INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of a patient navigation (PN) program in a large federally qualified health center (FQHC). METHODS: The PN program implemented at AltaMed was evaluated; it is an FQHC that participated in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program. A tailored data collection tool was developed to collect time and resources spent on program activities, salaries of staff, nonlabor resources, and process and outcome measures for 2021-2023. Sociodemographic characteristics and screening uptake for 2020-2023 was collected. Screening uptake and percentage of stool-based tests returned by year and intervention type and compared process measures was calculated, as was the cost of strategies used to increase uptake of stool-based colorectal cancer screening tests. RESULTS: The percentage of fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) returned among those receiving the PN program ranged from 36.6% in 2021 to 51.0% in 2023. The total annual cost for PN, mailings of FITs, and cost of the FIT kits ranged from $328,000 to $388,000 across the 3 years. The FQHC cost per person completing FITs decreased from $32 in 2021 to $25 in 2023. The total cost (FQHC and payer reimbursement) was calculated at $54 in 2021, $44 in 2022, and $47 in 2023 for each person completing FIT. The total cost was $512 in 2022 and $513 in 2023 per person completing Cologuard. CONCLUSION: The PN program, which used reminder texts and calls, alongside mass mailings of stool kits, increased kit returns over the implementation period.

PURPOSE: We conducted a comprehensive assessment of the resources required to undergo colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in two Alaska Native tribal health organizations. METHODS: We evaluated the cost of CRC screening at Maniilaq Association and Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, and the communities they serve. We developed a tailored data collection tool to gather data from health clinics. We calculated the cost of screening tests and patient costs. We also conducted interviews with clinic representatives to identify contextual factors that can affect cost estimates. RESULTS: The cost of fecal immunochemical tests and fecal occult blood tests ranged from $53 to $76. The cost of the colonoscopy procedure ranged from $2,600 to $4,066. Travel costs, including per diem, ranged from $1,561 to $1,740. The cost of missed work was estimated to be $1,008 for patients and medical escorts for both communities. The total cost of receiving a colonoscopy, including procedural costs, travel costs, and the cost of missed work, ranged from $5,348 to $6,635. CONCLUSION: We found the cost of the screening tests, travel costs and the cost of missed work to undergo CRC screening were higher in Alaska than national averages. Program planning could benefit from accounting for the costs and additional resources needed in Alaska due to the geography of the state and the location of providers and facilities.

This study assessed resource allocation among registry activities, which may provide insight for efficient collection of high-quality cancer incidence data. We used a multimodal approach and purposively sampled 21 participating population-based cancer registries in the United States to ensure variation across several registries. The registries reported prospective staffing data and retrospective costing data, completing data collection from October 2021 to September 2022, reporting retrospective costing data for July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021. From lessons learned from prior studies, we engaged participating registries early and throughout the study, ensuring the collection of meaningful, accurate quantitative data, as well as insights not captured quantitatively. Case volume is a major driver of registry costs. (On average, high-volume registries outspend low-volume registries by nearly 3x, annually). Upon examination of registry activities by case volume, we found that the two most resource-intensive registry activities are data acquisition and data processing, which may be addressed by innovations, such as electronic reporting and automation. Innovative data transfer and processing approaches could increase timeliness of data collection and reduce the labor resources required to process manually collected data. Registries adopting these innovations might achieve cost savings, which could make resources available to support other registry activities.

Community-clinical partnerships are an effective approach to connecting primary care with public health to increase disease prevention and screenings and reduce health inequities. We explore how the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) award recipients and clinic teams are using community-clinical linkages to deliver services to populations who are without access to health care and identify barriers, facilitators, and lessons that can be used to improve program implementation. We used purposive sampling to select nine state recipients of the NBCCEDP and a clinic partner for each recipient. The data collection was implemented through a multimodal approach using questionnaires, semistructured interviews, and focus groups. Partnerships between award recipients and clinic teams enhanced planning as clinics were able to optimize the use of electronic medical records to identify women who were not up to date with screening. Partnerships with community organizations, hospital systems, and academic institutions were important to increase community outreach and access to services. These partnerships offered a source of client referrals, a forum to deliver in-person education, a platform for joint dissemination activities to reach a wider audience, collaborations to provide transportation, and coverage for clinical services not available at NBCCEDP participating clinics. In conclusion, partnerships between various organizations are important to enhance planning, increase outreach, and improve access to cancer screening. Internal organizational and external support is important to identify appropriate partners, and technical assistance and training may be beneficial to maintain and optimize community partnerships to address health disparities.

BACKGROUND: Applicants seeking entry into the United States are examined overseas for TB by panel physicians and international immigration clinicians guided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) TB Technical Instructions. To support this effort, CDC-funded TB Centers of Excellence (COEs) provide web-based expert consultation, with documentation stored in a medical consultation database (MCD). MCD analysis can reveal inquiry trends among panel physicians worldwide. METHODS: TB-related queries in the COE MCD from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022, were analyzed using a descriptive coding scheme developed through inductive analysis, allowing multiple themes per entry. RESULTS: A total of 215 queries from 126 patients in 28 countries were analyzed. Major themes included evaluating diagnostic criteria, tailoring treatment, and managing comorbidities or adverse reactions. Diagnostic questions (n = 104, 48.4%) included mycobacterial culture, smear, and radiology interpretation. Treatment tailoring inquiries involved optimizing the initial regimen (n = 89, 41.4%) or modifying existing regimens (n = 26, 12.1%). Additionally, 50 consultations (23.2%) mentioned comorbidities, while 47 (21.9%) described adverse reactions. CONCLUSION: The MCD analysis identified topics where TB expertise was provided in overseas medical evaluation. These topics highlight opportunities for targeted panel physician education to improve the health of individual applicants and advance U.S. TB elimination efforts.

PURPOSE: We present findings from an assessment of award recipients' partners from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We describe partners' processes of identifying and tracking patients undergoing stool-based screening. METHODS: We analyzed data from eight CRCCP award recipients purposively sampled and their partner health systems from 2019 to 2023. The data included number of stool-based tests distributed and returned; abnormal findings; referrals and completion of follow-up colonoscopies; and colonoscopy findings. We also report on strategies to improve tracking of stool-based tests and facilitation of follow-up colonoscopies. RESULTS: Five of eight CRCCP award recipients reported that all or some partner health systems were able to report stool test return rates. Six had health systems that were able to report abnormal stool test findings. Two reported that health systems could track time to follow-up colonoscopy completion from date of referral, while four could report colonoscopy completion but not the timeframe. Follow-up colonoscopy completion varied substantially from 24.2 to 75.5% (average of 47.9%). Strategies to improve identifying and tracking screening focused mainly on the use of electronic medical records; strategies to facilitate follow-up colonoscopy were multi-level. CONCLUSION: Health systems vary in their ability to track steps in the stool-based screening process and few health systems can track time to completion of follow-up colonoscopy. Longer time intervals can result in more advanced disease. CRCCP-associated health systems participating in this study could support the implementation of multicomponent strategies at the individual, provider, and health system levels to improve tracking and completion of follow-up colonoscopy.

As part of its data modernization initiative (DMI), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control is testing and implementing innovative solutions to improve cancer surveillance data quality and timeliness. We describe a consensus-based effort to create a framework to guide the evaluation of cancer surveillance modernization efforts by addressing specific context, processes, and costs related to cancer registration. We drew on prior theories, consulted with experts, and sought feedback from cancer registry staff. We developed the cancer surveillance systems, context, outcomes, and process evaluation (CS-SCOPE) framework to explain the ways in which cancer registry data quality, timeliness, and efficiency are impacted by external and internal contextual factors and interrelated process and content factors. The framework includes implementation measures to understand acceptability of process changes along with outcome measures to assess DMI initiation and ongoing sustainability. The framework's components and structures can be tailored for use in other DMI evaluations.

INTRODUCTION: To assess timing of Medicaid enrollment with late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and estimate treatment costs by stage at diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed 2000-2009 California and Texas Medicaid data linked with cancer registry data. We assessed the association of Medicaid enrollment timing with late-stage colorectal cancer and estimated total and incremental 6-month treatment costs to Medicaid by stage using a noncancer comparison group matched on age group and sex. RESULTS: Compared with Medicaid enrollment before diagnosis, enrolling after diagnosis was associated with late-stage diagnosis. Incremental per-person treatment costs were $31,063, $39,834, and $47,161 for localized, regional, and distant stage in California, respectively; and $28,701, $38,212, and $49,634 in Texas, respectively. DISCUSSION: In California and Texas, Medicaid enrollment after CRC diagnosis was associated with later-stage disease and higher treatment costs. Facilitating timely and continuous Medicaid enrollment may lead to earlier stage at diagnosis, reduced costs, and improved outcomes.

Large differences exist in the coverage and quality of cancer surveillance systems across the world, with limited data currently available from low-resource settings. Information on the resources required to register cancer cases are needed in order for global, national, regional, and local stakeholders to adequately support cancer registry operations. The objective of this study is to estimate the cost of cancer registration and report the cost per cancer incident case, the cost per inhabitant in the area covered by the registry, and cost allocated to specific registry activities. The International Registry Costing Tool (IntRegCosting Tool) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was used to assess the costs and resources used by 4 registries in sub-Saharan Africa (Zimbabwe, Uganda, Kenya, and Seychelles). The cost of registering a cancer case ranged from $9 to $96, with lower costs in low- and middle-income countries than in the high-income country. The cost of cancer registration at the population level is very low, ranging from 1 to 17 cents per person. The detailed cost information provided in this manuscript can help registries in in sub-Saharan Africa understand the cost of their registry operations and identify approaches to improve efficiency to meet program priorities. Furthermore, it provides additional evidence to inform funding and resource allocation decisions to advance cancer registration in the region.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to assess external and internal attributes and operations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) central cancer registries by their consistency in meeting national data quality standards. METHODS: The NPCR 2017 Program Evaluation Instrument (PEI) data were used to assess registry operational attributes, including adoption of electronic reporting, compliance with reporting, staffing, and software used among 46 NPCR registries. These factors were stratified by (1) registries that met the NPCR 12-month standards for all years 2014-2017; (2) registries that met the NPCR 12-month standards at least once in 2014-2017 and met the NPCR 24-month standards for all years 2014-2017; and (3) registries that did not meet the NPCR 24-month standards for all years 2014-2017. Statistical tests helped identify significant differences among registries that consistently, sometimes, or seldom/never achieved data standards. RESULTS: Registries that always met the standards had a higher level of electronic reporting and a higher compliance with reporting among hospitals than registries that sometimes or seldom/never met the standards. Although not a statistically significant finding, the same registries also had a higher proportion of staffing positions filled, a higher proportion of certified tumor registrars, and more quality assurance and information technology staff. CONCLUSIONS: This information may be used to understand the importance of various factors and characteristics, including the adoption of electronic reporting, that may be associated with a registry's ability to consistently meet NPCR standards. The findings may be helpful in identifying best practices for processing high-quality cancer data.

BACKGROUND: Three current and former awardees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program launched integrated cancer screening strategies to better coordinate multiple cancer screenings (e.g., breast, cervical, colorectal). By integrating the strategies, efficiencies of administration and provision of screenings can be increased and costs can be reduced. This paper shares findings from these strategies and describes their effects. METHODS: The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare developed a Baseline Assessment Checklist for six health systems to assess the current state of policies regarding cancer screening. We analyzed the checklist and reported the percentage of checklist components completed. In Rhode Island, we collaborated with a nurse-patient navigator, who promoted cancer screening, to collect details on patient navigation activities and program costs. We then described the program and reported total costs and cost per activity. In Nebraska, we described the experience of the state in administering an integrated contracts payment model across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening and reported cost per person screened. Across all awardees, we interviewed key stakeholders. RESULTS: In Idaho, results from the checklist offered guidance on areas for enhancement before integrated cancer screening strategies, but identified challenges, including lack of capacity, limited staff availability, and staff turnover. In Rhode Island, 76.1% of 1023 patient navigation activities were for colorectal cancer screening only, with a much smaller proportion devoted to breast and cervical cancer screening. Although the patient navigator found the discussions around multiple cancer screening efficient, patients were not always willing to discuss all cancer screenings. Nebraska changed its payment system from fee-for-service to fixed cost subawards with its local health departments, which integrated cancer screening funding. Screening uptake improved for breast and cervical cancer but was mixed for colorectal cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the case studies show that there are barriers and facilitators to integrating approaches to increasing cancer screening among primary care facilities. However, more research could further elucidate the viability and practicality of integrated cancer screening programs.

COVID-19 caused significant declines in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Health systems and clinics, faced with a new rapidly spreading infectious disease, adapted to maintain patient safety and address the effects of the pandemic on healthcare delivery. This study aimed to understand how CDC-funded Colorectal Cancer Control Program recipients and their partner health systems and clinics may have modified evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation to promote CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing modifications; and to extract lessons that can be applied to support CRC screening, chronic disease management, and clinic resilience in the face of future public health crises. Nine recipients were selected to reflect the diversity inherent among all CRCCP recipients. Recipient and clinic partner staff answered unique sets of pre-interview questions to inform tailoring of interview guides that were developed using constructs from the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study team then interviewed recipient, health system, and clinic partner staff incorporating pre-interview responses to focus each conversation. We employed a rapid qualitative analysis approach then conducted virtual focus groups with recipient representatives to validate emergent themes. Three modifications that emerged from thematic analysis include: (1) offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for CRC screening with mail or drop off return; (2) increasing the use of patient education and engagement strategies; and (3) increasing the use of or improving automated patient messaging systems. With improved tracking and automated reminder systems, mailed FIT kits paired with tailored patient education and clear instructions for completing the test could help primary care clinics catch up on the backlog of missed screenings during COVID-19. Future research can assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering mailed FIT kits on maintaining or improving CRC screening, especially among people who are medically underserved.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the Colorectal Cancer Control Program to increase colorectal cancer screening among groups with low screening uptake. This engagement has enabled the health systems participating in the program to enhance infrastructure, systems, and process to implement interventions for colorectal cancer screening. These improvements have enabled other health promotion innovations such as the delivery of integrated interventions and supporting activities (referred to as integrated approaches) for multiple cancers. Using implementation science frameworks, the program evaluation team has examined these integrated approaches to capture the experiences of the awardees, health systems, and clinics. METHODS AND RESULTS: The findings from this comprehensive evaluation are presented in a series of 3 manuscripts. The first manuscript provides a conceptual framework for integrated approaches for cancer screening to support comprehensive evaluations and offers recommendations for future research. The second manuscript presents findings on key factors that support readiness for implementing integrated approaches based on qualitative interviews guided by implementation science constructs. The final manuscript reports on the challenges and benefits of integrated approaches to increase cancer screening in primary care facilities based on lessons learned from three real-world implementation case studies. CONCLUSION: Integrated models for implementing cancer screening could offer cost-effective approaches to reduce healthcare disparities. Additional implementation science-based systematic evaluations are needed to ensure integrated approaches are optimized, and cost-efficient models are scaled up.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), which partners with health care systems and primary care clinics to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. We interviewed CRCCP stakeholders to explore the factors that support readiness for integrated implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities to promote CRC screening with other screening and chronic disease management activities in primary care clinics. METHODS: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted a literature review and identified constructs to guide data collection and analysis. We purposively selected four CRCCP awardees that demonstrated ongoing engagement with clinic partner sites, willingness to collaborate with CDC and other stakeholders, and availability of high-quality data. We gathered background information on the selected program sites and conducted primary data collection interviews with program site staff and partners. We used NVivo QSR 11.0 to systematically pilot-code interview data, achieving a kappa coefficient of 0.8 or higher, then implemented a step-wise process to identify site-specific and cross-cutting emergent themes. We also included screening outcome data in our analysis to examine the impact of integrated cancer screening efforts on screening uptake. RESULTS: We identified four overarching factors that contribute to clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities: the funding environment, clinic governance structure, information sharing within clinics, and clinic leadership support. Sites reported supporting clinic partners' readiness for integrated implementation by providing coordinated funding application processes and braided funding streams and by funding partner organizations to provide technical assistance to support efficient incorporation of EBIs and supporting activities into existing clinic workflows. These actions, in turn, support clinic readiness to integrate the implementation of EBIs and supporting activities that promote CRC screening along with other screening and chronic disease management activities. DISCUSSION: The selected CRCCP program sites supported clinics' readiness to integrate CRC EBIs and supporting activities with other screening and chronic disease management activities increasing uptake of CRC screening and improving coordination of patient care. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the factors that support clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities including flexible funding mechanisms, effective data sharing systems, coordination across clinical staff, and supportive leadership. The findings provide insights into how public health programs and their clinic partners can collectively support integrated implementation to promote efficient, coordinated patient-centered care.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs-the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program-to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Health systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success. CONCLUSION: Integrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

This article is a compilation of summaries prepared by lead investigators for large-scale safety and efficacy studies on mass drug administration of IDA (ivermectin, diethylcarbamazine, and albendazole) for lymphatic filariasis. The summaries highlight the experiences of study teams that assessed the safety and efficacy of IDA in five countries: India, Indonesia, Haiti, Papua New Guinea, and Fiji. They also highlight significant challenges encountered during these community studies and responses to those challenges that contributed to success.

BACKGROUND: From 2015 to 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supported 30 awardees in partnering with primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This study identified factors that facilitated early implementation and sustainability within partner clinics. METHODS: We conducted longitudinal qualitative case studies of four CRCCP awardees and four of their partner clinics. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to frame understanding of factors related to implementation and sustainability. A total of 41 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key staff and stakeholders exploring implementation practices and facilitators to sustainability. Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified emerging themes across awardees and clinics. RESULTS: Qualitative themes related to six CFIR inner setting constructs-structural characteristics, readiness for implementation, networks and communication, culture, and implementation climate-were identified. Themes related to early implementation included conducting readiness assessments to tailor implementation, providing moderate funding to clinics, identifying clinic champions, and coordinating EBIs and SAs with existing clinic practices. Themes related to sustainability included the importance of ongoing electronic health record (EHR) support, clinic leadership support, team-based care, and EBI and SA integration with clinic policies, workflows, and procedures. IMPLICATIONS: Findings help to inform future scale-up of and decision-making within CRC screening programs and other chronic disease prevention programs implementing EBIs and SAs within primary care clinics and also highlight factors that maximize sustainability within these programs.

PURPOSE: The CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries has expanded the use of electronic reporting to collect more timely information on newly diagnosed cancers. The adoption, implementation, and use of electronic reporting vary significantly among central cancer registries. We identify factors affecting the adoption of electronic reporting among these registries. METHODS: Directors and data managers of nine National Program of Cancer Registries took part in separate 1-hour telephone interviews in early 2019. Directors were asked about their registry's key data quality goals; staffing, resources, and tools used to aid processes; their definition and self-perception of electronic reporting adoption; key helpers and challenges; and cost and sustainability implications for adoption of electronic reporting. Data managers were asked about specific data collection processes, software applications, electronic reporting adoption and self-perception, information technology infrastructure, and helpers and challenges to data collection and processing, data quality, and sustainability of approach. RESULTS: Larger registries identified organizational capacity and technical expertise as key aides. Other help for implementing electronic reporting processes came from partnerships, funding availability, management support, legislation, and access to an interstate data exchange. Common challenges among lower adopters included lack of capacity at both registry and data source levels, insufficient staffing, and a lack of information technology or technical support. Other challenges consisted of automation and interoperability of software, volume of cases received, state political environment, and quality of data received. CONCLUSION: Feedback from the formative evaluation yielded several useful solutions that can guide implementation of electronic reporting and help refine the technical assistance provided to registries. Our findings may help guide future process and economic evaluations of electronic reporting and identify best practices to strengthen registry operations.

PURPOSE: There is limited research linking data sources to evaluate the multifactorial impacts on the quality of treatment received and financial burden among young women with breast cancer. To address this gap and support future evaluation efforts, we examined the utility of combining patient survey and cancer registry data. PATIENT AND METHODS: We administered a survey to women, aged 18-39 years, with breast cancer from four U.S. states. We conducted a systematic response-rate analysis and evaluated differences between racial groups. Survey responses were linked with cancer registry data to assess whether surveys could reliably supplement registry data. RESULTS: A total of 830 women completed the survey for a response rate of 28.4 %. Blacks and Asian/Pacific Islanders were half as likely to respond as white women. Concordance between survey and registry data was high for demographic variables (Cohen's kappa [k]: 0.879 to 0.949), moderate to high for treatments received (k: 0.467 to 0.854), and low for hormone receptor status (k: 0.167 to 0.553). Survey items related to insurance status, employment, and symptoms revealed racial differences. CONCLUSION: Cancer registry data, supplemented by patient surveys, can provide a broader understanding of the quality of care and financial impacts of breast cancer among young women.

Reactivation of Chagas disease has been described in immunosuppressed patients, but there is a paucity of literature describing reactivation in patients on immunosuppressive therapies for the treatment of autoimmune rheumatic diseases. We describe a case of Chagas disease reactivation in a woman taking azathioprine and prednisone for limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis (lcSSc). Reactivation manifested as indurated and erythematous cutaneous nodules. Sequencing of a skin biopsy specimen confirmed the diagnosis of Chagas disease. She was treated with benznidazole with clinical improvement in the cutaneous lesions. However, her clinical course was complicated and included disseminated CMV disease and subsequent septic shock due to bacteremia. Our case and review of the literature highlight that screening for Chagas disease should be strongly considered for patients who will undergo immunosuppression for treatment of autoimmune disease if epidemiologically indicated.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

As an awardee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, the California Department of Public Health partnered with Neighborhood Healthcare to implement evidence-based interventions and provider incentives (incentives offered to support staff, e.g., medical assistants, phlebotomists, front office staff, lab technicians) to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of the provider incentive intervention implemented by Neighborhood Healthcare to increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. We collected and analyzed process and cost data to assess fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates to the health centers and the number of completed FIT kits. We estimated the costs of the preexisting interventions and the new interventions. Analyses were conducted for two time periods: preimplementation and implementation. Most Neighborhood Healthcare health centers experienced an increase in the percentage of FIT kit returns (average of 3.6 percentage points) and individuals screened (an average increase of 111 FIT kits per month) from the baseline period through the implementation period. The cost of the incentive intervention for each additional screen was $66.79. In conclusion, the results indicate that incentive programs can have an overall positive impact on both the percentage of FIT kits returned and the number of individuals screened.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the West Virginia Program to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in implementing patient reminders to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates in nine federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Using process measures and cost data collected, the authors examined the differences in the intensity of the phone calls across FQHCs and compared them with the return rates achieved. They also reported the cost per kit successfully returned as a result of the intervention. Across all FQHCs, 5,041 FIT kits were ordered, and the initial return rate (without a reminder) was 41.1%. A total of 2,201 patients received reminder phone calls; on average, patients received 1.61 reminder calls each. The reminder interventions increased the average FIT kit return rate to 60.7%. The average total cost per FIT kit returned across all FQHCs was $60.18, and the average cost of only the reminders was $11.20 per FIT kit returned. FQHCs achieved an average increase of 19.6 percentage points in FIT kit return rates, and costs across clinics varied. Clinics with high-quality health information systems that enabled tracking of patients with minimal effort were able to implement lower cost reminder interventions.

The objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and cost of patient incentives, together with patient navigation and patient reminders, to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates and colorectal cancer screening uptake in one federally qualified health center (FQHC) in Appalachia. This FQHC is a designated homeless clinic, as 79.7% of its patient population are homeless. We collected process, outcome, and cost data from the FQHC for two time periods: usual care (September 2016-August 2017) and implementation (September 2017-September 2018). We reported the FIT kit return rate, the increase in return rate, and the additional number of individual screens. We also calculated the incremental cost per additional screen. The patient incentive program, with patient navigation and patient reminders, increased the number of FIT kits returned from the usual care period to the implementation period. The return rate increased by 25.9 percentage points (from 21.7% to 47.6%) with an additional 91 people screened at an incremental cost of $134.61 per screen. A patient incentive program, together with the assistance of patient navigators and supplemented with patient reminders, can help improve CRC screening uptake among vulnerable and homeless populations.

With funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, The University of Chicago Center for Asian Health Equity partnered with a federally qualified health center (FQHC) to implement multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in order to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness and cost of implementing a provider reminder system entered manually and supplemented with patient reminders and provider assessment and feedback. The FQHC collected demographic characteristics of the FQHC and outcome data from January 2015 through December 2015 (preimplementation period) and cost from January 2016 through September 2017 (implementation period). Cost data were collected for the implementation period. We report on the demographics of the eligible population, CRC screening order, completion rates by sociodemographic characteristics, and, overall, the effectiveness and cost of implementation. From the preimplementation phase to the implementation phase, there was a 21.2 percentage point increase in CRC screens completed. The total cost of implementing EBIs was $40908.97. We estimated that an additional 283 screens were completed because of the interventions, and the implementation cost of the interventions was $144.65 per additional screen. With the interventions, CRC screening uptake in Chicago increased for all race/ethnicity and demographic backgrounds at the FQHC, particularly for patients aged 50 to 64 years and for Asian, Hispanic, and uninsured patients.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women younger than 40 years. We aim to evaluate cost as a barrier to care among female breast cancer patients diagnosed between 18 to 39 years. METHODS: In early 2017, we distributed a survey to women diagnosed with breast cancer between the ages of 18 and 39 years, as identified by the central cancer registries of California, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida. We used multivariable statistics to explore cost-related barriers to receiving breast cancer care for the 830 women that completed the survey. RESULTS: About half of the women (47.4%) reported spending more on breast cancer care than expected, and almost two-thirds (65.3%) had not discussed costs with their care team. A third of the patients (31.8%) indicated forgoing care due to cost. Factors associated with not receiving anticipated care due to cost included age less than35 years at diagnosis, self-insurance, comorbid conditions, and late-stage diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Previous studies using breast cancer registry data have not included detailed insurance information and care received by young women. Young women with breast cancer frequently forgo breast cancer care due to cost. Our results highlight the potential for policies that facilitate optimal care for young breast cancer patients which could include the provision of comprehensive insurance coverage.

BACKGROUND: In fall 2017, 3 solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients from a common donor developed encephalitis within 1 week of transplantation, prompting suspicion of transplant-transmitted infection. Eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) infection was identified during testing of endomyocardial tissue from the heart recipient. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of the organ donor and transplant recipients and tested serum, whole blood, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue from the donor and recipients for evidence of EEEV infection by multiple assays. We investigated blood transfusion as a possible source of organ donor infection by testing remaining components and serum specimens from blood donors. We reviewed data from the pretransplant organ donor evaluation and local EEEV surveillance. RESULTS: We found laboratory evidence of recent EEEV infection in all organ recipients and the common donor. Serum collected from the organ donor upon hospital admission tested negative, but subsequent samples obtained prior to organ recovery were positive for EEEV RNA. There was no evidence of EEEV infection among donors of the 8 blood products transfused into the organ donor or in products derived from these donations. Veterinary and mosquito surveillance showed recent EEEV activity in counties nearby the organ donor's county of residence. Neuroinvasive EEEV infection directly contributed to the death of 1 organ recipient and likely contributed to death in another. CONCLUSIONS: Our investigation demonstrated EEEV transmission through SOT. Mosquito-borne transmission of EEEV to the organ donor was the likely source of infection. Clinicians should be aware of EEEV as a cause of transplant-associated encephalitis.

Background: The costs of cancer registration have previously been estimated for registries in the continental United States and many international registries; however, to date, there has been no economic assessment of population-based registries in the US-Affiliated Pacific Islands. This study estimates the costs and factors affecting the operations of US-Affiliated Pacific Island population-based cancer registries. Methods: The web-based International Registry Costing Tool1 was used to collect costs, resources used, cancer cases processed, and other registry characteristics from the Pacific Regional Central Cancer Registry (PRCCR), Federated States of Micronesia National Cancer Registry, and nine satellite jurisdictional registries within the US Pacific Islands. The registries provided data on costs for June 30, 2016-June 29, 2017, and cases processed during 2014. Results: Local host institutions provided a vital source of support for US-Affiliated Pacific Islands registries, covering substantial fixed costs, such as management and overhead. The cost per cancer case processed had an almost tenfold variation across registries, with the average total cost per case of about $1,413. The average cost per inhabitant in the US-Affiliated Pacific Islands was about $1.77 per person. Discussion: The challenges of collecting data from dispersed populations spread across multiple islands of the US-Affiliated Pacific Islands are likely leading factors driving the magnitude of the registries' cost per case. The economic information from this study provides a valuable source of activity-based cost data that can both help guide cancer control initiatives and help registries improve operations and efficiency.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Since 2005 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has funded organizations across the United States to promote screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) to detect early CRC or precancerous polyps that can be treated to avoid disease progression and death. The objective of this study was to describe how findings from economic evaluation approaches of a subset of these awardees and their implementation sites (n = 9) can drive decision making and improve program implementation and diffusion. INTERVENTION APPROACH: We described the framework for the implementation economics evaluation used since 2016 for the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) Learning Collaborative. EVALUATION METHODS: We compared CRC interventions implemented across health systems, changes in screening uptake, and the incremental cost per person of implementing an intervention. We also analyzed data on how implementation costs changed over time for a CRC program that conducted interventions in a series of rounds. RESULTS: Implementation of the interventions, which included provider and patient reminders, provider assessment and feedback, and incentives, resulted in increases in screening uptake ranging from 4.9 to 26.7 percentage points. Across the health systems, the incremental cost per person screened ranged from $18.76 to $144.55. One awardee's costs decreased because of a reduction in intervention development and start-up costs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Health systems, CRCCP awardees, and CDC can use these findings for quality improvement activities, incorporation of information into trainings and support activities, and future program design.

BACKGROUND: The economic cost of breast cancer is a major personal and public health problem in the United States. This study aims to evaluate the insurance, employment, and financial experiences of young female breast cancer survivors and to assess factors associated with financial decline. METHODS: We recruited 830 women under 40 years of age diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2013 and December 2014. The study population was identified through California, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina population-based cancer registries. The cross-sectional survey was fielded in 2017 and included questions on demographics, insurance, employment, out-of-pocket costs, and financial well-being. We present descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis to assess factors associated with financial decline. RESULTS: Although 92.5% of the respondents were continuously insured over the past 12 months, 9.5% paid a "higher price than expected" for coverage. Common concerns among the 73.4% of respondents who were employed at diagnosis included increased paid (55.1%) or unpaid (47.3%) time off, suffering job performance (23.2%), and staying at (30.2%) or avoiding changing (23.5%) jobs for health insurance purposes. Overall, 47.0% experienced financial decline due to treatment-related costs. Patients with some college education, multiple comorbidities, late stage diagnoses, and self-funded insurance were most vulnerable. CONCLUSIONS: The breast cancer diagnosis created financial hardship for half the respondents and led to myriad challenges in maintaining employment. Employment decisions were heavily influenced by the need to maintain health insurance coverage. IMPACT: This study finds that a breast cancer diagnosis in young women can result in employment disruption and financial decline.