Ketra Rice1, Krishna Sharma2, Chunyu Li3, Lynn Butterly4,5, Joanne Gersten4, Amy DeGroff2. 1. Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Division of Global HIV and TB, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 5. Department of Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the most widely used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test in the United States. Through the detection and removal of potentially precancerous polyps, it can prevent CRC. However, CRC screening remains low among adults who are recommended for screening. The New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program implemented a patient navigation (PN) intervention to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income patients in health centers in New Hampshire. In the current study, the authors examined the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed using Markov state transitions to calculate the costs and effectiveness associated with PN. Costs were calculated for the implementation of PN in a statewide public health program and in endoscopy centers. The main study outcome was colonoscopy screening completion. The main decision variable was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with the PN intervention compared with usual care. RESULTS: The average cost per screening with PN was $1089 (95% confidence interval, $1075-$1103) compared with $894 with usual care (95% confidence interval, $886-$908). Among patients who were navigated, approximately 96.2% completed colonoscopy screening compared with 69.3% of those receiving usual care (odds ratio, 11.2; P <. 001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that 1 additional screening completion cost approximately $725 in a public health program and $548 in an endoscopy center with PN compared with usual care, both of which are less than the average Medicare reimbursement of $737 for a colonoscopy procedure. CONCLUSIONS: PN was found to be cost-effective in increasing colonoscopy screening among low-income adults in the New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, even at the threshold of current Medicare reimbursement rates for colonoscopy. The results of the current study support the implementation of PN in statewide public health programs and endoscopy centers.
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the most widely used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test in the United States. Through the detection and removal of potentially precancerous polyps, it can prevent CRC. However, CRC screening remains low among adults who are recommended for screening. The New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program implemented a patient navigation (PN) intervention to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income patients in health centers in New Hampshire. In the current study, the authors examined the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed using Markov state transitions to calculate the costs and effectiveness associated with PN. Costs were calculated for the implementation of PN in a statewide public health program and in endoscopy centers. The main study outcome was colonoscopy screening completion. The main decision variable was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with the PN intervention compared with usual care. RESULTS: The average cost per screening with PN was $1089 (95% confidence interval, $1075-$1103) compared with $894 with usual care (95% confidence interval, $886-$908). Among patients who were navigated, approximately 96.2% completed colonoscopy screening compared with 69.3% of those receiving usual care (odds ratio, 11.2; P <. 001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that 1 additional screening completion cost approximately $725 in a public health program and $548 in an endoscopy center with PN compared with usual care, both of which are less than the average Medicare reimbursement of $737 for a colonoscopy procedure. CONCLUSIONS: PN was found to be cost-effective in increasing colonoscopy screening among low-income adults in the New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, even at the threshold of current Medicare reimbursement rates for colonoscopy. The results of the current study support the implementation of PN in statewide public health programs and endoscopy centers.
Keywords:
cancer prevention; colonoscopy; cost-effectiveness; disadvantaged populations; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); patient navigation; public health
Authors: John W Tumeh; Susan G Moore; Rachel Shapiro; Christopher R Flowers Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Kathleen A Cronin; Nancy Breen; William R Waldron; Anita H Ambs; Marion R Nadel Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Samantha Hendren; Nancy Chin; Susan Fisher; Paul Winters; Jennifer Griggs; Supriya Mohile; Kevin Fiscella Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Jacqueline M Major; Mario Schootman; Min Lian; Yikyung Park; Barry I Graubard; Albert R Hollenbeck; Rashmi Sinha Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tri Le; Stacie Miller; Emily Berry; Sarah Zamarripa; Aurelio Rodriguez; Benjamin Barkley; Asha Kandathil; Cecelia Brewington; Keith E Argenbright; David E Gerber Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Andreea M Rawlings; Amanda F Petrik; Matthew Slaughter; Eric S Johnson; Peggy A Hannon; Allison Cole; Thuy Vu; Rajasekhara R Mummadi Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: David R Lairson; Tong Han Chung; Danmeng Huang; Timothy E Stump; Patrick O Monahan; Shannon M Christy; Susan M Rawl; Victoria L Champion Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-01-22
Authors: Karen Kim; Blasé Polite; Donald Hedeker; David Liebovitz; Fornessa Randal; Manasi Jayaprakash; Michael Quinn; Sang Mee Lee; Helen Lam Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 7.327