Article

Trends in colorectal cancer testing among Medicare subpopulations.

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California Davis, 4860 Y Street, Suite 2300, Sacramento CA 95817, USA.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.28). 07/2008; 35(3):194-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.029
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In 1998, Medicare initiated universal coverage for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening via fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and sigmoidoscopy. In mid-2001, universal coverage was advanced to screening colonoscopy. This study sought to determine whether trends in CRC testing differed among racial/ethnic, age, or gender subgroups of the Medicare population.
In 2006, claims from 1995 to 2003 were analyzed for annual 5% random samples of fee-for-service Medicare enrollees living in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions to calculate the annual, age-standardized percentages of subjects who received FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy. Logistic regression then modeled trends in annual test use within racial/ethnic, age, and gender subgroups across three Medicare coverage periods (precoverage [1995-1997]; limited coverage [1998-mid-2001]; and full coverage [mid-2001-2003]).
The annual use of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy declined from 1995 to 2003 in all racial/ethnic groups, but the relative decline in sigmoidoscopy use was greater among whites compared to nonwhites. In contrast, colonoscopy use increased substantially in all racial/ethnic groups. However, relative to the precoverage period among whites, the full-coverage period was associated with significantly greater colonoscopy use among whites (OR=2.14; 95% CI=2.09, 2.19) than blacks (OR=1.86; 95% CI=1.75, 1.96); Asian/Pacific Islanders (OR=1.73; 95% CI=1.62, 1.86); or Hispanics (OR=1.65; 95% CI=1.49, 1.81). The use of colonoscopy during the full-coverage period was also differentially greater among enrollees aged <80 years. CRC testing trends were similar among male and female enrollees.
Colonoscopy is supplanting sigmoidoscopy as a CRC test among Medicare enrollees, while FOBT use is in decline. The transition from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy has occurred more quickly among white than nonwhite Medicare enrollees.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Laura-Mae Baldwin, Oct 07, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
84 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare colorectal cancer screening rates in veterans receiving primary care (PC) in Veterans Administration (VA) community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) and VA medical centers (VAMCs). The VA Outpatient Care Files were used to identify 2 837 770 patients ≥50 years with ≥2 PC visits in 2010. Veterans undergoing screening/surveillance colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, fecal-occult-blood testing (FOBT), and double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) were identified from ICD-9-CM/CPT codes. Patients were categorized as VAMC (n = 1 403 273; 49.5%) or CBOC (1 434 497; 50.5%) based on where majority of PC encounters occurred and as high risk (n = 284 090) or average risk (n = 2 553 680) based on colorectal cancer risk factors and validated ICD-9-CM-based algorithms. CBOC patients were older than VAMC (mean ages 69.3 vs 67.4 years; P < .001), more likely (P < .001) to be male (96.5% vs 95.1%), and white (67.8% vs 64.2%), but less likely to be high-risk (9.4% vs 10.5%; P < .001). Rates of colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE were all lower in CBOC (P < .001). Among high-risk veterans, rates in CBOC and VAMC, respectively, were 27.4% versus 36.8% for colonoscopy, 1.3% versus 0.8% for sigmoidoscopy, and 0.8% versus 0.5% for DCBE. Among average-risk veterans, these rates were 1.3% versus 1.9%, 0.2% versus 0.1%, and 0.2% versus 0.1%, respectively. The differences remained after adjusting for age/comorbidity. The adjusted odds of colonoscopy for CBOC were 0.73 (95% confidence interval = 0.64-0.82) for average risk and 0.76 (95% confidence interval = 0.67-0.87) for high risk. In contrast, the use of FOBT was relatively similar in CBOCs and VAMCs among both high risk (11.1% vs 11.2%) and average risk (14.3% vs 14.1%). Screening rates were similar between those younger than 65 years and older than 65 years. Veterans receiving PC in CBOCs are less likely to receive screening colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE than VAMC according to VA records. The lower use in CBOC was not offset by higher use of FOBT, including the degree to which CBOC patients may be more reliant to use non-VA services. The clinical appropriateness of these differences merits further examination.
    07/2013; DOI:10.1177/2150131913494842
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To implement a colon cancer screening program for uninsured or underinsured Iowans. All 1995 uninsured patients or patients with Iowa Care insurance aged 50 to 64 years attending the University of Iowa Clinic or the Iowa City Free Medical Clinic were mailed information about the project. Recruitment also took place in person, by having the clinic receptionist hand subjects a research packet, and through community posters. Individuals with colonic symptoms or who were up to date with screening were ineligible. Eligible subjects received a free fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and those with positive FITs were provided with a colonoscopy at no cost to them. Of 449 individuals who completed eligibility forms (23% of the study population), 297 (66%) were eligible and were provided with an FIT. Two-hundred thirty-five (79%) returned a stool sample, with 49 (21%) testing positive. Thirty of the 49 (61%) individuals had a colonoscopy, and 20 individuals had at least 1 polyp biopsied. Thirteen individuals had at least 1 tubular adenoma; 2 had adenomas more than 1 cm in diameter, with no colon cancers identified. Face-to-face recruitment had the highest rate of returned FITs (72%) compared with handing the subject a research packet (3%) or a mailing only (9%) (Chi-square, P < .001). There was high interest in and compliance with colon cancer screening using a FIT among underinsured individuals. Although the FIT positivity rate was higher than expected, many individuals did not complete recommended follow-up colonoscopies. Population-based strategies for offering FIT could significantly increase colon cancer screening among disadvantaged individuals, but programs will have to develop sustainable mechanisms to include the necessary organization and address substantial costs of providing mass screening, as well as facilitating and providing colonoscopies for those who test positive.
    04/2010; 1(1):43-49. DOI:10.1177/2150131909352191
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To conduct a systematic review of the use and quality (including underuse, overuse, and misuse) of appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, including factors associated with screening, effective interventions to improve screening rates, current capacity, and monitoring and tracking the use and quality. Trends in the use and quality of CRC screening tests is also presented. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Trials Registry, supplemented by handsearches, for studies published in English from January 1998 through September 2009. We used standard Evidence-based Practice Center methods of dual review of abstracts, full text articles, abstractions, quality rating, and quality grading. We resolved disagreements by consensus. Results: We found multiple problems of underuse, overuse, and misuse of CRC screening. We identified a total of 116 articles for inclusion into the systematic review, including a total of 72 studies qualified for inclusion for key question (KQ) 2, 21 for KQ 3, 12 for KQ 4, and 8 for KQ 5. A number of patient-level factors are associated with lower screening rates, including having low income or less education, being uninsured or of Hispanic or Asian descent, not being acculturated into the United States, and having less or reduced access to care. Being insured, of higher income or education, and non-Hispanic white, participating in other cancer screenings, having a family history of CRC or personal history of another cancer, as well as receiving a physician recommendation to be screened, are associated with higher screening rates. Interventions that effectively increased CRC screening with high strength of evidence include patient reminders, one-on-one interactions, eliminating structural barriers, and system-level changes. The largest magnitude of improvement came from one-on-one interactions and eliminating barriers. Purely educational small-media interventions do not improve screening rates. Evidence is mixed for decision aids, although certain designs may be effective. No studies tested interventions to reduce overuse or misuse of CRC screening. We found no studies that assessed monitoring systems for underuse, overuse, and misuse of CRC screening. Modeling studies, using various assumptions, show that if the United States were to adopt a colonoscopy-only approach to CRC screening and everyone were to agree to be screened in this way, it is likely that colonoscopy capacity would need to be substantially increased. Both CRC screening and patient-physician discussions of CRC screening are underused, and important problems of overuse and misuse also exist. Some interventions hold promise for improvement. The research priority is to design and test interventions to increase screening and CRC screening discussions, building on the effective approaches identified in this review, and tailored to specific population needs. In addition, new interventions to reduce overuse and misuse should be designed and tested, along with studies of ongoing monitoring systems that are linked to feedback and continued improvement efforts.
    Evidence report/technology assessment 02/2010;