newsletters addressing colorectal cancer screening and PA behaviors over approximately 6 months. Individuals who were not up-to-date for screening at baseline could also receive motivational calls from a peer counselor. The main outcomes were up-to-date colorectal cancer screening and Metabolic Equivalency Task (MET)-hours/week of moderate-vigorous PA. Multivariate analyses examined changes in the main outcomes controlling for church cluster, gender, marital status, weight, and baseline values. Baseline screening was high in both intervention (75.9%, n = 374) and comparison groups (73.7%, n = 338). Screening increased at follow-up: +6.4 and +4.7 percentage points for intervention and comparison, respectively (p = .25). Baseline MET-hours/week of PA was 7.8 (95% confidence interval [6.8, 8.7]) for intervention and 8.7 (95% confidence interval [7.6, 9.8]) for the comparison group. There were no significant changes (p = .15) in PA for intervention (-0.30 MET-hours/week) compared with the comparison (-0.05 MET-hours/week). Among intervention participants, PA increased more for those who participated in church exercise programs, and screening improved more for those who spoke with a peer counselor or recalled the newsletters. Overall, the intervention did not improve PA or screening in an urban church population. These findings support previous research indicating that structured PA opportunities are necessary to promote change in PA and churches need more support to initiate effective peer counselor programs.

Quantifying the utility of taking pills for cardiovascular prevention.

BACKGROUND: The decrease in utility attributed to taking pills for cardiovascular prevention can have major effects on the cost-effectiveness of interventions but has not been well studied. We sought to measure the utility of daily pill-taking for cardiovascular prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a cross-sectional Internet-based survey of 1000 US residents aged ≥30 in March 2014. We calculated utility values, using time trade-off as our primary method and standard gamble and willingness-to-pay techniques as secondary analyses. Mean age of respondents was 50 years. Most were female (59%) and white (63%); 28% had less than a college degree; and 79% took ≥1 pills daily. Mean utility using the time trade-off method was 0.990 (95% confidence interval, 0.988-0.992), including ≈70% not willing to trade any amount of time to avoid taking a preventive pill daily. Using the standard gamble method, mean utility was 0.991 (0.989-0.993), with 62% not willing to risk any chance of death. Respondents were willing to pay an average of $1445 to avoid taking a pill daily, which translated to a mean utility of 0.994 (0.940-0.997), including 41% unwilling to pay any amount. Time trade-off-based utility varied by age (decreasing utility as age increased), sex, race, numeracy, difficulty with obtaining pills, and number of pills taken per day but did not vary by education level, literacy, or income. CONCLUSIONS: Mean utility for taking a pill daily for cardiovascular prevention is ≈0.990 to 0.994.

Using a discrete choice experiment to inform the design of programs to promote colon cancer screening for vulnerable populations in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, particularly for vulnerable populations. Effective intervention programs are needed to increase screening rates. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to learn about how vulnerable individuals in North Carolina value different aspects of CRC screening programs. METHODS: We enrolled English-speaking adults ages 50-75 at average risk of CRC from rural North Carolina communities with low rates of CRC screening, targeting those with public or no insurance and low incomes. Participants received basic information about CRC screening and potential program features, then completed a 16 task DCE and survey questions that examined preferences for four attributes of screening programs: testing options available; travel time required; money paid for screening or rewards for completing screening; and the portion of the cost of follow-up care paid out of pocket. We used Hierarchical Bayesian methods to calculate individual-level utilities for the 4 attributes' levels and individual-level attribute importance scores. For each individual, the attribute with the highest importance score was considered the most important attribute. Individual utilities were then aggregated to produce mean utilities for each attribute. We also compared DCE-based results with those from direct questions in a post-DCE survey. RESULTS: We enrolled 150 adults. Mean age was 57.8 (range 50-74); 55% were women; 76% White and 19% African-American; 87% annual household income under $30,000; and 51% were uninsured. Individuals preferred shorter travel; rewards or small copayments compared with large copayments; programs that included stool testing as an option; and greater coverage of follow-up costs. Follow-up cost coverage was most frequently found to be the most important attribute from the DCE (47%); followed by test reward/copayment (33%). From the survey, proportion of follow-up costs paid was most frequently cited as most important (42% of participants), followed by testing options (32%). There was moderate agreement (45%) in attribute importance between the DCE and the single question in the post-DCE survey. CONCLUSIONS: Screening test copayments and follow-up care coverage costs are important program characteristics in this vulnerable, rural population.