Florence K L Tangka1, Sujha Subramanian, Maggie Cole Beebe, Hannah K Weir, Diana Trebino, Frances Babcock, Jean Ewing. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (Drs Tangka and Weir and Mss Babcock and Ewing); and RTI International, Waltham, Massachusetts (Drs Subramanian and Beebe and Ms Trebino). Ms Trebino is currently with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) evaluated the economics of the National Program of Cancer Registries to provide the CDC, the registries, and policy makers with the economics evidence-base to make optimal decisions about resource allocation. Cancer registry budgets are under increasing threat, and, therefore, systematic assessment of the cost will identify approaches to improve the efficiencies of this vital data collection operation and also justify the funding required to sustain registry operations. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost of cancer registry operations and to assess the factors affecting the cost per case reported by National Program of Cancer Registries-funded central cancer registries. METHODS: We developed a Web-based cost assessment tool to collect 3 years of data (2009-2011) from each National Program of Cancer Registries-funded registry for all actual expenditures for registry activities (including those funded by other sources) and factors affecting registry operations. We used a random-effects regression model to estimate the impact of various factors on cost per cancer case reported. RESULTS: The cost of reporting a cancer case varied across the registries. Central cancer registries that receive high-quality data from reporting sources (as measured by the percentage of records passing automatic edits) and electronic data submissions, and those that collect and report on a large volume of cases had significantly lower cost per case. The volume of cases reported had a large effect, with low-volume registries experiencing much higher cost per case than medium- or high-volume registries. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that registries operate with substantial fixed or semivariable costs. Therefore, sharing fixed costs among low-volume contiguous state registries, whenever possible, and centralization of certain processes can result in economies of scale. Approaches to improve quality of data submitted and increasing electronic reporting can also reduce cost.
CONTEXT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) evaluated the economics of the National Program of Cancer Registries to provide the CDC, the registries, and policy makers with the economics evidence-base to make optimal decisions about resource allocation. Cancer registry budgets are under increasing threat, and, therefore, systematic assessment of the cost will identify approaches to improve the efficiencies of this vital data collection operation and also justify the funding required to sustain registry operations. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost of cancer registry operations and to assess the factors affecting the cost per case reported by National Program of Cancer Registries-funded central cancer registries. METHODS: We developed a Web-based cost assessment tool to collect 3 years of data (2009-2011) from each National Program of Cancer Registries-funded registry for all actual expenditures for registry activities (including those funded by other sources) and factors affecting registry operations. We used a random-effects regression model to estimate the impact of various factors on cost per cancer case reported. RESULTS: The cost of reporting a cancer case varied across the registries. Central cancer registries that receive high-quality data from reporting sources (as measured by the percentage of records passing automatic edits) and electronic data submissions, and those that collect and report on a large volume of cases had significantly lower cost per case. The volume of cases reported had a large effect, with low-volume registries experiencing much higher cost per case than medium- or high-volume registries. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that registries operate with substantial fixed or semivariable costs. Therefore, sharing fixed costs among low-volume contiguous state registries, whenever possible, and centralization of certain processes can result in economies of scale. Approaches to improve quality of data submitted and increasing electronic reporting can also reduce cost.
Authors: Florence K Tangka; Justin G Trogdon; Lisa C Richardson; David Howard; Susan A Sabatino; Eric A Finkelstein Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mary C White; Frances Babcock; Nikki S Hayes; Angela B Mariotto; Faye L Wong; Betsy A Kohler; Hannah K Weir Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Henry Wabinga; Sujha Subramanian; Sarah Nambooze; Phoebe Mary Amulen; Patrick Edwards; Rachael Joseph; Martin Ogwang; Francis Okongo; D Maxwell Parkin; Florence Tangka Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Florence K L Tangka; Sujha Subramanian; Patrick Edwards; Anne R Korir; Henry Wabinga; Eric Chokunonga; Anne Finesse; Margaret Z Borok; Biying Liu; Mona Saraiya; Maxwell Parkin Journal: J Registry Manag Date: 2019
Authors: David A Siegel; S Jane Henley; Jennifer M Wike; A Blythe Ryerson; Christopher J Johnson; Judy R Rees; Lori A Pollack Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Florence K L Tangka; Sujha Subramanian; Patrick Edwards; Maggie Cole-Beebe; D Maxwell Parkin; Freddie Bray; Rachael Joseph; Les Mery; Mona Saraiya Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Laura N Purcell; Emily Nip; Jared Gallaher; Carlos Varela; Yotamu Gondwe; Anthony Charles Journal: Injury Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Esther de Vries; Constanza Pardo; Nelson Arias; Luis Eduardo Bravo; Edgar Navarro; Claudia Uribe; María Clara Yepez; Daniel Jurado; Luz Stella Garci; Marion Piñeros; Patrick Edwards; Maggie Cole Beebe; Florence Tangka; Sujha Subramanian Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Tanya N Martelly; Angela M C Rose; Sujha Subramanian; Patrick Edwards; Florence K L Tangka; Mona Saraiya Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Tomohiro Matsuda; Veronica Di Carlo; Rhea Harewood; Melissa Matz; Maja Nikšić; Audrey Bonaventure; Mikhail Valkov; Christopher J Johnson; Jacques Estève; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Gulnar Azevedo E Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Sultan Eser; Gerda Engholm; Charles A Stiller; Alain Monnereau; Ryan R Woods; Otto Visser; Gek Hsiang Lim; Joanne Aitken; Hannah K Weir; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 79.321