7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cost-Effectiveness of a Patient Navigation Intervention to Increase Colonoscopy Screening Among Low-Income Adults in New Hampshire

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          0374236
          2771
          Cancer
          Cancer
          Cancer
          0008-543X
          1097-0142
          27 February 2019
          12 December 2018
          15 February 2019
          15 February 2020
          : 125
          : 4
          : 601-609
          Affiliations
          [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.
          Author notes

          AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

          Ketra Rice: Conceptualization and design, acquisition of the data, methodology, formal analysis and interpretation of the data, investigation, validation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, and critical revision of the article for important intellectual content. Krishna Sharma: Conceptualization and design, methodology, formal analysis and interpretation of the data, investigation, validation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, and critical revision of the article for important intellectual content. Chunyu Li: Conceptualization and design, methodology, writing–review and editing, and critical revision of the article for important intellectual content. Lynn Butterly: Conceptualization and design, acquisition of the data, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, resources, supervision, and critical revision of the article for important intellectual content. Joanne Gersten: Conceptualization and design, acquisition of the data, writing–review and editing, resources, and critical revision of the article for important intellectual content. Amy DeGroff: Conceptualization and design, writing–review and editing, supervision, and critical revision of the article for important intellectual content.

          Corresponding author: Ketra Rice, PhD, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, MS F79, Atlanta, GA 30341; wss1@ 123456cdc.gov
          Author information
          http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2921-4507
          Article
          PMC6399743 PMC6399743 6399743 hhspa1002462
          10.1002/cncr.31864
          6399743
          30548480
          1cdcbf37-891c-4c9c-98e9-5a7069063a93
          History
          Categories
          Article

          public health,patient navigation,incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER),disadvantaged populations,cost-effectiveness,colonoscopy,cancer prevention

          Comments

          Comment on this article