Developing and testing a cost-assessment tool for cancer screening programs

Cost, reach, and representativeness of recruitment efforts for an online skin cancer risk reduction intervention trial for young adults

Despite its increasing use, few studies have reported on demographic representativeness and costs of research recruitment via social media. It was hypothesized that cost, reach, enrollment, and demographic representativeness would differ by social media recruitment approach. Participants were 18-25 year-olds at moderate to high risk of skin cancer based on phenotypic and behavioral characteristics. Paid Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter ads, unpaid social media posts by study staff, and unpaid referrals were used to recruit participants. Demographic and other characteristics of the sample were compared with the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) sample. Analyses demonstrated significant differences among recruitment approaches regarding cost efficiency, study participation, and representativeness. Costs were compared across 4,274 individuals who completed eligibility screeners over a 7-month period from: Instagram, 44.6% (of the sample) = 1,907, $9 (per individual screened); Facebook, 31.5% = 1,345, $8; Twitter, 1% = 42, $178; unpaid posts by study staff, 10.6% and referred, 6.5%, $1. The lowest rates of study enrollment among individuals screened was for Twitter. Most demographic and skin cancer risk factors of study participants differed from those of the 2015 NHIS sample and across social media recruitment approaches. Considering recruitment costs and number of participants enrolled, Facebook and Instagram appeared to be the most useful approaches for recruiting 18-25 year-olds. Findings suggest that project budget, target population and representativeness, and participation goals should inform selection and/or combination of existing and emerging online recruitment approaches.

The Cost of Implementing and Sustaining the COMprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services Model

BACKGROUND

The COMprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) model, a transitional care intervention for stroke patients discharged home, was tested against status quo postacute stroke care in a cluster-randomized trial in 40 hospitals in North Carolina. This study examined the hospital-level costs associated with implementing and sustaining COMPASS.

METHODS

Using an activity-based costing survey, we estimated hospital-level resource costs spent on COMPASS-related activities during approximately 1 year. We identified hospitals that were actively engaged in COMPASS during the year before the survey and collected resource cost estimates from 22 hospitals. We used median wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and COMPASS enrollment data to estimate the hospital-level costs per COMPASS enrollee.

RESULTS

Between November 2017 and March 2019, 1582 patients received the COMPASS intervention across the 22 hospitals included in this analysis. Average annual hospital-level COMPASS costs were $2861 per patient (25th percentile: $735; 75th percentile: $3,475). Having 10% higher stroke patient volume was associated with 5.1% lower COMPASS costs per patient (P=0.016). About half (N=10) of hospitals reported postacute clinic visits as their highest-cost activity, while a third (N=7) reported case ascertainment (ie, identifying eligible patients) as their highest-cost activity.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the costs of implementing COMPASS varied across hospitals. On average, hospitals with higher stroke volume and higher enrollment reported lower costs per patient. Based on average costs of COMPASS and readmissions for stroke patients, COMPASS could lower net costs if the model is able to prevent about 6 readmissions per year.

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

Integrated Care Delivery for HIV Prevention and Treatment in Adolescent Girls and Young Women in Zambia: Protocol for a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Among countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Zambia has one of the highest incidences of HIV. Adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) are a particularly affected group because of their social and economic vulnerability.

Objective

The goal of this study is to test a multilevel package of interventions at the community and health system levels in Zambia in order to connect AGYW with a source of regular care, which will in turn allow for sustainable, successful implementation of regular HIV testing and adherence to antiretroviral treatment.

Methods

We will adapt prior tools to create the SHIELD (Support for HIV Integrated Education, Linkages to Care, and Destigmatization) intervention to educate and empower Zambian AGYW of 10-24 years of age and their families and to create community-based youth clubs to foster peer support. We will also develop integrated wellness care clinics to offer a youth-friendly environment that provides tailored clinical services. We will perform formative research, including focus groups and in-depth interviews, among AGYW, caregivers, and stakeholders to help inform the development and tailoring of the interventions. A cluster-randomized controlled trial will be implemented in Lusaka, with six clinic catchment areas randomized into three groups: zones with integrated wellness care clinics and SHIELD intervention, zones with only SHIELD intervention, and control zones with no intervention. We will assess HIV testing among the HIV-negative or unknown (HIV-/u) cohort, and retention in care along with viral load suppression will be evaluated in the HIV-positive (HIV+) cohort. We will use in-depth interviews and surveys to collect staff and stakeholder feedback after the trial. Cost-effectiveness of the interventions and return-on-investment impacts will be quantified using a microsimulation model.

Results

Interim results are expected in 2021, and the final results are expected in 2022. If this multilevel intervention is successful in establishing a comprehensive care continuum for HIV-affected AGYW, the Zambian Ministry of Health may advocate for expansion to additional settings to support national scale-up.

Conclusions

This integrated service delivery model can also be a platform to implement additional preventive services, so HIV-/u and HIV+ AGYW can receive comprehensive, integrated services.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03995953; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03995953

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/15314

Awardee-specific economic costs of providing cancer screening and health promotional services to medically underserved women eligible in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program

OBJECTIVES

To estimate awardee-specific costs of delivering breast and cervical cancer screening services in their jurisdiction and to assess potential variation in the cost of key activities across awardees.

METHODS

We developed the cost assessment tool to collect resource use and cost data from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program awardees for 3 years between 2006 and 2010 and generated activity-based cost estimates. We estimated awardee-specific cost per woman served for all activities, clinical screening delivery services, screening promotion interventions, and overarching program support activities.

RESULTS

The total cost per woman served by the awardees varied greatly from $205 (10th percentile) to $499 (90th percentile). Differences in the average (median) cost per person served for clinical services, health promotion interventions, and overarching support activities ranged from $51 to $125.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost per woman served varied across awardee and likely reflected underlying differences across awardees in terms of screening infrastructure, population served, and barriers to screening uptake. Collecting information on contextual factors at the awardee, health system, provider, and individual levels may assist in understanding this variation in cost.

Cost-effectiveness of patient navigation for breast cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program

OBJECTIVES

Patient navigation (PN) services have been shown to improve cancer screening in disparate populations. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of implementing PN services within the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP).

METHODS

We adapted a breast cancer simulation model to estimate a population cohort of women aged 40-64 years from the NBCCEDP through their lifetime. We incorporated their screening frequency and screening and diagnostic costs.

RESULTS

Within the NBCCEDP, Program with PN (vs. No PN) resulted in a greater number of mammograms per woman (4.23 vs. 4.14), lower lifetime mortality from breast cancer (3.53% vs. 3.61%), and fewer missed diagnostic resolution per woman (0.017 vs. 0.025). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for a Program with PN was $32,531 per quality-adjusted life-years relative to Program with No PN.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating PN services within the NBCCEDP may be a cost-effective way of improving adherence to screening and diagnostic resolution for women who have abnormal results from screening mammography. Our study highlights the value of supportive services such as PN in improving the quality of care offered within the NBCCEDP.

Developing a Web-Based Cost Assessment Tool for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs

Introduction

We developed a web-based cost assessment tool (CAT) to collect cost data as an improvement from a desktop instrument to perform economic evaluations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees. We describe the development of the web-based CAT, evaluate the quality of the data obtained, and discuss lessons learned.

Methods

We developed and refined a web-based CAT to collect 5 years (2009–2014) of cost data from 29 CRCCP grantees. We analyzed funding distribution; costs by budget categories; distribution of costs related to screening promotion, screening provision, and overarching activities; and reporting of screenings for grantees that received funding from non-CDC sources compared with those grantees that did not.

Results

CDC provided 85.6% of the resources for the CRCCP, with smaller amounts from in-kind contributions (7.8%), and funding from other sources (6.6%) (eg, state funding). Grantees allocated, on average, 95% of their expenditures to specific program activities and 5% to other activities. Some non-CDC funds were used to provide screening tests to additional people, and these additional screens were captured in the CAT.

Conclusion

A web-based tool can be successfully used to collect cost data on expenditures associated with CRCCP activities. Areas for future refinement include how to collect and allocate dollars from other sources in addition to CDC dollars.

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

Introduction

Colonoscopy and guaiac fecal occult blood tests and fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) are the most common colorectal cancer screening methods in the United States. However, information is limited on the program resources required over time to use these tests.

Methods

We collected cost data from 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees by using a standardized data collection instrument for 5 program years (2009–2014). We created a panel data set with 124 records and assessed differences by screening test used.

Results

Forty-four percent of all programs (N = 124) offered colonoscopy (55 of 124), 32% (39 of 124) offered FOBT/FIT, and 24% (30 of 124) offered both. Overall, total cost per person was higher in program year 1 ($3,962), the beginning of CRCCP than in subsequent program years ($1,714). The cost per person was $3,153 for programs using colonoscopy and $1,291 for those using FOBT/FIT with diagnostic colonoscopy. The average clinical cost per person was $1,369 for colonoscopy and $280 for FOBT/FIT during the program (these do not reflect cost of repeated FOBT/FIT screens). Programs serving a large number of people had lower per-person costs than those serving a small volume, probably because of fixed costs related to nonclinical expenses.

Conclusion

Colorectal cancer screening programs incur costs in addition to the clinical cost of the screening procedures to support planning and management, contracting with providers, and tracking patients. Because programs can achieve potential economies of scale, partnerships among smaller programs for screening delivery could decrease overall costs.

Economic assessment of patient navigation to colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening in the real-world setting at the University of Chicago Medical Center

BACKGROUND

This report details the cost effectiveness of a non-nurse patient navigation (PN) program that was implemented at the University of Chicago Medical Center to increase colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

The authors investigated the impact of the PN intervention by collecting process measures. Individuals who received navigation were compared with a historic cohort of non-navigated patients. In addition, a previously validated data-collection instrument was tailored and used to collect all costs related to developing, implementing, and administering the program; and the incremental cost per patient successfully navigated (the cost of the intervention divided by the change in the number who complete screening) was calculated.

RESULTS

The screening colonoscopy completion rate was 85.1% among those who were selected to receive PN compared with 74.3% when no navigation was implemented. With navigation, the proportion of no-shows was 8.2% compared with 15.4% of a historic cohort of non-navigated patients. Because the perceived risk of noncompletion was greater among those who received PN (previous no-show or cancellation, poor bowel preparation) than that in the historic cohort, a scenario analysis was performed. Assuming no-show rates between 0% and 50% and using a navigated rate of 85%, the total incremental program cost per patient successfully navigated ranged from $148 to $359, whereas the incremental intervention-only implementation cost ranged from $88 to $215.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings indicate that non-nurse PN can increase colonoscopy completion, and this can be achieved at a minimal incremental cost for an insured population at an urban academic medical center.

Evaluation of patient-focused interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening among new york state medicaid managed care patients

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate an ongoing initiative to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake in the New York State (NYS) Medicaid managed care population.

METHODS

Patients aged 50 to 75 years who were not up to date with CRC screening and resided in 2 NYS regions were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 cohorts: no mailed reminder, mailed reminder, and mailed reminder + incentive (in the form of a $25 cash card). Screening prevalence and the costs of the intervention were summarized.

RESULTS

In total, 7123 individuals in the Adirondack Region and 10,943 in the Central Region (including the Syracuse metropolitan area) were included. Screening prevalence in the Adirondack Region was 7.2% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, 7.0% in the mailed reminder cohort, and 5.8% in the no mailed reminder cohort. In the Central Region, screening prevalence was 7.2% in the mailed reminder cohort, 6.9% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, and 6.5% in the no mailed reminder cohort. The cost of implementing interventions in the Central Region was approximately 53% lower than in the Adirondack Region.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening uptake was low and did not differ significantly across the 2 regions or within the 3 cohorts. The incentive payment and mailed reminder did not appear to be effective in increasing CRC screening. The total cost of implementation was lower in the Central Region because of efficiencies generated from lessons learned during the first round of implementation in the Adirondack Region. More varied multicomponent interventions may be required to facilitate the completion of CRC screening among Medicaid beneficiaries.

Effectiveness and cost of multilayered colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions at federally qualified health centers in Washington State

BACKGROUND

It has been demonstrated that fecal immunochemical test (FIT) mailing programs are effective for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The objectives of the current study were to assess the magnitude of uptake that could be achieved with a mailed FIT program in a federally qualified health center and whether such a program can be implemented at a reasonable cost to support sustainability.

METHODS

The Washington State Department of Health's partner HealthPoint implemented a direct-mail FIT program at 9 medical clinics, along with a follow-up reminder letter and automated telephone calls to those not up-to-date with recommended screening. Supplemental outreach events at selected medical clinics and a 50th birthday card screening reminder program also were implemented. The authors collected and analyzed process, effectiveness, and cost measures and conducted a systematic assessment of the short-term cost effectiveness of the interventions.

RESULTS

Overall, 5178 FIT kits were mailed with 4009 follow-up reminder letters, and 8454 automated reminder telephone calls were made over 12 months. In total, 1607 FIT kits were returned within 3 months of the end of the implementation period: an overall return rate of 31% for the mailed FIT program. The average total intervention cost per FIT kit returned was $39.81, and the intervention implementation cost per kit returned was $18.76.

CONCLUSIONS

The mailed FIT intervention improved CRC screening uptake among HealthPoint's patient population. This intervention was implemented for less than $40 per individual successfully screened. The findings and lessons learned can assist other clinics that serve disadvantaged populations to increase their CRC screening adherence.

Costs of promoting cancer screening: Evidence from CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP)

The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) provided funding to 29 grantees to increase colorectal cancer screening. We describe the screening promotion costs of CRCCP grantees to evaluate the extent to which the program model resulted in the use of funding to support interventions recommended by the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). We analyzed expenditures for screening promotion for the first three years of the CRCCP to assess cost per promotion strategy, and estimated the cost per person screened at the state level based on various projected increases in screening rates. All grantees engaged in small media activities and more than 90% used either client reminders, provider assessment and feedback, or patient navigation. Based on all expenditures, projected cost per eligible person screened for a 1%, 5%, and 10% increase in state-level screening proportions are $172, $34, and $17, respectively. CRCCP grantees expended the majority of their funding on Community Guide recommended screening promotion strategies but about a third was spent on other interventions. Based on this finding, future CRC programs should be provided with targeted education and information on evidence-based strategies, rather than broad based recommendations, to ensure that program funds are expended mainly on evidence-based interventions.

Costs of colorectal cancer screening provision in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program: Comparisons of colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT based screening

We assess annual costs of screening provision activities implemented by 23 of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees and report differences in costs between colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT-based screening programs. We analysed annual cost data for the first three years of the CRCCP (July 2009-June 2011) for each screening provision activity and categorized them into clinical and non-clinical screening provision activities. The largest cost components for both colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT-based programs were screening and diagnostic services, program management, and data collection and tracking. During the first 3 years of the CRCCP, the average annual clinical cost for screening and diagnostic services per person served was $1150 for colonoscopy programs, compared to $304 for FIT/FOBT-based programs. Overall, FOBT/FIT-based programs appear to have slightly higher non-clinical costs per person served (average $1018; median $838) than colonoscopy programs (average $980; median $686). Colonoscopy-based CRCCP programs have higher clinical costs than FOBT/FIT-based programs during the 3-year study timeframe (translating into fewer people screened). Non-clinical costs for both approaches are similar and substantial. Future studies of the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening initiatives should consider both clinical and non-clinical costs.

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

BACKGROUND

This article reports on the methods and framework we have developed to guide economic evaluation of noncommunicable disease registries.

METHODS

We developed a cost data collection instrument, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) International Registry Costing Tool (IntRegCosting Tool), based on established economics methods We performed in-depth case studies, site visit interviews, and pilot testing in 11 registries from multiple countries including India, Kenya, Uganda, Colombia, and Barbados to assess the overall quality of the data collected from cancer and cardiovascular registries.

RESULTS

Overall, the registries were able to use the IntRegCosting Tool to assign operating expenditures to specific activities. We verified that registries were able to provide accurate estimation of labor costs, which is the largest expenditure incurred by registries. We also identified several factors that can influence the cost of registry operations, including size of the geographic area served, data collection approach, local cost of living, presence of rural areas, volume of cases, extent of consolidation of records to cases, and continuity of funding.

CONCLUSION

Internal and external registry factors reveal that a single estimate for the cost of registry operations is not feasible; costs will vary on the basis of factors that may be beyond the control of the registries. Some factors, such as data collection approach, can be modified to improve the efficiency of registry operations. These findings will inform both future economic data collection using a web-based tool and cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of registry operations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and other locations with similar characteristics.

Recommendations From the International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network on the Evaluation of the Cost of Screening Programs

Worldwide, colorectal cancer is the fourth leading cause of death from cancer and the incidence is projected to increase. Many countries are exploring the introduction of organized screening programs, but there is limited information on the resources required and guidance for cost-effective implementation. To facilitate the generating of the economics evidence base for program implementation, we collected and analyzed detailed program cost data from 5 European members of the International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network. The cost per person screened estimates, often used to compare across programs as an overall measure, varied significantly across the programs. In addition, there were substantial differences in the programmatic and clinical cost incurred, even when the same type of screening test was used. Based on these findings, several recommendations are provided to enhance the underlying methodology and validity of the comparative economic assessments. The recommendations include the need for detailed activity-based cost information, the use of a comprehensive set of effectiveness measures to adequately capture differences between programs, and the incorporation of data from multiple programs in cost-effectiveness models to increase generalizability. Economic evaluation of real-world colorectal cancer-screening programs is essential to derive valuable insights to improve program operations and ensure optimal use of available resources.

The strategic case for establishing public-private partnerships in cancer care

BACKGROUND

In 2007, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the NCI Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) as a public-private partnership with community hospitals with a goal of advancing cancer care and research. In order to leverage federal dollars in a time of limited resources, matching funds from each participating hospital were required. The purpose of this paper is to examine hospitals' level of and rationale for co-investment in this partnership, and whether there is an association between hospitals' co-investment and achievement of strategic goals.

METHODS

Analysis using a comparative case study and micro-cost data was conducted as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the NCCCP pilot to determine the level of co-investment made in support of NCI's goals. In-person or telephone interviews with key informants were conducted at 10 participating hospital and system sites during the first and final years of implementation. Micro-cost data were collected annually from each site from 2007 to 2010. Self-reported data from each awardee are presented on patient volume and physician counts, while secondary data are used to examine the local Medicare market share.

RESULTS

The rationale expressed by interviewees for participation in a public-private partnership with NCI included expectations of increased market share, higher patient volumes, and enhanced opportunities for cancer physician recruitment as a result of affiliation with the NCI. On average, hospitals invested resources into the NCCCP at a level exceeding $3 for every $1 of federal funds. Six sites experienced a statistically significant change in their Medicare market share. Cancer patient volume increased by as much as one-third from Year 1 to Year 3 for eight of the sites. Nine sites reported an increase in key cancer physician recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Demonstrated investments in cancer care and research were associated with increases in cancer patient volume and perhaps in recruitment of key cancer physicians, but not in increased Medicare market share. Although the results reflect a small sample of hospitals, findings suggest that hospital executives believe there to be a strategic case for a public-private partnership as demonstrated through the NCCCP, which leveraged federal funds to support mutual goals for advancing cancer care and research.

Explaining variation across grantees in breast and cervical cancer screening proportions in the NBCCEDP

PURPOSE

There is substantial variation across the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) grantees in terms of the proportion of the eligible population served by the grantees each year (hereafter referred to as the screening proportion). In this paper, we assess program- and state-level factors to better understand the reason for this variation in breast and cervical cancer screening proportions across the NBCCEDP grantees.

METHODS

We constructed a longitudinal data set, consisting of data from NBCCEDP grantees for each of the three study years (program-years 2006-2007, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010). We performed multivariate analysis to explain the variation in breast and cervical cancer screening proportions across the grantees. The program-level factors studied were the total federal funds received, average cost of screening women by grantee, and the overall organizational structure. The state-level variables included were urban versus rural mix, access to care, and the size of the eligible population.

RESULTS

Of the 48 grantees included in the study, those that serve larger populations, as measured by the size of the population and the percentage of women eligible for services, had lower screening proportions. Higher average cost of service delivery was also associated with lower screening proportions. In addition, grantees whose populations were more concentrated in urban areas had lower screening proportions.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the average cost of screening, the overall size of the population eligible, and the concentration of population in urban areas all had a negative relationship to the proportion of eligible women screened by NBCCEDP grantees.

Preventing premature deaths from breast and cervical cancer among underserved women in the United States: insights gained from a national cancer screening program

This commentary highlights some of the valuable insights gained from a special collection of papers that utilized data from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and appear in this special issue. The data and experiences of the NBCCEDP can inform the identification of new opportunities and directions for meeting the cancer screening needs of underserved women in a complex and changing health care environment.

Cost of services provided by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program

BACKGROUND

The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) is the largest cancer screening program for low-income women in the United States. This study updates previous estimates of the costs of delivering preventive cancer screening services in the NBCCEDP.

METHODS

We developed a standardized web-based cost-assessment tool to collect annual activity-based cost data on screening for breast and cervical cancer in the NBCCEDP. Data were collected from 63 of the 66 programs that received funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the 2006/2007 fiscal year. We used these data to calculate costs of delivering preventive public health services in the program.

RESULTS

We estimated the total cost of all NBCCEDP services to be $296 (standard deviation [SD], $123) per woman served (including the estimated value of in-kind donations, which constituted approximately 15% of this total estimated cost). The estimated cost of screening and diagnostic services was $145 (SD, $38) per women served, which represented 57.7% of the total cost excluding the value of in-kind donations. Including the value of in-kind donations, the weighted mean cost of screening a woman for breast cancer was $110 with an office visit and $88 without, the weighted mean cost of a diagnostic procedure was $401, and the weighted mean cost per breast cancer detected was $35,480. For cervical cancer, the corresponding cost estimates were $61, $21, $415, and $18,995, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These NBCCEDP cost estimates may help policy makers in planning and implementing future costs for various potential changes to the program.

Using data to effectively manage a national screening program

The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is implemented through cooperative agreements with state health departments, US territories, and tribal health organizations (grantees). Grantees typically contract with clinicians and other providers to deliver breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services. As required by the CDC, grantees report biannually a subset of patient and clinical level program data known as the Minimum Data Elements. Rigorous processes are in place to ensure the completeness and quality of program data collection. In this article, the authors describe the NBCCEDP data-collection processes and data management system and discusses how data are used for 1) program monitoring and improvement, 2) evaluation and research, and 3) policy development and analysis. They also provide 2 examples of how grantees use data to improve their performance.

Collecting costs of community prevention programs: communities putting prevention to work initiative

BACKGROUND

Community-based programs require substantial investments of resources; however, evaluations of these programs usually lack analyses of program costs. Costs of community-based programs reported in previous literature are limited and have been estimated retrospectively.

PURPOSE

To describe a prospective cost data collection approach developed for the Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) program capturing costs for community-based tobacco use and obesity prevention strategies.

METHODS

A web-based cost data collection instrument was developed using an activity-based costing approach. Respondents reported quarterly expenditures on labor; consultants; materials, travel, and services; overhead; partner efforts; and in-kind contributions. Costs were allocated across CPPW objectives and strategies organized around five categories: media, access, point of decision/promotion, price, and social support and services. The instrument was developed in 2010, quarterly data collections took place in 2011-2013, and preliminary analysis was conducted in 2013.

RESULTS

Preliminary descriptive statistics are presented for the cost data collected from 51 respondents. More than 50% of program costs were for partner organizations, and over 20% of costs were for labor hours. Tobacco communities devoted the majority of their efforts to media strategies. Obesity communities spent more than half of their resources on access strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Collecting accurate cost information on health promotion and disease prevention programs presents many challenges. The approach presented in this paper is one of the first efforts successfully collecting these types of data and can be replicated for collecting costs from other programs.

Economies of scale in federally-funded state-organized public health programs: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Programs

This study investigates the existence of economies of scale in the provision of breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services by state National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) grantees. A translog cost function is estimated as a system with input factor share equations. The estimated cost function is then used to determine output levels for which average costs are decreasing (i.e., economies of scale exist). Data were collected from all state NBCCEDP programs and District of Columbia for program years 2006-2007, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 (N = 147). Costs included all programmatic and in-kind contributions from federal and non-federal sources, allocated to breast and cervical cancer screening activities. Output was measured by women served, women screened and cancers detected, separately by breast and cervical services for each measure. Inputs included labor, rent and utilities, clinical services, and quasi-fixed factors (e.g., percent of women eligible for screening by the NBCCEDP). 144 out of 147 program-years demonstrated significant economies of scale for women served and women screened; 136 out of 145 program-years displayed significant economies of scale for cancers detected. The cost data were self-reported by the NBCCEDP State programs. Quasi-fixed inputs were allowed to affect costs but not economies of scale or the share equations. The main analysis accounted for clustering of observations within State programs, but it did not make full use of the panel data. The average cost of providing breast and cervical cancer screening services decreases as the number of women screened and served increases.

State-level cancer treatment costs: how much and who pays?

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment accounts for approximately 5% of national health expenditures. However, no state-level estimates of cancer treatment costs have been published.

METHODS

In analyses of data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, the National Nursing Home Survey, the U.S. Census Bureau, the Current Population Survey, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, this study used regression modeling to estimate annual state-level cancer care costs during 2004 to 2008 for 4 categories of payers: all payers, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance.

RESULTS

State-level cancer care costs ranged from $227 million to $13.6 billion (median = $2.0 billion) in 2010 dollars. Medicare paid between 25.1% and 36.1% of these costs (median = 32.5%); private insurance paid between 36.0% and 49.6% (median = 43.3%); and Medicaid paid between 2.0% and 8.8% (median = 4.8%). Cancer treatment accounted for 3.8% to 8.7% of all state-level medical expenditures (median = 7.0%), 8.5% to 15.0% of state-level Medicare expenditures (median = 10.6%), 1.0% to 4.9% of state-level Medicaid expenditures (median = 2.2%), and 5.5% to 10.9% of state-level private insurance expenditures (median = 8.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of cancer treatment were substantial in all states and accounted for a sizable fraction of medical expenditures for all payers. The high cost of cancer treatment underscores the importance of preventing and controlling cancer as one approach to manage state-level medical costs.