"It's Like Finding Your Way Through the Labyrinth": a Qualitative Study of Veterans' Experiences Accessing Healthcare.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 Veterans Choice Act and subsequent 2018 Veteran's Affairs (VA) Maintaining Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act (MISSION Act) are legislation which clarified Veteran access to healthcare provided by non-VA clinicians (community care). These policies are of particular importance to Veterans living in rural areas, who tend to live farther from VA medical facilities than urban Veterans. OBJECTIVE: To understand Veterans' experiences of the MISSION Act and how it impacted their access to primary care to inform future interventions with a focus on reaching rural Veterans. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive design. PARTICIPANTS: United States (US) Veterans in Northwestern states engaged in VA and/or community care. APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of Veterans between August 2020 and September 2021. Interview domains focused on barriers and facilitators of healthcare access. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 28 Veterans; 52% utilized community care as their primary source of care and 36% were from rural or frontier areas. Three main themes emerged: (1) Veterans described their healthcare experiences as positive but also frustrating (billing and prior authorization were noted as top frustrations); (2) Veterans with medical complexities, living far from healthcare services, and/or seeking women's healthcare services experienced additional frustration due to increased touch points with VA systems and processes; and (3) financial resources and/or knowledge of the VA system insulated Veterans from frustration with healthcare navigation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite provisions in the MISSION Act, Veteran participants described persistent barriers to healthcare access. Patient characteristics that required increased interaction with VA processes exacerbated these barriers, while financial resources and VA system knowledge mitigated them. Interventions to improve care coordination or address access barriers across VA and community care settings could improve access and reduce health inequities for Veterans-especially those with medical complexities, those living far from healthcare services, or those seeking women's healthcare.

Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions.

PURPOSE: We aimed to understand how an interactive, web-based simulation tool can be optimized to support decision-making about the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with decision-makers, including health administrators, advocates, and researchers, with a strong foundation in CRC prevention. Following a demonstration of the microsimulation modeling tool, participants reflected on the tool's potential impact for informing the selection and implementation of strategies for improving CRC screening and outcomes. The interviews assessed participants' preferences regarding the tool's design and content, comprehension of the model results, and recommendations for improving the tool. RESULTS: Seventeen decision-makers completed interviews. Themes regarding the tool's utility included building a case for EBI implementation, selecting EBIs to adopt, setting implementation goals, and understanding the evidence base. Reported barriers to guiding EBI implementation included the tool being too research-focused, contextual differences between the simulated and local contexts, and lack of specificity regarding the design of simulated EBIs. Recommendations to address these challenges included making the data more actionable, allowing users to enter their own model inputs, and providing a how-to guide for implementing the simulated EBIs. CONCLUSION: Diverse decision-makers found the simulation tool to be most useful for supporting early implementation phases, especially deciding which EBI(s) to implement. To increase the tool's utility, providing detailed guidance on how to implement the selected EBIs, and the extent to which users can expect similar CRC screening gains in their contexts, should be prioritized.

Jumping Through Hoops: Community Care Clinician and Staff Experiences Providing Primary Care to Rural Veterans.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 VA Maintaining Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act, or MISSION Act, aimed to improve rural veteran access to care by expanding coverage for services in the community. Increased access to clinicians outside the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) could benefit rural veterans, who often face obstacles obtaining VA care. This solution, however, relies on clinics willing to navigate VA administrative processes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the experiences rural, non-VA clinicians and staff have while providing care to rural veterans and inform challenges and opportunities for high-quality, equitable care access and delivery. DESIGN: Phenomenological qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Non-VA-affiliated primary care clinicians and staff in the Pacific Northwest. APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of eligible clinicians and staff between May and August 2020; data analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 13 clinicians and staff and identified four themes and multiple challenges related to providing care for rural veterans: (1) Confusion, variability and delays for VA administrative processes, (2) clarifying responsibility for dual-user veteran care, (3) accessing and sharing medical records outside the VA, and (4) negotiating communication pathways between systems and clinicians. Informants reported using workarounds to combat challenges, including using trial and error to gain expertise in VA system navigation, relying on veterans to act as intermediaries to coordinate their care, and depending on individual VA employees to support provider-to-provider communication and share system knowledge. Informants expressed concerns that dual-user veterans were more likely to have duplication or gaps in services. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need to reduce the bureaucratic burden of interacting with the VA. Further work is needed to tailor structures to address challenges rural community providers experience and to identify strategies to reduce care fragmentation across VA and non-VA providers and encourage long-term commitment to care for veterans.

An observational study of workflows to support fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening in primary care practices serving Medicaid enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Screening supports early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). Provision of fecal immunochemical tests/fecal occult blood tests (FIT/FOBT) in primary care can increase CRC screening, particularly in populations experiencing health disparities. This study was conducted to describe clinical workflows for FIT/FOBT in Oregon primary care practices and to identify specific workflow processes that might be associated (alone or in combination) with higher (versus lower) CRC screening rates. METHODS: Primary care practices were rank ordered by CRC screening rates in Oregon Medicaid enrollees who turned age 50 years from January 2013 to June 2014 (i.e., newly age-eligible). Practices were recruited via purposive sampling based on organizational characteristics and CRC screening rates. Data collected were from surveys, observation visits, and informal interviews, and used to create practice-level CRC screening workflow reports. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, qualitative data analysis using an immersion-crystallization process, and a matrix analysis approach. RESULTS: All participating primary care practices (N=9) used visit-based workflows, and four higher performing and two lower performing used population outreach workflows to deliver FIT/FOBTs. However, higher performing practices (n=5) had more established workflows and staff to support activities. Visit-based strategies in higher performing practices included having dedicated staff identify patients due for CRC screening and training medical assistants to review FIT/FOBT instructions with patients. Population outreach strategies included having clinic staff generate lists and check them for accuracy prior to direct mailing of kits to patients. For both workflow types, higher performing clinics routinely utilized systems for patient reminders and follow-up after FIT/FOBT distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices with higher CRC screening rates among newly age-eligible Medicaid enrollees had more established visit-based and population outreach workflows to support identifying patients due for screening, FIT/FOBT distribution, reminders, and follow up. Key to practices with higher CRC screening was having medical assistants discuss and review FIT/FOBT screening and instructions with patients. Findings present important workflow processes for primary care practices and may facilitate the implementation of evidence-based interventions into real-world, clinical settings.

Assessing the impact of multicomponent interventions on colorectal cancer screening through simulation: What would it take to reach national screening targets in North Carolina?

Healthy People 2020 and the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable established colorectal cancer (CRC) screening targets of 70.5% and 80%, respectively. While evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have increased CRC screening, the ability to achieve these targets at the population level remains uncertain. We simulated the impact of multicomponent interventions in North Carolina over 5 years to assess the potential for meeting national screening targets. Each intervention scenario is described as a core EBI with additional components indicated by the "+" symbol: patient navigation for screening colonoscopy (PN-for-Col+), mailed fecal immunochemical testing (MailedFIT+), MailedFIT+ targeted to Medicaid enrollees (MailedFIT + forMd), and provider assessment and feedback (PAF+). Each intervention was simulated with and without Medicaid expansion and at different levels of exposure (i.e., reach) for targeted populations. Outcomes included the percent up-to-date overall and by sociodemographic subgroups and number of CRC cases and deaths averted. Each multicomponent intervention was associated with increased CRC screening and averted both CRC cases and deaths; three had the potential to reach screening targets. PN-for-Col + achieved the 70.5% target with 97% reach after 1 year, and the 80% target with 78% reach after 5 years. MailedFIT+ achieved the 70.5% target with 74% reach after 1 year and 5 years. In the Medicaid population, assuming Medicaid expansion, MailedFIT + forMd reached the 70.5% target after 5 years with 97% reach. This study clarifies the potential for states to reach national CRC screening targets using multicomponent EBIs, but decision-makers also should consider tradeoffs in cost, reach, and ability to reduce disparities when selecting interventions.

Primary Care Research Is Hard to Do During COVID-19: Challenges and Solutions.

Conducting research in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic is hard, due to baseline stresses on primary care, which have been compounded by the pandemic. We acknowledge and validate primary care researchers' frustrations. Using our experience on over 15 individual projects during the pandemic we identify 3 key challenges to conducting primary care research: (1) practice delivery trickle-down effects, (2) limited/changing resources and procedures for research, and (3) a generally tense milieu in US society during the pandemic. We present strategies, informed by a set of questions, to help researchers decide how to address these challenges observed during our studies. In order to overcome and grow from these challenging times we encourage normalization and self-compassion, and encourage researchers and funders to embrace pragmatic and adaptive research designs as the circumstances with COVID-19 evolve over time.

Clinic Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion: The Difference-Making Role of Support Staff.

PURPOSE: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs can facilitate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We sought to identify modifiable, clinic-level factors that distinguish primary care clinics with higher vs lower FIT completion rates in response to a centralized mailed FIT program. METHODS: We used baseline observational data from 15 clinics within a single urban federally qualified health center participating in a pragmatic trial to optimize a mailed FIT program. Clinic-level data included interviews with leadership using a guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and FIT completion rates. We used template analysis to identify explanatory factors and configurational comparative methods to identify specific combinations of clinic-level conditions that uniquely distinguished clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates. RESULTS: We interviewed 39 clinic leaders and identified 58 potential explanatory factors representing clinic workflows and the CFIR inner setting domain. Clinic-level FIT completion rates ranged from 30% to 56%. The configurational model for clinics with higher rates (≥37%) featured any 1 of the following 3 factors related to support staff: (1) adding back- or front-office staff in past 12 months, (2) having staff help patients resolve barriers to CRC screening, and (3) having staff hand out FITs/educate patients. The model for clinics with lower rates involved the combined absence of these same 3 factors. CONCLUSIONS: Three factors related to support staff differentiated clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates. Adding nonphysician support staff and having those staff provide enabling services might help clinics optimize mailed FIT screening programs.

Long drives and red tape: mapping rural veteran access to primary care using causal-loop diagramming.

BACKGROUND: Rural veterans experience more challenges than their urban peers in accessing primary care services, which can negatively impact their health and wellbeing. The factors driving this disparity are complex and involve patient, clinic, health system, community and policy influences. Federal policies over the last decade have relaxed requirements for some veterans to receive primary care services from community providers through their VA benefits, known as community care. METHODS: We used a participatory systems mapping approach involving causal-loop diagramming to identify interrelationships between variables underlying challenges to veteran access to primary care and potential opportunities for change-known as leverage points in systems science. Our methods involved a secondary analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews with rural veterans, VA staff, non-VA clinic staff and providers who serve rural veterans, and veteran service officers (VSOs) in the Northwest region of the US, followed by a two-part participatory modeling session with a study advisory board. We then applied Meadows's leverage point framework to identify and categorize potential interventions to improve rural veteran access to primary care. RESULTS: The final model illustrated challenges at the veteran, clinic, and system levels as experienced by stakeholders. Main components of the diagram pertained to the choice of VA or non-VA primary care, veteran satisfaction with the VA, enrollment in VA benefits and other insurance, community care authorization, reimbursement of non-VA care, referrals to specialty care, record sharing and communication between VA and non-VA providers, institutional stability of the VA, and staffing challenges. Fourteen interventions, including administrative and communications changes, were identified by analyzing the model using the leverage points framework. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate how challenges rural veterans face accessing health care are interconnected and persist despite recent changes to federal law pertaining to the VA health care system in recent years. Systems mapping and modeling approaches such as causal-loop diagramming have potential for engaging stakeholders and supporting intervention and implementation planning.

Integration of Improvement and Implementation Science in Practice-Based Research Networks: a Longitudinal, Comparative Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science (IS) and quality improvement (QI) inhabit distinct areas of scholarly literature, but are often blended in practice. Because practice-based research networks (PBRNs) draw from both traditions, their experience could inform opportunities for strategic IS-QI alignment. OBJECTIVE: To systematically examine IS, QI, and IS/QI projects conducted within a PBRN over time to identify similarities, differences, and synergies. DESIGN: Longitudinal, comparative case study of projects conducted in the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) from January 2007 to January 2019. APPROACH: We reviewed documents and conducted staff interviews. We classified projects as IS, QI, IS/QI, or other using established criteria. We abstracted project details (e.g., objective, setting, theoretical framework) and used qualitative synthesis to compare projects by classification and to identify the contributions of IS and QI within the same project. KEY RESULTS: Almost 30% (26/99) of ORPRN's projects included IS or QI elements; 54% (14/26) were classified as IS/QI. All 26 projects used an evidence-based intervention and shared many similarities in relation to objective and setting. Over half of the IS and IS/QI projects used randomized designs and theoretical frameworks, while no QI projects did. Projects displayed an upward trend in complexity over time. Project used a similar number of practice change strategies; however, projects classified as IS predominantly employed education/training while all IS/QI and most QI projects used practice facilitation. Projects including IS/QI elements demonstrated the following contributions: QI provides the mechanism by which the principles of IS are operationalized in order to support local practice change and IS in turn provides theories to inform implementation and evaluation to produce generalizable knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Our review of projects conducted over a 12-year period in one PBRN demonstrates key synergies for IS and QI. Strategic alignment of IS/QI within projects may help improve care quality and bridge the research-practice gap.

Improvement Science and Implementation Science in Cancer Care: Identifying Areas of Synergy and Opportunities for Further Integration.

Efforts to improve cancer care primarily come from two fields: improvement science and implementation science. The two fields have developed independently, yet they have potential for synergy. Leveraging that synergy to enhance alignment could both reduce duplication and, more importantly, enhance the potential of both fields to improve care. To better understand potential for alignment, we examined 20 highly cited cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies published in the past 5 years, characterizing and comparing their objectives, methods, and approaches to practice change. We categorized studies as improvement science or implementation science based on authors' descriptions when possible; otherwise, we categorized studies as improvement science if they evaluated efforts to improve the quality, value, or safety of care, or implementation science if they evaluated efforts to promote the implementation of evidence-based interventions into practice. All implementation studies (10/10) and most improvement science studies (6/10) sought to improve uptake of evidence-based interventions. Improvement science and implementation science studies employed similar approaches to change practice. For example, training was employed in 8/10 implementation science studies and 4/10 improvement science studies. However, improvement science and implementation science studies used different terminology to describe similar concepts and emphasized different methodological aspects in reporting. Only 4/20 studies (2 from each category) described using a formal theory or conceptual framework to guide program development. Most studies were multi-site (10/10 implementation science and 6/10 improvement science) and a minority (2 from each category) used a randomized design. Based on our review, cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies use different terminology and emphasize different methodological aspects in reporting but share similarities in purpose, scope, and methods, and are at similar levels of scientific development. The fields are well-positioned for alignment. We propose that next steps include harmonizing language and cross-fertilizing methods of program development and evaluation.

Access to Primary, Mental Health, and Specialty Care: a Comparison of Medicaid and Commercially Insured Populations in Oregon.

OBJECTIVE: To describe how access to primary and specialty care differs for Medicaid patients relative to commercially insured patients, and how these differences vary across rural and urban counties, using comprehensive claims data from Oregon. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of risk-adjusted access rates for two types of primary care providers (physicians; nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs)); four types of mental health providers (psychiatrists, psychologists, advanced practice NPs or PAs specializing in mental health care, behavioral specialists); and four physician specialties (obstetrics and gynecology, general surgery, gastroenterology, dermatology). PARTICIPANTS: 420,947 Medicaid and 638,980 commercially insured adults in Oregon, October 2014-September 2015. OUTCOME: Presence of any visit with each provider type, risk-adjusted for sex, age, and health conditions. RESULTS: Relative to commercially insured individuals, Medicaid enrollees had lower rates of access to primary care physicians (- 11.82%; CI - 12.01 to - 11.63%) and to some specialists (e.g., obstetrics and gynecology, dermatology), but had equivalent or higher rates of access to NPs and PAs providing primary care (4.33%; CI 4.15 to 4.52%) and a variety of mental health providers (including psychiatrists, NPs and PAs, and other behavioral specialists). Across all providers, the largest gaps in Medicaid-commercial access rates were observed in rural counties. The Medicaid-commercial patient mix was evenly distributed across primary care physicians, suggesting that access for Medicaid patients was not limited to a small subset of primary care providers. CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional study found lower rates of access to primary care physicians for Medicaid enrollees, but Medicaid-commercial differences in access rates were not present across all provider types and displayed substantial variability across counties. Policies that address rural-urban differences as well as Medicaid-commercial differences-such as expansions of telemedicine or changes in the workforce mix-may have the largest impact on improving access to care across a wide range of populations.

Mailed FIT (fecal immunochemical test), navigation or patient reminders? Using microsimulation to inform selection of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening in Medicaid enrollees.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be effectively prevented or detected with guideline concordant screening, yet Medicaid enrollees experience disparities. We used microsimulation to project CRC screening patterns, CRC cases averted, and life-years gained in the population of 68,077 Oregon Medicaid enrollees 50-64 over a five year period starting in January 2019. The simulation estimated the cost-effectiveness of five intervention scenarios - academic detailing plus provider audit and feedback (Detailing+), patient reminders (Reminders), mailing a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) directly to the patient's home (Mailed FIT), patient navigation (Navigation), and mailed FIT with Navigation (Mailed FIT + Navigation) - compared to usual care. Each intervention scenario raised CRC screening rates compared to usual care, with improvements as high as 11.6 percentage points (Mailed FIT + Navigation) and as low as 2.5 percentage points (Reminders) after one year. Compared to usual care, Mailed FIT + Navigation would raise CRC screening rates 20.2 percentage points after five years - averting nearly 77 cancer cases (a reduction of 113 per 100,000) and exceeding national screening targets. Over a five year period, Reminders, Mailed FIT and Mailed FIT + Navigation were expected to be cost effective if stakeholders were willing to pay $230 or less per additional year up-to-date (at a cost of $22, $59, and $227 respectively), whereas Detailing+ and Navigation were more costly for the same benefits. To approach national CRC screening targets, health system stakeholders are encouraged to implement Mailed FIT with or without Navigation and Reminders.

Estimating the impact of insurance expansion on colorectal cancer and related costs in North Carolina: A population-level simulation analysis.

Although screening is effective in reducing incidence, mortality, and costs of treating colorectal cancer (CRC), it remains underutilized, in part due to limited insurance access. We used microsimulation to estimate the health and financial effects of insurance expansion and reduction scenarios in North Carolina (NC). We simulated the full lifetime of a simulated population of 3,298,265 residents age-eligible for CRC screening (ages 50-75) during a 5-year period starting January 1, 2018, including polyp incidence and progression and CRC screening, diagnosis, treatment, and mortality. Insurance scenarios included: status quo, which in NC includes access to the Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA); no ACA; NC Medicaid expansion, and Medicare-for-all. The insurance expansion scenarios would increase percent up-to-date with screening by 0.3 and 7.1 percentage points for Medicaid expansion and Medicare-for-all, respectively, while insurance reduction would reduce percent up-to-date by 1.1 percentage points, compared to the status quo (51.7% up-to-date), at the end of the 5-year period. Throughout these individuals' lifetimes, this change in CRC screening/testing results in an estimated 498 CRC cases averted with Medicaid expansion and 6031 averted with Medicare-for-all, and an additional 1782 cases if health insurance gains associated with ACA are lost. Estimated cost savings - balancing increased CRC screening/testing costs against decreased cancer treatment costs - are approximately $30 M and $970 M for Medicaid expansion and Medicare-for-all scenarios, respectively, compared to status quo. Insurance expansion is likely to improve CRC screening both overall and in underserved populations while saving money, with the largest savings realized by Medicare.

Financial hardship among rural cancer survivors: An analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

Some cancer survivors report spending 20% of their annual income on medical care. Undue financial burden that patients face related to the cost of care is referred to as financial hardship, which may be more prevalent among rural cancer survivors. This study examined contrasts in financial hardship among 1419 rural and urban cancer survivors using the 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey supplement - The Effects of Cancer and Its Treatment on Finances. We combined four questions, creating a measure of material financial hardship, and examined one question on financial worry. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses, which produced odds ratios (OR) for factors associated with financial hardship and worry, and then generated average adjusted predicted probabilities. We focused on rural and urban differences classified by metropolitan statistical area (MSA) designation, controlling for age, education, race, marital status, health insurance, family income, and time since last cancer treatment. More rural cancer survivors reported financial hardship than urban survivors (23.9% versus 17.1%). However, our adjusted models revealed no significant impact of survivors' MSA designation on financial hardship or worry. Average adjusted predicted probabilities of financial hardship were 18.6% for urban survivors (Confidence Interval [CI]: 11.9%-27.5%) and 24.2% for rural survivors (CI: 15.0%-36.2%). For financial worry, average adjusted predicted probabilities were 19.9% for urban survivors (CI: 12.0%-31.0%) and 18.8% for rural survivors (CI: 12.1%-28.0%). Improving patient-provider communication through decision aids and/or patient navigators may be helpful to reduce financial hardship and worry regardless of rural-urban status.

Rural-urban differences in financial burden among cancer survivors: an analysis of a nationally representative survey.

PURPOSE: Rural cancer survivors may disproportionately experience financial problems due to their cancer because of greater travel costs, higher uninsured/underinsured rates, and other factors compared to their urban counterparts. Our objective was to examine rural-urban differences in reported financial problems due to cancer using a nationally representative survey. METHODS: We used data from three iterations of the National Cancer Institute's Health Information and National Trends Survey (2012, 2014, and 2017) to identify participants who had a previous or current cancer diagnosis. Our outcome of interest was self-reported financial problems associated with cancer diagnosis and treatment. Rural-urban status was defined using 2003 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. We calculated weighted percentages and Wald chi-square statistics to assess rural-urban differences in demographic and cancer characteristics. In multivariable logistic regression models, we examined the association between rural-urban status and other factors and financial problems, reporting the corresponding adjusted predicted probabilities. FINDINGS: Our sample included 1359 cancer survivors. Rural cancer survivors were more likely to be married, retired, and live in the Midwest or South. Over half (50.5%) of rural cancer survivors reported financial problems due to cancer compared to 38.8% of urban survivors (p = 0.02). This difference was attenuated in multivariable models, 49.3 and 38.7% in rural and urban survivors, respectively (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of rural survivors reported financial problems associated with their cancer diagnosis and treatment compared to urban survivors. Future research should aim to elucidate these disparities and interventions should be tested to address the cancer-related financial problems experienced by rural survivors.

Does a transition to accountable care in Medicaid shift the modality of colorectal cancer testing?

BACKGROUND: Health care reform is changing preventive services delivery. This study explored trajectories in colorectal cancer (CRC) testing over a 5-year period that included implementation of 16 Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs, 2012) and Medicaid expansion (2014) - two provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - within the state of Oregon, USA. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of Oregon's Medicaid claims for enrollee's eligible for CRC screening (50-64 years) spanning January 2010 through December 2014. Our analysis was conducted and refined April 2016 through June 2018. The analysis assessed the annual probability of patients receiving CRC testing and the modality used (e.g., colonoscopy, fecal testing) relative to a baseline year (2010). We hypothesized that CRC testing would increase following Medicaid ACO formation - called Coordinated Care Organizations (CCOs). RESULTS: A total of 132,424 unique Medicaid enrollees (representing 255,192 person-years) met inclusion criteria over the 5-year study. Controlling for demographic and regional factors, the predicted probability of CRC testing was significantly higher in 2014 (+ 1.4 percentage points, p < 0.001) compared to the 2010 baseline but not in 2012 or 2013. Increased fecal testing using Fecal Occult Blood Tests (FOBT) or Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) played a prominent role in 2014. The uptick in statewide fecal testing appears driven primarily by a subset of CCOs. CONCLUSIONS: Observed CRC testing did not immediately increase following the transition to CCOs in 2012. However increased testing in 2014, may reflect a delay in implementation of interventions to increase CRC screening and/or a strong desire by newly insured Medicaid CCO members to receive preventive care.

Colorectal cancer screening in newly insured Medicaid members: a review of concurrent federal and state policies.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized by Medicaid enrollees and the uninsured. Multiple national and state policies were enacted from 2010 to 2014 to increase access to Medicaid and to promote CRC screening among Medicaid enrollees. We aimed to determine the impact of these policies on screening initiation among newly enrolled Oregon Medicaid beneficiaries age-eligible for CRC screening. METHODS: We identified national and state policies affecting Medicaid coverage and preventive services in Oregon during 2010-2014. We used Oregon Medicaid claims data from 2010 to 2015 to conduct a cohort analysis of enrollees who turned 50 and became age-eligible for CRC screening (a prevention milestone, and an age at which guideline-concordant screening can be assessed within a single year) during each year from 2010 to 2014. We calculated risk ratios to assess whether first year of Medicaid enrollment and/or year turned 50 was associated with CRC screening initiation. RESULTS: We identified 14,576 Oregon Medicaid enrollees who turned 50 during 2010-2014; 2429 (17%) completed CRC screening within 12 months after turning 50. Individuals newly enrolled in Medicaid in 2013 or 2014 were 1.58 and 1.31 times more likely, respectively, to initiate CRC screening than those enrolled by 2010. A primary care visit in the calendar year, having one or more chronic conditions, and being Hispanic was also associated with CRC screening initiation. DISCUSSION: The increased uptake of CRC screening in 2013 and 2014 is associated with the timing of policies such as Medicaid expansion, enhanced federal matching for preventive services offered to Medicaid enrollees without cost sharing, and formation of Medicaid accountable care organizations, which included CRC screening as an incentivized quality metric.

Key Collaborative Factors When Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations Work With Primary Care Clinics to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening: Relationships, Data, and Quality Improvement Infrastructure.

PURPOSE: Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are implementing interventions to achieve triple-aim objectives of improved quality and experience of care while maintaining costs. Partnering across organizational boundaries is perceived as critical to ACO success. METHODS: We conducted a comparative case study of 14 Medicaid ACOs in Oregon and their contracted primary care clinics using public performance data, key informant interviews, and consultation field notes. We focused on how ACOs work with clinics to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening - one incentivized performance metric. RESULTS: ACOs implemented a broad spectrum of multi-component interventions designed to increase CRC screening. The most common interventions focused on reducing structural barriers (n = 12 ACOs), delivering provider assessment and feedback (n = 11), and providing patient reminders (n = 7). ACOs developed their processes and infrastructure for working with clinics over time. Facilitators of successful collaboration included a history of and commitment to collaboration (partnership); the ability to provide accurate data to prioritize action and monitor improvement (performance data), and supporting clinics' reflective learning through facilitation, learning collaboratives; and support of ACO as well as clinic-based staffing (quality improvement infrastructure). Two unintended consequences of ACO-clinic partnership emerged: potential exclusion of smaller clinics and metric focus and fatigue. CONCLUSION: Our findings identified partnership, performance data, and quality improvement infrastructure as critical dimensions when Medicaid ACOs work with primary care to improve CRC screening. Findings may extend to other metric targets.

Participatory implementation science to increase the impact of evidence-based cancer prevention and control.

It is critical to accelerate the integration of evidence-based programs, practices, and strategies for cancer prevention and control into clinical, community, and public health settings. While it is clear that effective translation of existing knowledge into practice can reduce cancer burden, it is less clear how best to achieve this. This gap is addressed by the rapidly growing field of implementation science. Given that context influences and is influenced by implementation efforts, engaging stakeholders in the co-production of knowledge and solutions offers an opportunity to increase the likelihood that implementation efforts are useful, scalable, and sustainable in real-world settings. We argue that a participatory implementation science approach is critical, as it supports iterative, ongoing engagement between stakeholders and researchers to improve the pathway between research and practice, create system change, and address health disparities and health equity. This article highlights the utility of participatory implementation science for cancer prevention and control research and addresses (a) the spectrum of participatory research approaches that may be of use, (b) benefits of participatory implementation science, and

A systematic review of clinic and community intervention to increase fecal testing for colorectal cancer in rural and low-income populations in the United States - How, what and when?

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve fecal testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) exist, but are not yet routine practice. We conducted this systematic review to determine how implementation strategies and contextual factors influenced the uptake of interventions to increase Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) and Fecal Occult Blood Testing (FOBT) for CRC in rural and low-income populations in the United States. METHODS: We searched Medline and the Cochrane Library from January 1998 through July 2016, and Scopus and clinicaltrials.gov through March 2015, for original articles of interventions to increase fecal testing for CRC. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. A qualitative synthesis described the relationship between changes in fecal testing rates for CRC, intervention components, implementation strategies, and contextual factors. A technical expert panel of primary care professionals, health system leaders, and academicians guided this work. RESULTS: Of 4218 citations initially identified, 27 unique studies reported in 29 publications met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in primary care (n = 20, 74.1%), community (n = 5, 18.5%), or both (n = 2, 7.4%) settings. All studies (n = 27, 100.0%) described multicomponent interventions. In clinic based studies, components that occurred most frequently among the highly effective/effective study arms were provision of kits by direct mail, use of a pre-addressed stamped envelope, client reminders, and provider ordered in-clinic distribution. Interventions were delivered by clinic staff/community members (n = 10, 37.0%), research staff (n = 6, 22.2%), both (n = 10, 37.0%), or it was unclear (n = 1, 3.7%). Over half of the studies lacked information on training or monitoring intervention fidelity (n = 15, 55.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Studies to improve FIT/FOBT in rural and low-income populations utilized multicomponent interventions. The provision of kits through the mail, use of pre-addressed stamped envelopes, client reminders and in-clinic distribution appeared most frequently in the highly effective/effective clinic-based study arms. Few studies described contextual factors or implementation strategies. More robust application of guidelines to support reporting on methods to select, adapt and implement interventions can help end users determine not just which interventions work to improve CRC screening, but which interventions would work best in their setting given specific patient populations, clinical settings, and community characteristics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, our systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews, on April 16, 2015 (registration number CRD42015019557 ).