BACKGROUND: Navigators can facilitate timely access to cancer services, but to the authors' knowledge there are little data available regarding their economic impact. METHODS: The authors conducted a cost-consequence analysis of navigation versus usual care among 10,521 individuals with abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening results who enrolled in the Patient Navigation Research Program study from January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2010. Navigation costs included diagnostic evaluation, patient and staff time, materials, and overhead. Consequences or outcomes were time to diagnostic resolution and probability of resolution. Differences in costs and outcomes were evaluated using multilevel, mixed-effects regression modeling adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, language, marital status, insurance status, cancer, and site clustering. RESULTS: The majority of individuals were members of a minority (70.7%) and uninsured or publically insured (72.7%). Diagnostic resolution was higher for navigation versus usual care at 180 days (56.2% vs 53.8%; P = .008) and 270 days (70.0% vs 68.2%; P < .001). Although there were no differences in the average number of days to resolution between the 2 groups (110 days vs 109 days; P = .63), the probability of ever having diagnostic resolution was higher for the navigation group versus the usual-care group (84.5% vs 79.6%; P < .001). The added cost of navigation versus usual care was $275 per patient (95% confidence interval, $260-$290; P < .001). There was no significant difference in stage distribution among the 12.4% of patients in the navigation group vs 11% of the usual-care patients diagnosed with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Navigation adds costs and modestly increases the probability of diagnostic resolution among patients with abnormal screening test results. Navigation is only likely to be cost-effective if improved resolution translates into an earlier cancer stage at the time of diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: Navigators can facilitate timely access to cancer services, but to the authors' knowledge there are little data available regarding their economic impact. METHODS: The authors conducted a cost-consequence analysis of navigation versus usual care among 10,521 individuals with abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening results who enrolled in the Patient Navigation Research Program study from January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2010. Navigation costs included diagnostic evaluation, patient and staff time, materials, and overhead. Consequences or outcomes were time to diagnostic resolution and probability of resolution. Differences in costs and outcomes were evaluated using multilevel, mixed-effects regression modeling adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, language, marital status, insurance status, cancer, and site clustering. RESULTS: The majority of individuals were members of a minority (70.7%) and uninsured or publically insured (72.7%). Diagnostic resolution was higher for navigation versus usual care at 180 days (56.2% vs 53.8%; P = .008) and 270 days (70.0% vs 68.2%; P < .001). Although there were no differences in the average number of days to resolution between the 2 groups (110 days vs 109 days; P = .63), the probability of ever having diagnostic resolution was higher for the navigation group versus the usual-care group (84.5% vs 79.6%; P < .001). The added cost of navigation versus usual care was $275 per patient (95% confidence interval, $260-$290; P < .001). There was no significant difference in stage distribution among the 12.4% of patients in the navigation group vs 11% of the usual-care patients diagnosed with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Navigation adds costs and modestly increases the probability of diagnostic resolution among patients with abnormal screening test results. Navigation is only likely to be cost-effective if improved resolution translates into an earlier cancer stage at the time of diagnosis.
Authors: Scott Ramsey; Richard Willke; Andrew Briggs; Ruth Brown; Martin Buxton; Anita Chawla; John Cook; Henry Glick; Bengt Liljas; Diana Petitti; Shelby Reed Journal: Value Health Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Amy Leader; Elizabeth Neilson; Jeanne Mandelblatt Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Kristen J Wells; Tracy A Battaglia; Donald J Dudley; Roland Garcia; Amanda Greene; Elizabeth Calhoun; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Electra D Paskett; Peter C Raich Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Peter C Raich; Elizabeth M Whitley; William Thorland; Patricia Valverde; Diane Fairclough Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Heather J Hoffman; Nancy L LaVerda; Heather A Young; Paul H Levine; Lisa M Alexander; Rachel Brem; Larisa Caicedo; Jennifer Eng-Wong; Wayne Frederick; William Funderburk; Elmer Huerta; Sandra Swain; Steven R Patierno Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Daniel S Reuland; Alison T Brenner; Richard Hoffman; Andrew McWilliams; Robert L Rhyne; Christina Getrich; Hazel Tapp; Mark A Weaver; Danelle Callan; Laura Cubillos; Brisa Urquieta de Hernandez; Michael P Pignone Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Anne Elizabeth Glassgow; Yamile Molina; Sage Kim; Richard T Campbell; Julie Darnell; Elizabeth A Calhoun Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2018-06-15
Authors: Elisa K Tong; Tung T Nguyen; Penny Lo; Susan L Stewart; Ginny L Gildengorin; Janice Y Tsoh; Angela M Jo; Marjorie L Kagawa-Singer; Angela U Sy; Charlene Cuaresma; Hy T Lam; Ching Wong; Mi T Tran; Moon S Chen Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jessie Kimbrough Marshall; Olive M Mbah; Jean G Ford; Darcy Phelan-Emrick; Saifuddin Ahmed; Lee Bone; Jennifer Wenzel; Gary R Shapiro; Mollie Howerton; Lawrence Johnson; Qiana Brown; Altovise Ewing; Craig Evan Pollack Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mona N Fouad; Aras Acemgil; Sejong Bae; Andres Forero; Nedra Lisovicz; Michelle Y Martin; Gabriela R Oates; Edward E Partridge; Selwyn M Vickers Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Adam B Weiner; Richard S Matulewicz; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Joseph M Feinglass; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 3.498