The cost-effectiveness of training US primary care physicians to conduct colorectal cancer screening in family medicine residency programs

Trends in and factors associated with family physician-performed screening colonoscopies in the United States: 2016-2021

PURPOSE

Family physician (FP)-performed screening colonoscopies can serve as 1 strategy in the multifaceted strategy necessary to improve national colorectal cancer screening rates, particularly in rural areas where specialist models can fail. However, little research exists on the performance of this strategy in the real world. In this study, we evaluated trends in and factors associated with FP-performed screening colonoscopies in the United States between 2016 and 2021.

METHODS

Using national data from Merative's Marketscan insurance claims database, we estimate the proportion of screening colonoscopies performed by FPs. We use logistic regression models to evaluate factors independently associated with FP-performed colonoscopies.

RESULTS

The percentage of screening colonoscopies performed by FPs exhibited a downward trend from 11.32% in 2016 to 6.73% in 2021, with the largest decrease occurring among patients from the most rural areas. FPs were more likely to perform colonoscopies on slightly older patients, male patients, and rural patients. Patients were less likely to receive FP-performed colonoscopies in large metropolitan areas compared to lesser populated areas. Patients were more likely to receive FP-performed colonoscopies in the Midwest, South, and West, even after accounting for urban-rural classification.

CONCLUSION

Despite a downward trajectory, FPs perform a substantial proportion of screening colonoscopies in the United States. Changes to the business side of health care delivery may be contributing to the observed decreasing rate. Whether through spatial or relational proximity, FPs may be better positioned to provide colonoscopy to some rural, male, and older patients who otherwise may not have been screened. Policy changes to expand the FP workforce, particularly in rural areas, are likely necessary to slow or reverse the downward trend of FP-performed screening colonoscopies.

Research Trends and Impact Factor on PubMed Among General Medicine Physicians in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Analysis

Background

Japan created a specialty system for general medicine in 2018. However, Japanese academic generalists’ contribution to research remains unclear. This study examines the popularity of Japanese general medicine research, the characteristics of journal publications, annual trends, and the characteristics/differences among publications in journals with an impact factor (IF).

Methods

This bibliometric analysis extracted international, English-language, journal articles published on PubMed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020. Analysis included articles with either the first, second, or last author in general medicine. We classified articles according to publication or article type and field of research. We obtained standard descriptive statistics for each publication type. Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare nominal variables. For continuous variables, t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used, as appropriate.

Results

Of the 2372 articles analyzed, original articles were most common (56.3%), followed by case reports (30.1%), reviews (7.63%), and letters/others (5.9%). Publication volume increased 2.64-fold annually over 5 years. Clinical research (60.5%) was most common among original articles, followed by basic experimental research (17.5%) and public health/epidemiology (12.7%). Medical quality and safety (4.1%), medical and clinical education (3.1%), and health services (1.42%) received comparatively little attention. Eighty percent of articles were published in journals with IF; however, these journals rarely published case reports. Among original articles, the likelihood of publishing in journals with IF was high for basic laboratory medicine articles with higher IF (median IF 3.83, OR 1.71, 95% CI 2.20–5.95, p=0.044) and lower for clinical education research with the lowest IF (median IF 1.83, OR 0.56, 95% CI 01.8–0.75, p<0.001).

Discussion

General medicine physicians’ international research output is increasing in Japan; however, research achievements have not been generalized, but rather much influenced by clinical subspecialty backgrounds. This will likely continue unless an academic generalist discipline is established.

An iron triangle ROI model for health care

Objective

Few, if any, return on investment (ROI) analyses of health programs make systematic considerations of patient access, instead focusing principally on gains related to cost and quality. The objective of this study was to develop an open-source model that adds an estimation of gains in patient access to a traditional ROI analysis. A classification system for quantifying gains in patient access is proposed.

Materials and methods

An Excel-based ROI model was built that not only incorporated traditional ROI considerations – cost savings and patient cases avoided – but also addressed changes in patient access. The model was then applied in a case study using New Mexico Medicaid data and two proposed initiatives – a statewide health information exchange (HIE) and a community health worker (CHW) program that focused on chronic disease patients. Savings, Health, Outreach, and Access estimates were derived from the literature. ROI estimates were produced that also incorporated relative gains in patient access.

Results

Combined, the HIE and CHW programs are predicted to generate a positive ROI by the fourth year, growing to 45% by the program’s tenth year. Total estimated cumulative cost for both programs after 10 years is $9,555,226. Total estimated cumulative saving for both programs after 10 years is $11,332,899. Access-related costs begin moderately in year 1 at $122,766 and grow to $1,858,274 by year 10. The model estimates an Access score of 19 in year 1. This figure grew to 380 by year 10.

Conclusion

Our model shows that a rough estimation of gains in to patient access can be incorporated to traditional ROI analyses. The results of our case study suggest that a CHW program and statewide HIE can generate a positive ROI for the state’s Medicaid program.

Cost-effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Treatment Methods: Mapping of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVE

Due to extensive literature on colorectal cancer and their heterogeneous results, this study aimed to summarize the systematic reviews which review the cost-effectiveness studies on different aspects of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

The required data were collected by searching the following key words according to MeSH: "colorectal cancer," "colorectal oncology," "colorectal carcinoma," "colorectal neoplasm," "colorectal tumors," "cost-effectiveness," "systematic review," and "meta-analysis." The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two reviewers evaluated the articles according to the checklist of "assessment of multiple systematic reviews" (AMSTAR) tool.

RESULTS

Finally, eight systematic reviews were included in the study. The Drummond checklist was mostly used for assessing the quality of the articles. The main perspective was related to the payer and the least was relevant to the social. The majority of the cases referred to sensitivity analysis (in 76% of the cases) and the lowest point also was allocated to discounting (in 37% of cases). The Markov model was used most widely in the studies. Treatment methods examined in the studies were not cost-effective in comparison with the studied units. Among the screening methods, computerized tomographic colonography and fecal DNA were cost-effective. The average score of the articles' qualities was high (9.8 out of 11).

CONCLUSIONS

The community perspective should be taken into consideration at large in the studies. It is necessary to pay more attention to discounting subject in studies. More frequent application of the Markov model is recommended.