Comparing Cancer Care, Outcomes, and Costs Across Health Systems: Charting the Course

Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Rm 720, 1518 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30322. .
JNCI Monographs 08/2013; 2013(46):124-30. DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgt011
Source: PubMed
Download full-text


Available from: Catia Angiolini, Oct 11, 2015
  • Source

    JNCI Monographs 08/2013; 2013(46):1-6. DOI:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgt005
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Estimates of the costs associated with cancer care are essential both for assessing burden of disease at the population level and for conducting economic evaluations of interventions to prevent, detect, or treat cancer. Comparisons of cancer costs between health systems and across countries can improve understanding of the economic consequences of different health-care policies and programs. We conducted a structured review of the published literature on colorectal cancer (CRC) costs, including direct medical, direct nonmedical (ie, patient and caregiver time, travel), and productivity losses. We used MEDLINE to identify English language articles published between 2000 and 2010 and found 55 studies. The majority were conducted in the United States (52.7%), followed by France (12.7%), Canada (10.9%), the United Kingdom (9.1%), and other countries (9.1%). Almost 90% of studies estimated direct medical costs, but few studies estimated patient or caregiver time costs or productivity losses associated with CRC. Within a country, we found significant heterogeneity across the studies in populations examined, health-care delivery settings, methods for identifying incident and prevalent patients, types of medical services included, and analyses. Consequently, findings from studies with seemingly the same objective (eg, costs of chemotherapy in year following CRC diagnosis) are difficult to compare. Across countries, aggregate and patient-level estimates vary in so many respects that they are almost impossible to compare. Our findings suggest that valid cost comparisons should be based on studies with explicit standardization of populations, services, measures of costs, and methods with the goal of comparability within or between health systems or countries. Expected increases in CRC prevalence and costs in the future highlight the importance of such studies for informing health-care policy and program planning.
    JNCI Monographs 08/2013; 2013(46):62-78. DOI:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgt001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: General frameworks of the cancer screening process are available, but none directly compare the process in detail across different organ sites. This limits the ability of medical and public health professionals to develop and evaluate coordinated screening programs that apply resources and population management strategies available for one cancer site to other sites. We present a trans-organ conceptual model that incorporates a single screening episode for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers into a unified framework based on clinical guidelines and protocols; the model concepts could be expanded to other organ sites. The model covers four types of care in the screening process: risk assessment, detection, diagnosis, and treatment. Interfaces between different provider teams (eg, primary care and specialty care), including communication and transfer of responsibility, may occur when transitioning between types of care. Our model highlights across each organ site similarities and differences in steps, interfaces, and transitions in the screening process and documents the conclusion of a screening episode. This model was developed within the National Cancer Institute-funded consortium Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR). PROSPR aims to optimize the screening process for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer and includes seven research centers and a statistical coordinating center. Given current health care reform initiatives in the United States, this conceptual model can facilitate the development of comprehensive quality metrics for cancer screening and promote trans-organ comparative cancer screening research. PROSPR findings will support the design of interventions that improve screening outcomes across multiple cancer sites. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail:
    Journal of the National Cancer Institute 06/2015; 107(6). DOI:10.1093/jnci/djv120 · 12.58 Impact Factor