Automated telephone calls to enhance colorectal cancer screening: Economic analysis

3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227-1110. E-mail: .
The American journal of managed care (Impact Factor: 2.26). 11/2012; 18(11):691-9.
Source: PubMed


To estimate the cost-effectiveness of an automated telephone intervention for colorectal cancer screening from a managed care perspective, using data from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Intervention patients received calls for fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) screening. We searched patients' electronic medical records for any screening (defined as FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, double-contrast barium enema, or colonoscopy) during follow-up. Intervention costs included project implementation and management, telephone calls, patient identification, and tracking. Screening costs included FOBT (kits, mailing, and processing) and any completed screening tests during follow-up. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the cost per additional screen.

At 6 months, average costs for intervention and control patients were $37 (25% screened) and $34 (19% screened), respectively. The ICER at 6 months was $42 per additional screen, less than half what other studies have reported. Cost-effectiveness probability was 0.49, 0.84, and 0.99 for willingness-to-pay thresholds of $40, $100, and $200, respectively. Similar results were seen at 9 months. A greater increase in FOBT testing was seen for patients aged >70 years (45/100 intervention, 33/100 control) compared with younger patients (25/100 intervention, 21/100 control). The intervention was dominant for patients aged >70 years and was $73 per additional screen for younger patients. It increased screening rates by about 6% and costs by $3 per patient.

At willingness to pay of $100 or more per additional screening test, an automated telephone reminder intervention can be an optimal use of resources.

4 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rates of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are particularly low among poor and minority patients. Multifaceted interventions have been shown to improve cancer-screening rates, yet the relative impact of the specific components of these interventions has not been assessed. Identifying the specific components necessary to improve cancer-screening rates is critical to tailor interventions in resource limited environments. To assess the relative impact of various components of the reminder, recall, and outreach (RRO) model on BC and CRC screening rates within a safety net practice. Pragmatic randomized trial. Men and women aged 50-74 years past due for CRC screen and women aged 40-74 years past due for BC screening. We randomized 1,008 patients to one of four groups: (1) reminder letter; (2) letter and automated telephone message (Letter + Autodial); (3) letter, automated telephone message, and point of service prompt (Letter + Autodial + Prompt); or (4) letter and personal telephone call (Letter + Personal Call). Documentation of mammography or colorectal cancer screening at 52 weeks following randomization. Compared to a reminder letter alone, Letter + Personal Call was more effective at improving screening rates for BC (17.8 % vs. 27.5 %; AOR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.2-4.0) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 21.5 %; AOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.1-3.9). Compared to letter alone, a Letter + Autodial + Prompt was also more effective at improving rates of BC screening (17.8 % vs. 28.2 %; AOR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.1-3.7) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 19.6 %; AOR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.0-3.7). Letter + Autodial was not more effective than a letter alone at improving screening rates. The addition of a personal telephone call or a patient-specific provider prompt were both more effective at improving mammogram and CRC screening rates compared to a reminder letter alone. The use of automated telephone calls, however, did not provide any incremental benefit to a reminder letter alone.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 09/2013; 29(1). DOI:10.1007/s11606-013-2586-y · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent colorectal cancer screening studies focus on optimizing adherence. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of interventions using electronic health records (EHRs); automated mailings; and stepped support increases to improve 2-year colorectal cancer screening adherence. Analyses were based on a parallel-design, randomized trial in which three stepped interventions (EHR-linked mailings ["automated"]; automated plus telephone assistance ["assisted"]; or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal [navigated"]) were compared to usual care. Data were from August 2008 to November 2011, with analyses performed during 2012-2013. Implementation resources were micro-costed; research and registry development costs were excluded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were based on number of participants current for screening per guidelines over 2 years. Bootstrapping examined robustness of results. Intervention delivery cost per participant current for screening ranged from $21 (automated) to $27 (navigated). Inclusion of induced testing costs (e.g., screening colonoscopy) lowered expenditures for automated (ICER=-$159) and assisted (ICER=-$36) relative to usual care over 2 years. Savings arose from increased fecal occult blood testing, substituting for more expensive colonoscopies in usual care. Results were broadly consistent across demographic subgroups. More intensive interventions were consistently likely to be cost effective relative to less intensive interventions, with willingness to pay values of $600-$1,200 for an additional person current for screening yielding ≥80% probability of cost effectiveness. Two-year cost effectiveness of a stepped approach to colorectal cancer screening promotion based on EHR data is indicated, but longer-term cost effectiveness requires further study. Copyright © 2015 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    American journal of preventive medicine 06/2015; 48(6):714-21. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.12.016 · 4.53 Impact Factor