Richard T Meenan1, Melissa L Anderson2, Jessica Chubak2, Sally W Vernon3, Sharon Fuller2, Ching-Yun Wang4, Beverly B Green2. 1. Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: richard.meenan@kpchr.org. 2. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 3. University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, Texas. 4. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent colorectal cancer screening studies focus on optimizing adherence. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of interventions using electronic health records (EHRs); automated mailings; and stepped support increases to improve 2-year colorectal cancer screening adherence. METHODS: Analyses were based on a parallel-design, randomized trial in which three stepped interventions (EHR-linked mailings ["automated"]; automated plus telephone assistance ["assisted"]; or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal [navigated"]) were compared to usual care. Data were from August 2008 to November 2011, with analyses performed during 2012-2013. Implementation resources were micro-costed; research and registry development costs were excluded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were based on number of participants current for screening per guidelines over 2 years. Bootstrapping examined robustness of results. RESULTS: Intervention delivery cost per participant current for screening ranged from $21 (automated) to $27 (navigated). Inclusion of induced testing costs (e.g., screening colonoscopy) lowered expenditures for automated (ICER=-$159) and assisted (ICER=-$36) relative to usual care over 2 years. Savings arose from increased fecal occult blood testing, substituting for more expensive colonoscopies in usual care. Results were broadly consistent across demographic subgroups. More intensive interventions were consistently likely to be cost effective relative to less intensive interventions, with willingness to pay values of $600-$1,200 for an additional person current for screening yielding ≥80% probability of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Two-year cost effectiveness of a stepped approach to colorectal cancer screening promotion based on EHR data is indicated, but longer-term cost effectiveness requires further study.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Recent colorectal cancer screening studies focus on optimizing adherence. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of interventions using electronic health records (EHRs); automated mailings; and stepped support increases to improve 2-year colorectal cancer screening adherence. METHODS: Analyses were based on a parallel-design, randomized trial in which three stepped interventions (EHR-linked mailings ["automated"]; automated plus telephone assistance ["assisted"]; or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal [navigated"]) were compared to usual care. Data were from August 2008 to November 2011, with analyses performed during 2012-2013. Implementation resources were micro-costed; research and registry development costs were excluded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were based on number of participants current for screening per guidelines over 2 years. Bootstrapping examined robustness of results. RESULTS: Intervention delivery cost per participant current for screening ranged from $21 (automated) to $27 (navigated). Inclusion of induced testing costs (e.g., screening colonoscopy) lowered expenditures for automated (ICER=-$159) and assisted (ICER=-$36) relative to usual care over 2 years. Savings arose from increased fecal occult blood testing, substituting for more expensive colonoscopies in usual care. Results were broadly consistent across demographic subgroups. More intensive interventions were consistently likely to be cost effective relative to less intensive interventions, with willingness to pay values of $600-$1,200 for an additional person current for screening yielding ≥80% probability of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Two-year cost effectiveness of a stepped approach to colorectal cancer screening promotion based on EHR data is indicated, but longer-term cost effectiveness requires further study.
Authors: Michael S Wolf; Karen A Fitzner; Eowyn F Powell; Kathryn R McCaffrey; A Simon Pickard; June M McKoy; Julia Lindenberg; Glen T Schumock; Kenneth R Carson; M Rosario Ferreira; Nancy C Dolan; Charles L Bennett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David R Lairson; Melissa Dicarlo; Ashish A Deshmuk; Heather B Fagan; Randa Sifri; Nora Katurakes; James Cocroft; Jocelyn Sendecki; Heidi Swan; Sally W Vernon; Ronald E Myers Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David R Lairson; Melissa DiCarlo; Ronald E Myers; Thomas Wolf; James Cocroft; Randa Sifri; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W Vernon; Richard Wender Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Veena Shankaran; Thanh Ha Luu; Narissa Nonzee; Elizabeth Richey; June M McKoy; Joshua Graff Zivin; Alfred Ashford; Rafael Lantigua; Harold Frucht; Marc Scoppettone; Charles L Bennett; Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Jamie H Thompson; Amanda F Petrik; Denis B Nyongesa; Michael C Leo; Melissa Castillo; Brittany Younger; Anne Escaron; Alex Chen Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2019 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Jamie H Thompson; Melinda M Davis; LeAnn Michaels; Jennifer S Rivelli; Melissa L Castillo; Brittany M Younger; Marta Castro; Sacha L Reich; Gloria D Coronado Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2019 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Laura Mae Baldwin; Leah Tuzzio; Sheryl Catz; Alison Cole; Sally W Vernon Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2016 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Giridhar Mohan; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Donatus U Ekwueme; Susan A Sabatino; Devon L Okasako-Schmucker; Yinan Peng; Shawna L Mercer; Anilkrishna B Thota Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Alison T Brenner; Jewels Rhode; Jeff Y Yang; Dana Baker; Rebecca Drechsel; Marcus Plescia; Daniel S Reuland; Tom Wroth; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 6.473