Cancer surveillance is a field focused on collection of data to evaluate the burden of cancer and apply public health strategies to prevent and control cancer in the community. A key challenge facing the cancer surveillance community is the number of manual tasks required to collect cancer surveillance data, thereby resulting in possible delays in analysis and use of the information. To modernize and automate cancer data collection and reporting, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning, developing, and piloting a cancer surveillance cloud-based computing platform (CS-CBCP) with standardized electronic reporting from laboratories and health-care providers. With this system, automation of the cancer case collection process and access to real-time cancer case data can be achieved, which could not be done before. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the importance of continuity of operations plans, and the CS-CBCP has the potential to provide such a platform suitable for remote operations of central cancer registries.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initiated an economic analysis of the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) in 2005 to estimate the true economic costs of operating a cancer registry, identify costs associated with registry activities, and evaluate the factors that may affect the efficiency of registry operations. We developed a Web-based NPCR cost assessment tool (NPCR-CAT) to collect activity-based cost data from all 48 NPCR registries. We collected data on registry funding, actual expenditures, and factors that may affect the efficiency of operating a central cancer registry. Key lessons learned during data collection and analysis include the importance of working closely with registry staff and balancing the need for standardized data elements with an understanding of individual registry characteristics. Our findings and lessons can be adapted to develop costing tools for other surveillance systems and cancer control programs, both domestically and internationally.

Breast cancer screening by mammography has been shown to reduce breast cancer morbidity and mortality. The use of mammography screening though varies by race, ethnicity, and, sociodemographic characteristics. Medicaid is an important source of insurance in the US for low-income beneficiaries, who are disproportionately members of racial or ethnic minorities, and who are less likely to be screened than women with higher socioeconomic statuses. We used 2006-2008 data from Medicaid claims and enrollment files to assess racial or ethnic and geographic disparities in the use of breast cancer screening among Medicaid-insured women at the state level. There were disparities in the use of mammography among racial or ethnic groups relative to white women, and the use of mammography varied across the 44 states studied. African American and American Indian women were significantly less likely than white women to use mammography in 30% and 39% of the 44 states analyzed, respectively, whereas Hispanic and Asian American women were the minority groups most likely to receive screening compared with white women. There are racial or ethnic disparities in breast cancer screening at the state level, which indicates that analyses conducted by only using national data not stratified by insurance coverage are insufficient to identify vulnerable populations for interventions to increase the use of mammography, as recommended.

Understanding multilevel predictors of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test modality can help inform screening program design and implementation. We used North Carolina Medicare, Medicaid, and private, commercially available, health plan insurance claims data from 2003 to 2008 to ascertain CRC test modality among people who received CRC screening around their 50th birthday, when guidelines recommend that screening should commence for normal risk individuals. We ascertained receipt of colonoscopy, fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) from billing codes. Person-level and county-level contextual variables were included in multilevel random intercepts models to understand predictors of CRC test modality, stratified by insurance type. Of 12,570 publicly-insured persons turning 50 during the study period who received CRC testing, 57% received colonoscopy, whereas 43% received FOBT/FIT, with significant regional variation. In multivariable models, females with public insurance had lower odds of colonoscopy than males (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68; p < 0.05). Of 56,151 privately-insured persons turning 50 years old who received CRC testing, 42% received colonoscopy, whereas 58% received FOBT/FIT, with significant regional variation. In multivariable models, females with private insurance had lower odds of colonoscopy than males (OR = 0.43; p < 0.05). People living 10-15 miles away from endoscopy facilities also had lower odds of colonoscopy than those living within 5 miles (OR = 0.91; p < 0.05). Both colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT are widely used in North Carolina among insured persons newly age-eligible for screening. The high level of FOBT/FIT use among privately insured persons and women suggests that renewed emphasis on FOBT/FIT as a viable screening alternative to colonoscopy may be important.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among the uninsured and the under-insured and among rural and African American populations. Little guidance is available for state-level decision makers to use to prioritize investment in evidence-based interventions to improve their population's health. The objective of this study was to demonstrate use of a simulation model that incorporates synthetic census data and claims-based statistical models to project screening behavior in North Carolina. METHODS: We used individual-based modeling to simulate and compare intervention costs and results under 4 evidence-based and stakeholder-informed intervention scenarios for a 10-year intervention window, from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2023. We compared the proportion of people living in North Carolina who were aged 50 to 75 years at some point during the window (that is, age-eligible for screening) who were up to date with CRC screening recommendations across intervention scenarios, both overall and among groups with documented disparities in receipt of screening. RESULTS: We estimated that the costs of the 4 intervention scenarios considered would range from $1.6 million to $3.75 million. Our model showed that mailed reminders for Medicaid enrollees, mass media campaigns targeting African Americans, and colonoscopy vouchers for the uninsured reduced disparities in receipt of screening by 2023, but produced only small increases in overall screening rates (0.2-0.5 percentage-point increases in the percentage of age-eligible adults who were up to date with CRC screening recommendations). Increased screenings ranged from 41,709 additional life-years up to date with screening for the voucher intervention to 145,821 for the mass media intervention. Reminders mailed to Medicaid enrollees and the mass media campaign for African Americans were the most cost-effective interventions, with costs per additional life-year up to date with screening of $25 or less. The intervention expanding the number of endoscopy facilities cost more than the other 3 interventions and was less effective in increasing CRC screening. CONCLUSION: Cost-effective CRC screening interventions targeting observed disparities are available, but substantial investment (more than $3.75 million) and additional approaches beyond those considered here are required to realize greater increases population-wide.

We assess annual costs of screening provision activities implemented by 23 of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees and report differences in costs between colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT-based screening programs. We analysed annual cost data for the first three year of the CRCCP (July 2009-June 2011) for each screening provision activity and categorized them into clinical and non-clinical screening provision activities. The largest cost components for both colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT-based programs were screening and diagnostic services, program management, and data collection and tracking. During the first 3 years of the CRCCP, the average annual clinical cost for screening and diagnostic services per person served was $1150 for colonoscopy programs, compared to $304 for FIT/FOBT-based programs. Overall, FOBT/FIT-based programs appear to have slightly higher non-clinical costs per person served (average $1018; median $838) than colonoscopy programs (average $980; median $686). Colonoscopy-based CRCCP programs have higher clinical costs than FOBT/FIT-based programs during the 3-year study timeframe (translating into fewer people screened). Non-clinical costs for both approaches are similar and substantial. Future studies of the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening initiatives should consider both clinical and non-clinical costs.

Many studies have documented barriers to colorectal cancer screenings. However, there is lack of comprehensive information on the time and costs borne by low-income patients and the persons accompanying the patient (caregiver) for colonoscopies in the United States. We surveyed patients in three health clinics in Philadelphia retrospectively who had undergone free colonoscopies in the previous 18-month period. Participants were asked questions about time and out-of-pockets expenses for themselves and their caregivers. Even when colonoscopies were free to the patient through Colorectal Cancer Control Program funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the patient and caregivers still incurred costs in relation to preparing for, undergoing, and recovering from a colonoscopy. These costs can be substantial and may account for some of the low colorectal cancer screening rates especially among the low-income populations. Patients' and caregivers' costs need to be considered when designing and implementing colorectal cancer control programs.

Understanding the cost of initiating and operationalizing colorectal cancer (CRC) control programs is essential for planning successful implementation of evidence-based recommendations to reduce disparities in the use and quality of CRC cancer screening services. Currently, only about 58% of adults ages 50–75 years in the United States are up-to-date with CRC screening recommendations; adults without health insurance have a much lower uptake of about 24% (Sabatino, White, Thompson, & Klabunde, 2015). Targeted interventions and programs, especially those focused on the uninsured and underinsured populations, are required to meet the population-wide target of 80% by 2018 set by The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT, n.d.). The Community Guide contains several evidence-based recommendations for screening promotion interventions but there are very few studies on the economics of screening program implementation (Baron et al., 2010; Sabatino et al., 2012). There is an urgent need to increase the number of ‘implementation economics’ studies to develop the evidence-base to guide funding decision making, design cost-effective programs and ensure optimal use of limited resources. We define ‘implementation economics’ as a sub-discipline within implementation science that focusses on economic evaluation related to cost (cost-of-illness analysis, program cost analysis), cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, budget impact, and cost minimization. | For more than a decade, CDC has funded and provided technical support to a range of grantee programs to implement CRC screening and implementation economics has been a cornerstone of the evaluations of these programs. Between 2005 and 2009, CDC administered the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) in five programs [Baltimore, Maryland; St. Louis, Missouri; the entire state of Nebraska; Suffolk County, New York; and King, Clallam and Jefferson counties in Washington] (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013a). These programs provided CRC screening for low-income, underinsured, or uninsured men and women between the ages of 50 and 64 years. In 2009, successes and lessons learned (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013b; Joseph, DeGroff, Hayes, Wong, & Plescia, 2011) from the CRCSDP informed planning and funding of the first round of CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) (2009–2015). Through the CRCCP, CDC provided funding to 22 states and 4 tribal organizations to implement CRC programs starting in 2009 and another 3 states were added to the program in 2010. Fig. 1 provides a map of the United States highlighting the CRCCP grantees.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine mammography screening for women aged 40-49 years. This revised recommendation was widely criticized and has sparked off intense debate. The objectives of this study are to examine the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women receiving mammograms and how the effect varied by age. METHODS: We identified women who had continuous health insurance coverage and who did not have breast cancer between 2008 and 2011 in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims Databases using mammogram procedure codes. Using women aged 50-59 years as a control group, we used a differences-in-differences approach to estimate the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women ages 40-49 years who received at least one mammogram. We also compared the age-specific changes in the proportion of women ages 35-59 years who were screened before and after the release of the revised recommendation. RESULTS: The proportion of women screened among the 40-49 and 50-59 age groups were 58.5 and 62.5%, respectively, between 2008 and 2009, and 56.9 and 62.0%, respectively, between 2010 and 2011. After 2009, the proportion of women screened declined by 1.2 percentage point among women aged 40-49 years (P < 0.01). The proportion of women screened decreased for all ages, and decreases were larger among women closer to the 40-year threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The 2009 USPSTF breast cancer recommendation was followed by a small reduction in the proportion of insured women aged 40-49 years who were screened. Reductions were larger among women at the younger end of the age range, who presumably had less prior experience with mammography than women nearing 50.

The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) provided funding to 29 grantees to increase colorectal cancer screening. We describe the screening promotion costs of CRCCP grantees to evaluate the extent to which the program model resulted in the use of funding to support interventions recommended by the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). We analyzed expenditures for screening promotion for the first three years of the CRCCP to assess cost per promotion strategy, and estimated the cost per person screened at the state level based on various projected increases in screening rates. All grantees engaged in small media activities and more than 90% used either client reminders, provider assessment and feedback, or patient navigation. Based on all expenditures, projected cost per eligible person screened for a 1%, 5%, and 10% increase in state-level screening proportions are $172, $34, and $17, respectively. CRCCP grantees expended the majority of their funding on Community Guide recommended screening promotion strategies but about a third was spent on other interventions. Based on this finding, future CRC programs should be provided with targeted education and information on evidence-based strategies, rather than broad based recommendations, to ensure that program funds are expended mainly on evidence-based interventions.

BACKGROUND: This report describes the resources required to support the integrated approach of the Barbados National Registry for Chronic Non-communicable Diseases (BNR) to non-communicable disease (NCD) case registration, and to identify differences in cost for collecting and maintaining information on cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) case registration. METHODS: We used the modified Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's International Registry Costing Tool to collect data from the CVD and cancer registries. We used cancer and CVD cost data for the annual period April 2014 through March 2015 to estimate the total cost and cost per case. We used prospectively collected average annual CVD cases, and for cancer cases we assumed 2 or 3 years are needed for retrospective data collection. RESULTS: The Ministry of Health provided 56% of the resources for the registries. Labor accounted for over 70% of both registries' budgets, while management and administration, along with data collection and analysis, incurred the highest costs per case. Total variable cost activities related to data collection and analysis were higher for the CVD component (US$131,297) than the cancer component (US$58,917). The CVD cost per case (US$489) was in between the cancer 2-year (US$382) and the cancer 3-year (US$573) cost-per-case estimates. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that there are substantial fixed costs related to management and administration of NCD registries. All registries need management and administration support. When registries are combined, management and administration costs can be shared. We project that registries that can share fixed-cost infrastructure are likely to incur a lower total cost per case.

BACKGROUND: The key aims of this study were to identify sources of support for cancer registry activities, to quantify resource use and estimate costs to operate registries in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) at different stages of development across three continents. METHODS: Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) International Registry Costing Tool (IntRegCosting Tool), cost and resource use data were collected from eight population-based cancer registries, including one in a low-income country (Uganda [Kampala)]), two in lower to middle-income countries (Kenya [Nairobi] and India [Mumbai]), and five in an upper to middle-income country (Colombia [Pasto, Barranquilla, Bucaramanga, Manizales and Cali cancer registries]). RESULTS: Host institution contributions accounted for 30%-70% of total investment in cancer registry activities. Cancer registration involves substantial fixed cost and labor. Labor accounts for more than 50% of all expenditures across all registries. The cost per cancer case registered in low-income and lower-middle-income countries ranged from US $3.77 to US $15.62 (United States dollars). In Colombia, an upper to middle-income country, the cost per case registered ranged from US $41.28 to US $113.39. Registries serving large populations (over 15 million inhabitants) had a lower cost per inhabitant (less than US $0.01 in Mumbai, India) than registries serving small populations (under 500,000 inhabitants) [US $0.22] in Pasto, Colombia. CONCLUSION: This study estimates the total cost and resources used for cancer registration across several countries in the limited-resource setting, and provides cancer registration stakeholders and registries with opportunities to identify cost savings and efficiency improvements. Our results suggest that cancer registration involve substantial fixed costs and labor, and that partnership with other institutions is critical for the operation and sustainability of cancer registries in limited resource settings. Although we included registries from a variety of limited-resource areas, information from eight registries in four countries may not be large enough to capture all the potential differences among the registries in limited-resource settings.

All governments have approved the Global Monitoring Framework on Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs), which includes a commitment to reduce premature NCD (including cancer-related) deaths by 25% by 2025. The global monitoring framework requires WHO member states to collect cancer incidence, by type of cancer per 100,000 population – one of 25 indicators to monitor progress toward the 25 by 25 targets [1]. Population-based cancer registries are units that collect and report high quality data on cancer incidence. The data generated by population-based cancer registries are essential for informing health programs, policies and strategies regarding cancer screening and treatment, and for evaluating the impact of national programs for cancer prevention, screening, and treatment [2,3]. However, there are large differences in the existence, coverage and quality of cancer registration across the world. The percentage of the population covered by cancer registries that meet the quality standards for inclusion in global statistics (Cancer Incidence in Five Continents – CI5) ranges from near-complete coverage in North America to less than 10% coverage in Asia, Central and South America, and Africa [4] (See Fig. 1).

Worldwide, colorectal cancer is the fourth leading cause of death from cancer and the incidence is projected to increase. Many countries are exploring the introduction of organized screening programs, but there is limited information on the resources required and guidance for cost-effective implementation. To facilitate the generating of the economics evidence base for program implementation, we collected and analyzed detailed program cost data from 5 European members of the International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network. The cost per person screened estimates, often used to compare across programs as an overall measure, varied significantly across the programs. In addition, there were substantial differences in the programmatic and clinical cost incurred, even when the same type of screening test was used. Based on these findings, several recommendations are provided to enhance the underlying methodology and validity of the comparative economic assessments. The recommendations include the need for detailed activity-based cost information, the use of a comprehensive set of effectiveness measures to adequately capture differences between programs, and the incorporation of data from multiple programs in cost-effectiveness models to increase generalizability. Economic evaluation of real-world colorectal cancer-screening programs is essential to derive valuable insights to improve program operations and ensure optimal use of available resources.

INTRODUCTION: Nationally, about one third of women with breast cancer (BC) are diagnosed at late stage, which might be reduced with greater utilization of BC screening. The purpose of this paper is to examine the predictors of BC mammography use among women with Medicaid, and differences among Medicaid beneficiaries in their propensity to use mammography. METHODS: The sample included 2,450,527 women drawn from both fee-for-service and managed care Medicaid claims from 25 states, during 2006-2008. The authors used multilevel modeling of predictors at person, county, and state levels of influence and examined traditional factors affecting access and the expanded scope of practice allowed for the nurse practitioner (NP) in some states to provide primary care independent of physician oversight. RESULTS: Black [OR = 0.87; 95 % CI (0.87-0.88)] and American Indian women [OR = 0.74; 95 % CI (0.71-0.76)] had lower odds ratio of mammography use than white women, while Hispanic [OR = 1.06; 95 % CI (1.05-1.07)] had higher odds ratio of mammography use than white women. Living in counties with higher Hispanic residential segregation [OR = 1.16; 95 % CI (1.10-1.23)] was associated with a higher odds ratio of mammography use compared to areas with low Hispanic residential segregation, whereas living among more segregated black [OR = 0.78; 95 % CI (0.75-0.81)] or Asian [OR = 0.19; 95 % CI (0.17-0.21)] communities had lower odds ratio compared to areas with low segregation. Holding constant statistically the perceived shortage of MDs, which was associated with significantly lower mammography use, the NP regulatory variable [OR = 1.03; 95 % CI (1.01-1.07)] enhanced the odds ratio of mammography use among women in the six states with expanded scope of practice, compared with women residing in 19 more restrictive states. CONCLUSIONS: Racial and ethnic disparities exist in the use of mammography among Medicaid-insured women. More expansive NP practice privileges in states are associated with higher utilization, and may help reduce rural disparities.

INTRODUCTION: Stated-preference methods provide a systematic approach to quantitatively assess the relative preferences for features of cancer screening tests. We reviewed stated-preference studies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening to identify the types of attributes included, the use of questions to assess uptake, and whether gaps exist in these areas. The goal of our review is to inform research on the design and promotion of public health programs to increase cancer screening. METHODS: Using the PubMed and EconLit databases, we identified studies published in English from January 1990 through July 2013 that measured preferences for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test attributes using conjoint analysis or a discrete-choice experiment. We extracted data on study characteristics and results. We categorized studies by whether attributes evaluated included screening test, health care delivery characteristics, or both. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the search criteria. Colorectal cancer was the most commonly studied cancer of the 3. Fifteen studies examined only screening test attributes (efficacy, process, test characteristics, and cost). Two studies included only health care delivery attributes (information provided, staff characteristics, waiting time, and distance to facility). Five studies examined both screening test and health care delivery attributes. Overall, cancer screening test attributes had a significant effect on a patient's selection of a cancer screening test, and health care delivery attributes had mixed effects on choice. CONCLUSION: A growing number of studies examine preferences for cancer screening tests. These studies consistently find that screening test attributes, such as efficacy, process, and cost, are significant determinants of choice. Fewer studies have examined the effect of health care delivery attributes on choice, and the results from these studies are mixed. There is a need for additional studies on the barriers to cancer screening uptake, including health care delivery attributes, and the effect of education materials on preferences.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer in women aged 18-44 years accounts for approximately 27,000 newly diagnosed cases and 3,000 deaths annually. When tumors are diagnosed, they are usually aggressive, resulting in expensive treatment costs. The purpose of this study is to estimate the prevalent medical costs attributable to breast cancer treatment among privately insured younger women. METHODS: Data from the 2006 MarketScan(R) database representing claims for privately insured younger women were used. Costs for younger breast cancer patients were compared with a matched sample of younger women without breast cancer, overall and for an active treatment subsample. Analyses were conducted in 2013 with medical care costs expressed in 2012 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Younger women with breast cancer incurred an estimated $19,435 (SE=$415) in additional direct medical care costs per person per year compared with younger women without breast cancer. Outpatient expenditures comprised 94% of the total estimated costs ($18,344 [SE=$396]). Inpatient costs were $43 (SE=$10) higher and prescription drug costs were $1,048 (SE=$64) higher for younger women with breast cancer than in younger women without breast cancer. For women in active treatment, the burden was more than twice as high ($52,542 [SE=$977]). CONCLUSIONS: These estimates suggest that breast cancer is a costly illness to treat among younger, privately insured women. This underscores the potential financial vulnerability of women in this age group and the importance of health insurance during this time in life.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer affects women's health-related quality of life negatively, but little is known about how breast cancer affects this in younger women aged 18-44 years. This study measures preference-based health state utility (HSU) values, a scaled index of health-related quality of life for economic evaluation, for younger women with breast cancer and compares these values with same-age women with other cancers and older women (aged ≥45 years) with breast cancer. METHODS: Data from the 2009 and 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were analyzed in 2014. The sample included 218,852 women; 7,433 and 18,577 had histories of breast and other cancers. HSU values were estimated using Healthy Days survey questions and a published mapping algorithm. Linear regression models for HSU were estimated by age group (18-44 and ≥45 years). RESULTS: The adjusted breast cancer HSU impact was four times larger for younger women than for older women (-0.097 vs -0.024, p<0.001). For younger women, the effect of breast cancer on HSU was 70% larger than that of other cancers (-0.097 vs -0.057, p=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Younger breast cancer survivors reported lower HSU values than older survivors, highlighting the impact of breast cancer on the physical and mental health of younger women. The estimates may be used to evaluate quality-adjusted life-years or expectancy for prevention or treatment of breast cancer. This study also indicates that separate quality of life adjustments for women by age group are important for economic analysis of public health breast cancer interventions.

BACKGROUND: We examined mammography use before and after Medicare eliminated cost sharing for screening mammography in January 2011. METHODS: Using National Health Interview Survey data, we examined changes in mammography use between 2010 and 2013 among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-74 years. Logistic regression and predictive margins were used to examine changes in use after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: In 2013, 74.7% of women reported a mammogram within 2 years, a 3.5 percentage point increase (95% confidence interval, -0.3, 7.2) compared with 2010. Increases occurred among women aged 65-69 years, unmarried women, and women with usual sources of care and 2-5 physician visits in the prior year. After adjustment, mammography use increased in 2013 versus 2010 (74.8% vs. 71.3%, P=0.039). Interactions between year and income, insurance, race, or ethnicity were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: There was a modest increase in mammography use from 2010 to 2013 among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-74 years, possibly consistent with an effect of eliminating Medicare cost sharing during this time. Findings suggest that eliminating cost sharing might increase use of recommended screening services.

BACKGROUND: Cancer registration data is vital for creating evidence-based policies and interventions. Quantifying the resources needed for cancer registration activities and identifying potential efficiencies are critically important to ensure sustainability of cancer registry operations. METHODS: Using a previously validated web-based cost assessment tool, we collected activity-based cost data and report findings using 3 years of data from 40 National Program of Cancer Registry grantees. We stratified registries by volume: low-volume included fewer than 10,000 cases, medium-volume included 10,000-50,000 cases, and high-volume included >50,000 cases. RESULTS: Low-volume cancer registries incurred an average of $93.11 to report a case (without in-kind contributions) compared with $27.70 incurred by high-volume registries. Across all registries, the highest cost per case was incurred for data collection and abstraction ($8.33), management ($6.86), and administration ($4.99). Low- and medium-volume registries have higher costs than high-volume registries for all key activities. CONCLUSIONS: Some cost differences by volume can be explained by the large fixed costs required for administering and performing registration activities, but other reasons may include the quality of the data initially submitted to the registries from reporting sources such as hospitals and pathology laboratories. Automation or efficiency improvements in data collection can potentially reduce overall costs.

CONTEXT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention evaluated the economics of the National Program of Cancer Registries to provide the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the registries, and policy makers with the economics evidence-base to make optimal decisions about resource allocation. Cancer registry budgets are under increasing threat, and, therefore, systematic assessment of the cost will identify approaches to improve the efficiencies of this vital data collection operation and also justify the funding required to sustain registry operations. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost of cancer registry operations and to assess the factors affecting the cost per case reported by National Program of Cancer Registries-funded central cancer registries. METHODS: We developed a Web-based cost assessment tool to collect 3 years of data (2009-2011) from each National Program of Cancer Registries-funded registry for all actual expenditures for registry activities (including those funded by other sources) and factors affecting registry operations. We used a random-effects regression model to estimate the impact of various factors on cost per cancer case reported. RESULTS: The cost of reporting a cancer case varied across the registries. Central cancer registries that receive high-quality data from reporting sources (as measured by the percentage of records passing automatic edits) and electronic data submissions, and those that collect and report on a large volume of cases had significantly lower cost per case. The volume of cases reported had a large effect, with low-volume registries experiencing much higher cost per case than medium- or high-volume registries. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that registries operate with substantial fixed or semivariable costs. Therefore, sharing fixed costs among low-volume contiguous state registries, whenever possible, and centralization of certain processes can result in economies of scale. Approaches to improve quality of data submitted and increasing electronic reporting can also reduce cost.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the number and proportion of eligible women receiving mammograms funded by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). METHODS: Low-income, uninsured, and underinsured women aged 40-64 are eligible for mammography screening through the NBCCEDP. We used data from the NBCCEDP, the Current Population Survey, and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to describe the number and proportion of women screened by the NBCCEDP and overall. RESULTS: In 2011 and 2012, the NBCCEDP screened 549,043 women aged 40-64, an estimated 10.6 % (90 % confidence interval [CI] 10.4-10.9 %) of the eligible population. We estimate that 30.6 % (90 % CI 26.4-34.8 %) of eligible women aged 40-64 were screened outside the NBCCEDP, and 58.8 % (90 % CI 54.6-63.0 %) were not screened. The proportion of eligible women screened by the NBCCEDP varied across states, with an estimated range of 3.2 % (90 % CI 2.9-3.5 %) to 52.8 % (90 % CI 36.1-69.6 %) and a median of 13.7 % (90 % CI 11.0-16.4 %). The estimated proportion of eligible women aged 40-64 who received mammograms through the NBCCEDP was relatively constant over time, 11.1 % (90 % CI 10.2-11.9 %) in 1998-1999 and 10.6 % (90 % CI 10.4-11.9 %) in 2011-2012 (p = 0.23), even as the number of women screened increased from 343,692 to 549,043. CONCLUSIONS: Although the NBCCEDP provided screening services to over a half million low-income uninsured women for mammography, it served a small percentage of those eligible. The majority of low-income, uninsured women were not screened.

INTRODUCTION: Many studies have estimated national chronic disease costs, but state-level estimates are limited. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed the Chronic Disease Cost Calculator (CDCC), which estimates state-level costs for arthritis, asthma, cancer, congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease, hypertension, stroke, other heart diseases, depression, and diabetes. METHODS: Using publicly available and restricted secondary data from multiple national data sets from 2004 through 2008, disease-attributable annual per-person medical and absenteeism costs were estimated. Total state medical and absenteeism costs were derived by multiplying per person costs from regressions by the number of people in the state treated for each disease. Medical costs were estimated for all payers and separately for Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurers. Projected medical costs for all payers (2010 through 2020) were calculated using medical costs and projected state population counts. RESULTS: Median state-specific medical costs ranged from $410 million (asthma) to $1.8 billion (diabetes); median absenteeism costs ranged from $5 million (congestive heart failure) to $217 million (arthritis). CONCLUSION: CDCC provides methodologically rigorous chronic disease cost estimates. These estimates highlight possible areas of cost savings achievable through targeted prevention efforts or research into new interventions and treatments.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals have not received recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening before they become Medicare eligible at the age of 65. We aimed to estimate the long-term implications of increased CRC screening in the pre-Medicare population (50-64 y) on costs in the pre-Medicare and Medicare populations (65+ y). METHODS: We used 2 independently developed microsimulation models [Microsimulation Screening Analysis Colon (MISCAN) and Simulation Model of CRC (SimCRC)] to project CRC screening and treatment costs under 2 scenarios, starting in 2010: "current trends" (60% of the population up-to-date with screening recommendations) and "enhanced participation" (70% up-to-date). The population was scaled to the projected US population for each year between 2010 and 2060. Costs per year were derived by age group (50-64 and 65+ y). RESULTS: By 2060, the discounted cumulative total costs in the pre-Medicare population were $35.7 and $28.1 billion higher with enhanced screening participation, than in the current trends scenario ($252.1 billion with MISCAN and $239.5 billion with SimCRC, respectively). Because of CRC treatment savings with enhanced participation, cumulative costs in the Medicare population were $18.3 and $32.7 billion lower (current trends: $423.5 billion with MISCAN and $372.8 billion with SimCRC). Over the 50-year time horizon an estimated 60% (MISCAN) and 89% (SimCRC) of the increased screening costs could be offset by savings in Medicare CRC treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Increased CRC screening participation in the pre-Medicare population could reduce CRC incidence and mortality, whereas the additional screening costs can be largely offset by long-term Medicare treatment savings.

OBJECTIVE: To provide information on the sources of data for estimating low-income, uninsured populations. To recommend uses of these data sources. To demonstrate the application of these data sources in the public health field, using the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program as an example. METHODS: We describe U.S. Census Bureau data sources for identifying low-income, uninsured populations using two population surveys: the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS ASEC) and the American Community Survey (ACS), and using one model-based estimation program, the Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE). We provide recommendations for use of these data sources, and we use CPS ASEC and SAHIE to estimate the percent of U.S. women eligible for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). RESULTS: CPS ASEC, ACS, and SAHIE are produced by the U.S. Census Bureau, and they are reliable sources for estimates of the low-income, uninsured populations in the USA. Key characteristics of these three data sources were presented to highlight the strengths of each to meet the needs of various programs at national and local levels. Recommendations are made on the use of the data sources. Based on these three data sources, estimates of NBCCEDP eligibility showed substantial variation over time at the national and state levels, and across states and counties. CONCLUSIONS: Publicly funded programs that are directed toward low-income, uninsured individuals require information on their eligible populations to make decisions about program policy and resource allocation, and to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. The U.S. Census Bureau produces three data sources (CPS ASEC, ACS, and SAHIE) for these estimates. The percent of U.S. women eligible for NBCCEDP varies over time and across states and counties. The data sources for these estimates are changing in order to measure key dimensions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and can provide helpful information for assessing the legislation's impact.

PURPOSE: There is substantial variation across the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) grantees in terms of the proportion of the eligible population served by the grantees each year (hereafter referred to as the screening proportion). In this paper, we assess program- and state-level factors to better understand the reason for this variation in breast and cervical cancer screening proportions across the NBCCEDP grantees. METHODS: We constructed a longitudinal data set, consisting of data from NBCCEDP grantees for each of the three study years (program-years 2006-2007, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010). We performed multivariate analysis to explain the variation in breast and cervical cancer screening proportions across the grantees. The program-level factors studied were the total federal funds received, average cost of screening women by grantee, and the overall organizational structure. The state-level variables included were urban versus rural mix, access to care, and the size of the eligible population. RESULTS: Of the 48 grantees included in the study, those that serve larger populations, as measured by the size of the population and the percentage of women eligible for services, had lower screening proportions. Higher average cost of service delivery was also associated with lower screening proportions. In addition, grantees whose populations were more concentrated in urban areas had lower screening proportions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the average cost of screening, the overall size of the population eligible, and the concentration of population in urban areas all had a negative relationship to the proportion of eligible women screened by NBCCEDP grantees.

Early Detection Program,” contains 16 articles that provide an in-depth examination of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). Since 1990, the NBCCEDP has provided access to breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services to more than 4.3 million low-income, underinsured, and uninsured women in the USA [1]. It is the largest organized cancer screening program in the country and, by design, reaches women who are underserved and may not have access to these services otherwise. | The first article in this special issue provides an overview of the NBCCEDP—its design, history, service delivery components, program impact, and potential role moving forward [2]. The remaining articles use data from the NBCCEDP to describe its reach and impact. Together, these findings provide a vital resource for understanding the important role of the NBCCEDP in providing high-quality breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services to underserved women in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides breast and cervical cancer screens to low-income, uninsured, and underinsured women. We describe the number and proportion of women eligible for cervical cancer screening services and the proportion of eligible women screened over the period 1997-2012. METHODS: Low-income, uninsured, and underinsured women aged 18-64 years who have not had a hysterectomy are eligible for cervical cancer screening through the NBCCEDP. We estimated the number of low-income, uninsured women using data from the US Census Bureau. We adjusted our estimates for hysterectomy status using the National Health Interview Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We used data from the NBCCEDP to describe the number of women receiving NBCCEDP-funded screening and calculated the proportion of eligible women who received screening through the NBCCEDP at the national level (by age group, race/ethnicity) and at the state level by age group. We used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to estimate the proportion of NBCCEDP-eligible women who were screened outside the NBCCEDP and the proportion that are not screened. RESULTS: We estimate that in 2010-2012, 705,970 women aged 18-64 years, 6.5 % (705,970 of 9.8 million) of the eligible population, received NBCCEDP-funded Pap tests. We estimate that 60.2 % of eligible women aged 18-64 years were screened outside the NBCCEDP and 33.3 % were not screened. The NBCCEDP provided 623,603 screens to women aged 40-64 years, an estimated 16.5 % of the eligible population, and 83,660 screens to women aged 18-39 years, representing an estimated 1.2 % of the eligible population. The estimated proportions of eligible women screened in each state ranged from 1.5 to 32.7 % and 5 % to 73.2 % among the 18-64 and 40-64 years age groups, respectively. Changes in the proportion of eligible women screened over the study period were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Although the program provided cervical screening to over 700,000 women between 2010 and 2012, it served a small percent of those eligible. The proportion of women screened varied substantially across age groups, racial/ethnic groups, and states. Many low-income, uninsured women are not being screened.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify end-of-life (EOL) medical costs for adult Medicaid beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer. DATA SOURCES: We linked Medicaid administrative data with 2000-2003 cancer registry data to identify 3,512 adult Medicaid beneficiaries who died after a cancer diagnosis and matched them to a cohort of beneficiaries without cancer who died during the same period. STUDY DESIGN: We used multivariable regression analysis to estimate incremental per-person EOL cost after controlling for beneficiaries' age, race/ethnicity, sex, cancer site, and state of residence. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: End-of-life costs during the final 4 months of life were about $10,000 higher for Medicaid cancer patients than for those without cancer. Medicaid cancer patients are more intensive users of inpatient and ambulatory services than are Medicaid patients without cancer. Medicaid cancer patients who die soon after diagnosis have higher costs of care and use inpatient services more intensely than do Medicaid patients without cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid cancer patients incur substantially higher EOL costs than noncancer patients. This increased cost may reflect the cost of palliative care. Future studies should assess the types and timing of services provided to Medicaid cancer patients at the EOL.

BACKGROUND: Although state Medicaid programs cover cancer screening, Medicaid beneficiaries are less likely to be screened for cancer and are more likely to present with tumors of an advanced stage than are those with other insurance. The current study was performed to determine whether state Medicaid eligibility and reimbursement policies affect the receipt of breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening among Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: Cross-sectional regression analyses of 2007 Medicaid data from 46 states and the District of Columbia were performed to examine associations between state-specific Medicaid reimbursement/eligibility policies and receipt of cancer screening. The study sample included individuals aged 21 years to 64 years who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicaid for at least 4 months. Subsamples eligible for each screening test were: Papanicolaou test among 2,136,511 patients, mammography among 792,470 patients, colonoscopy among 769,729 patients, and fecal occult blood test among 753,868 patients. State-specific Medicaid variables included median screening test reimbursement, income/financial asset eligibility requirements, physician copayments, and frequency of eligibility renewal. RESULTS: Increases in screening test reimbursement demonstrated mixed associations (positive and negative) with the likelihood of receiving screening tests among Medicaid beneficiaries. In contrast, increased reimbursements for office visits were found to be positively associated with the odds of receiving all screening tests examined, including colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.06-1.08), fecal occult blood test (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10), Papanicolaou test (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03), and mammography (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03). Effects of other state-specific Medicaid policies varied across the screening tests examined. CONCLUSIONS: Increased reimbursement for office visits was consistently associated with an increased likelihood of being screened for cancer, and may be an important policy tool for increasing screening among this vulnerable population.