Michael Pignone1,2,3, Brennan Lanier4, Nicole Kluz4, Victoria Valencia4, Patrick Chang5, Todd Olmstead6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA. pignone@austin.utexas.edu. 2. Department of Population Health, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, USA. pignone@austin.utexas.edu. 3. Livestrong Cancer Institutes, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, USA. pignone@austin.utexas.edu. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA. 5. Department of Population Health, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, USA. 6. Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, including for vulnerable patients, but its cost-effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the initial cycle of our mailed FIT program from November 2017 to July 2019 in a federally qualified health center (FQHC) system in Central Texas. DESIGN: Single group intervention and economic analysis PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were those ages 50-75 who had been seen recently in a system practice and were not up to date with screening. INTERVENTION: The program mailing packet included an introductory letter in plain language, the FIT itself, easy to read instructions, and a postage-paid lab mailer, supplemented with written and text messaging reminders. MAIN MEASURES: We measured effectiveness based on completion of mailed FIT and cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per person screened. Costs were measured using detailed micro-costing techniques from the perspective of a third-party payer and expressed in 2019 US dollars. Direct costs were based on material supply costs and detailed observations of labor required, valued at the wage rate. KEY RESULTS: Of the 22,838 eligible patients who received program materials, mean age was 59.0, 51.5% were female, and 43.9% were Latino. FIT were successfully completed by 19.2% (4395/22,838) patients at an average direct cost of $5275.70 per 500-patient mailing. Assuming completed tests from the mailed intervention represent incremental screening, the direct cost per patient screened, compared with no intervention, was $54.83. Incorporating start-up and indirect costs increases total costs to $7014.45 and cost per patient screened to $72.90. Alternately, assuming 2.5% and 5% screening without the intervention increased the direct (total) cost per patient screened to $60.03 ($80.80) and $67.05 ($91.47), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed FIT is an effective and cost-effective population health strategy for CRC screening in vulnerable patients.
BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, including for vulnerable patients, but its cost-effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the initial cycle of our mailed FIT program from November 2017 to July 2019 in a federally qualified health center (FQHC) system in Central Texas. DESIGN: Single group intervention and economic analysis PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were those ages 50-75 who had been seen recently in a system practice and were not up to date with screening. INTERVENTION: The program mailing packet included an introductory letter in plain language, the FIT itself, easy to read instructions, and a postage-paid lab mailer, supplemented with written and text messaging reminders. MAIN MEASURES: We measured effectiveness based on completion of mailed FIT and cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per person screened. Costs were measured using detailed micro-costing techniques from the perspective of a third-party payer and expressed in 2019 US dollars. Direct costs were based on material supply costs and detailed observations of labor required, valued at the wage rate. KEY RESULTS: Of the 22,838 eligible patients who received program materials, mean age was 59.0, 51.5% were female, and 43.9% were Latino. FIT were successfully completed by 19.2% (4395/22,838) patients at an average direct cost of $5275.70 per 500-patient mailing. Assuming completed tests from the mailed intervention represent incremental screening, the direct cost per patient screened, compared with no intervention, was $54.83. Incorporating start-up and indirect costs increases total costs to $7014.45 and cost per patient screened to $72.90. Alternately, assuming 2.5% and 5% screening without the intervention increased the direct (total) cost per patient screened to $60.03 ($80.80) and $67.05 ($91.47), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed FIT is an effective and cost-effective population health strategy for CRC screening in vulnerable patients.
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Stacey A Fedewa; Dennis J Ahnen; Reinier G S Meester; Afsaneh Barzi; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 508.702
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: Gloria D Coronado; Amanda F Petrik; William M Vollmer; Stephen H Taplin; Erin M Keast; Scott Fields; Beverly B Green Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Amit G Singal; Samir Gupta; Jasmin A Tiro; Celette Sugg Skinner; Katharine McCallister; Joanne M Sanders; Wendy Pechero Bishop; Deepak Agrawal; Christian A Mayorga; Chul Ahn; Adam C Loewen; Noel O Santini; Ethan A Halm Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Samir Gupta; Gloria D Coronado; Keith Argenbright; Alison T Brenner; Sheila F Castañeda; Jason A Dominitz; Beverly Green; Rachel B Issaka; Theodore R Levin; Daniel S Reuland; Lisa C Richardson; Douglas J Robertson; Amit G Singal; Michael Pignone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 286.130