Justin G Trogdon1, Donatus U Ekwueme2, Sujha Subramanian3, Jacqueline W Miller2, Faye L Wong2. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health and the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Dr., CB-7411, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. justintrogdon@unc.edu. 2. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, USA. 3. RTI International, Waltham, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We estimated the costs and effectiveness of state programs in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) based on the type of delivery structure. METHODS: Programs were classified into three delivery structures: (1) centralized, (2) decentralized, and (3) mixed. Centralized programs offer clinical services in satellite offices, but all other program activities are performed centrally. Decentralized programs contract with other entities to fully manage and provide screening and diagnostic services and other program activities. Programs with mixed service delivery structures have both centralized and decentralized features. Programmatic costs were averaged over a 3 year period (2006-2007, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010). Effectiveness was defined in terms of the average number of women served over the 3 years. We report costs per woman served by program activity and delivery structure and incremental cost effectiveness by program structure and by breast/cervical services. RESULTS: Average costs per woman served were lowest for mixed program structures (breast = $225, cervical = $216) compared to decentralized (breast = cervical = $276) and centralized program structures (breast = $259, cervical = $251). Compared with decentralized programs, for each additional woman served, centralized programs saved costs of $281 (breast) and $284 (cervical). Compared with decentralized programs, for each additional woman served, mixed programs added an additional $109 cost for breast but saved $1,777 for cervical cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed program structures were associated with the lowest screening and diagnostic costs per woman served and had generally favorable incremental costs relative to the other program structures.
PURPOSE: We estimated the costs and effectiveness of state programs in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) based on the type of delivery structure. METHODS: Programs were classified into three delivery structures: (1) centralized, (2) decentralized, and (3) mixed. Centralized programs offer clinical services in satellite offices, but all other program activities are performed centrally. Decentralized programs contract with other entities to fully manage and provide screening and diagnostic services and other program activities. Programs with mixed service delivery structures have both centralized and decentralized features. Programmatic costs were averaged over a 3 year period (2006-2007, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010). Effectiveness was defined in terms of the average number of women served over the 3 years. We report costs per woman served by program activity and delivery structure and incremental cost effectiveness by program structure and by breast/cervical services. RESULTS: Average costs per woman served were lowest for mixed program structures (breast = $225, cervical = $216) compared to decentralized (breast = cervical = $276) and centralized program structures (breast = $259, cervical = $251). Compared with decentralized programs, for each additional woman served, centralized programs saved costs of $281 (breast) and $284 (cervical). Compared with decentralized programs, for each additional woman served, mixed programs added an additional $109 cost for breast but saved $1,777 for cervical cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed program structures were associated with the lowest screening and diagnostic costs per woman served and had generally favorable incremental costs relative to the other program structures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast; Cancer screening; Cervical; Cost effectiveness
Authors: Sujha Subramanian; Florence K L Tangka; Donatus U Ekwueme; Justin Trogdon; Wesley Crouse; Janet Royalty Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2015-04-04 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Sujha Subramanian; Florence K L Tangka; Donatus U Ekwueme; Justin Trogdon; Wesley Crouse; Janet Royalty Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Donatus U Ekwueme; Sujha Subramanian; Justin G Trogdon; Jacqueline W Miller; Janet E Royalty; Chunyu Li; Gery P Guy; Wesley Crouse; Hope Thompson; James G Gardner Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Donatus U Ekwueme; James G Gardner; Sujha Subramanian; Florence K Tangka; Bela Bapat; Lisa C Richardson Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Donatus U Ekwueme; Ingrid J Hall; Lisa C Richardson; James G Gardner; Janet Royalty; Trevor D Thompson Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David K Espey; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Judith Swan; Charles Wiggins; Melissa A Jim; Elizabeth Ward; Phyllis A Wingo; Holly L Howe; Lynn A G Ries; Barry A Miller; Ahmedin Jemal; Faruque Ahmed; Nathaniel Cobb; Judith S Kaur; Brenda K Edwards Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860