Mass screening in low-income populations: The challenges of securing diagnostic and treatment services in a national cancer screening program

University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law (Impact Factor: 0.96). 07/2000; 25(3):451-71. DOI: 10.1215/03616878-25-3-451
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Funding for many mass screening programs for low-income and uninsured populations provides resources for screening tests, yet only rarely does it provide coverage for necessary follow-up diagnostic and treatment services. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), a federally funded initiative that provides cancer screening to low-income uninsured and underinsured women, covers some diagnostic follow-up tests and no treatment services. We conducted in-depth case studies of seven state programs participating in the NBCCEDP to investigate the strategies and approaches being used to secure diagnostic and treatment services. The results suggest that the program relies on a patchwork of resources--at state and local levels--to provide diagnostic and treatment services. This includes a number of components of local safety nets, all of which are unstable and have uncertain futures. Public health disease-screening initiatives need to reconsider the feasibility of continued reliance on case-by-case appeals to the local safety net for diagnostic follow-up and treatment services.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 1990, Congress passed the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act because of increases in the number of low-income and uninsured women being diagnosed with breast cancer. This act authorized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) to provide high-quality and timely breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services to low-income, uninsured women. The program started in 1991, and, in 1993, Congress amended the act to allow the CDC to fund American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and tribal organizations. By 1996, the program was providing cancer screening across the United States. To ensure appropriate delivery and monitoring of services, the program adopted detailed policies on program management, evidence-based guidelines for clinical services, a systematized clinical data system to track service quality, and key partnerships that expand the program's reach. The NBCCEDP currently funds 67 programs, including all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 US territories, and 11 tribes or tribal organizations. Cancer 2014;120(16 suppl):2540-8. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
    Cancer 08/2014; 120 Suppl 16(16):2540-8. DOI:10.1002/cncr.28820 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services to low-income and underserved women through a network of providers and health care organizations. Although the program serves women 40-64 years old for breast cancer screening and 21-64 years old for cervical cancer screening, the priority populations are women 50-64 years old for breast cancer and women who have never or rarely been screened for cervical cancer. From 1991 through 2011, the NBCCEDP provided screening and diagnostic services to more than 4.3 million women, diagnosing 54,276 breast cancers, 2554 cervical cancers, and 123,563 precancerous cervical lesions. A critical component of providing screening services is to ensure that all women with abnormal screening results receive appropriate and timely diagnostic evaluations. Case management is provided to assist women with overcoming barriers that would delay or prevent follow-up care. Women diagnosed with cancer receive treatment through the states' Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Programs (a special waiver for Medicaid) if they are eligible. The NBCCEDP has performance measures that serve as benchmarks to monitor the completeness and timeliness of care. More than 90% of the women receive complete diagnostic care and initiate treatment less than 30 days from the time of their diagnosis. Provision of effective screening and diagnostic services depends on effective program management, networks of providers throughout the community, and the use of evidence-based knowledge, procedures, and technologies. Cancer 2014;120(16 suppl):2549-56. © 2014 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 08/2014; 120 Suppl 16(16):2549-56. DOI:10.1002/cncr.28823 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Community health centers are uniquely positioned to address disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as they have addressed other disparities. In 2012, the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, which is the funding agency for the health center program, added a requirement that health centers report CRC screening rates as a standard performance measure. These annually reported, publically available data are a major strategic opportunity to improve screening rates for CRC. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted provisions to expand the capacity of the federal health center program. The recent report of the Institute of Medicine on integrating public health and primary care included an entire section devoted to CRC screening as a target for joint work. These developments make this the ideal time to integrate lifesaving CRC screening into the preventive care already offered by health centers. This article offers 5 strategies that address the challenges health centers face in increasing CRC screening rates. The first 2 strategies focus on improving the processes of primary care. The third emphasizes working productively with other medical providers and institutions. The fourth strategy is about aligning leadership. The final strategy is focused on using tools that have been derived from models that work. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63:221-231. (©) 2013 American Cancer Society, Inc.
    CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 07/2013; 63(4):221-31. DOI:10.3322/caac.21191 · 162.50 Impact Factor