David T Liss1, Dustin D French2, David R Buchanan3, Tiffany Brown4, Bridget G Magner3, Stephanie Kollar3, David W Baker4. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Center for Advancing Equity in Clinical Preventive Services, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: david.liss@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Center for Healthcare Studies, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Erie Family Health Center, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Center for Advancing Equity in Clinical Preventive Services, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is an attractive approach for colorectal cancer screening at community health centers. This budget impact analysis investigated benefits and costs of FIT outreach-with FIT kits mailed to patients, followed by reminders and phone calls-compared with point-of-care (POC) strategies. METHODS: Five screening and cost outcomes were simulated over 1 year at a "base case" community health center serving 1000 screening-eligible patients: (1) FIT completion among patients due for screening; (2) proportion up-to-date on screening; (3) cost per patient due for screening; (4) cost per completed FIT; and (5) total organizational cost. Uncertainty analysis investigated potential savings from optimizing staff workflows during FIT outreach. Data were collected in 2012-2014, with analysis conducted 2014-2015. RESULTS: Using POC strategies, 24.0% of patients due for screening completed FIT, versus 42.4% under outreach (18.4% absolute difference). When calculations included patients up-to-date on screening from prior colonoscopy, 41.7% were up-to-date via POC, versus 55.8% for outreach (14.1% absolute difference). POC cost $4.93 per patient, versus $30.43 for outreach ($25.50 difference). Cost per patient screened was $20.60 for POC and $71.84 for outreach ($51.24 difference). Total organizational cost was $3,779 for POC distribution and $23,315 for outreach ($19,536 difference). Outreach costs decreased by approximately one fourth under optimized workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Outreach is an effective, practical, relatively low-cost strategy; costs could be reduced further by optimizing staff workflows. Despite its value, outreach costs more than POC distribution and may be difficult for community health centers to implement under current payment models.
INTRODUCTION: Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is an attractive approach for colorectal cancer screening at community health centers. This budget impact analysis investigated benefits and costs of FIT outreach-with FIT kits mailed to patients, followed by reminders and phone calls-compared with point-of-care (POC) strategies. METHODS: Five screening and cost outcomes were simulated over 1 year at a "base case" community health center serving 1000 screening-eligible patients: (1) FIT completion among patients due for screening; (2) proportion up-to-date on screening; (3) cost per patient due for screening; (4) cost per completed FIT; and (5) total organizational cost. Uncertainty analysis investigated potential savings from optimizing staff workflows during FIT outreach. Data were collected in 2012-2014, with analysis conducted 2014-2015. RESULTS: Using POC strategies, 24.0% of patients due for screening completed FIT, versus 42.4% under outreach (18.4% absolute difference). When calculations included patients up-to-date on screening from prior colonoscopy, 41.7% were up-to-date via POC, versus 55.8% for outreach (14.1% absolute difference). POC cost $4.93 per patient, versus $30.43 for outreach ($25.50 difference). Cost per patient screened was $20.60 for POC and $71.84 for outreach ($51.24 difference). Total organizational cost was $3,779 for POC distribution and $23,315 for outreach ($19,536 difference). Outreach costs decreased by approximately one fourth under optimized workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Outreach is an effective, practical, relatively low-cost strategy; costs could be reduced further by optimizing staff workflows. Despite its value, outreach costs more than POC distribution and may be difficult for community health centers to implement under current payment models.
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: Ma Somsouk; Carly Rachocki; Ajitha Mannalithara; Dianne Garcia; Victoria Laleau; Barbara Grimes; Rachel B Issaka; Ellen Chen; Eric Vittinghoff; Jean A Shapiro; Uri Ladabaum Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kathryn E Kemper; Becky L Glaze; Casey L Eastman; Roxane C Waldron; Sonja Hoover; T'Ronda Flagg; Florence K L Tangka; Sujha Subramanian Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christen L Lara; Kelly L Means; Krystal D Morwood; Westley R Lighthall; Sonja Hoover; Florence K L Tangka; Cynthia French; Krystal D Gayle; Amy DeGroff; Sujha Subramanian Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Amanda F Petrik; Beverly Green; Jennifer Schneider; Edward J Miech; Jennifer Coury; Sally Retecki; Gloria D Coronado Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mary Ellen Conn; Stephenie Kennedy-Rea; Sujha Subramanian; Adam Baus; Sonja Hoover; Cheryl Cunningham; Florence K L Tangka Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2020-09-29