Article

Estimating personal costs incurred by a woman participating in mammography screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program

Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, USA.
Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.9). 08/2008; 113(3):592-601. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23613
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) covers the direct clinical costs of breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic follow-up for medically underserved, low-income women. Personal costs are not covered. In this report, the authors estimated personal costs per woman participating in NBCCEDP mammography screening by race/ethnicity and also estimated lifetime personal costs (ages 50-74 years).
A decision analysis model was constructed and parameterized by using empiric data from a retrospective cohort survey of mammography rescreening among women ages 50 years to 64 years who participated in the NBCCEDP. Data from 1870 women were collected from 1999 to 2000. The model simulated the flow of resources incurred by a woman participating in the NBCCEDP. The analysis was stratified by annual income into 2 scenarios: Scenario 1, <$10,000; and Scenario 2, from $10,000 to <$20,000. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to appraise uncertainty, and all costs were standardized to 2000 U.S. dollars.
In Scenario 1, for all races/ethnicities, a woman incurred a 1-time cost of $17 and a discounted lifetime cost of $108 for 10 screens and $262 for 25 screens; in Scenario 2, these amounts were $31 and from $197 to $475, respectively. In both scenarios, a non-Hispanic white woman incurred the highest cost. The sensitivity analyses revealed that >70% of cost incurred was attributable to opportunity cost.
Capturing and quantifying personal costs will help ascertain the total cost (ie, societal cost) of providing mammography screening to a medically underserved, low-income woman participating in a publicly funded cancer screening program and, thus, will help determine the true cost-effectiveness of such programs.

0 Followers
 · 
64 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) is the largest cancer screening program for low-income women in the United States. This study updates previous estimates of the costs of delivering preventive cancer screening services in the NBCCEDP. METHODS: We developed a standardized web-based cost-assessment tool to collect annual activity-based cost data on screening for breast and cervical cancer in the NBCCEDP. Data were collected from 63 of the 66 programs that received funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the 2006/2007 fiscal year. We used these data to calculate costs of delivering preventive public health services in the program. RESULTS: We estimated the total cost of all NBCCEDP services to be $296 (standard deviation [SD], $123) per woman served (including the estimated value of in-kind donations, which constituted approximately 15% of this total estimated cost). The estimated cost of screening and diagnostic services was $145 (SD, $38) per women served, which represented 57.7% of the total cost excluding the value of in-kind donations. Including the value of in-kind donations, the weighted mean cost of screening a woman for breast cancer was $110 with an office visit and $88 without, the weighted mean cost of a diagnostic procedure was $401, and the weighted mean cost per breast cancer detected was $35,480. For cervical cancer, the corresponding cost estimates were $61, $21, $415, and $18,995, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These NBCCEDP cost estimates may help policy makers in planning and implementing future costs for various potential changes to the program. (C) 2014 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 08/2014; 120 Suppl 16(16):2604-11. DOI:10.1002/cncr.28816 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of national data generated by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP); to assess variables collected through the program that are appropriate to use for program management, evaluation, and data analysis; and to identify potential data-quality issues. METHODS: Information was abstracted randomly from 5603 medical records selected from 6 NBCCEDP-funded state programs, and 76 categorical variables and 11 text-based breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic variables were collected. Concordance was estimated between abstracted data and the data collected by the NBCCEDP. Overall and outcome-specific concordance was calculated for each of the key variables. Four screening performance measures also were estimated by comparing the program data with the abstracted data. RESULTS: Basic measures of program outcomes, such as the percentage of women with cancer or with abnormal screening tests, had a high concordance rate. Variables with poor or inconsistent concordance included reported breast symptoms, receipt of fine-needle aspiration, and receipt of colposcopy with biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: The overall conclusion from this comprehensive validation project of the NBCCEDP is that, with few exceptions, the data collected from individual program sites and reported to the CDC are valid and consistent with sociodemographic and clinical data within medical records. (C) 2014 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 08/2014; 120 Suppl 16(16):2597-603. DOI:10.1002/cncr.28825 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Endoscopic surveillance has been proven effective in prolonging the survival of gastric cancer (GC) patients. However, there is limited evidence on the cost efficiency of delivering this intervention, especially on a national level in spite of cost efficiency being a major determinant of the actual cost-effectiveness of a cancer prevention programme. The Singapore Gastric Cancer Epidemiology Clinical and Genetic Programme (GCEP) is a demonstration project offering scheduled endoscopy to the Chinese population aged 50 years or older in Singapore. By assessing the cost efficiency of the GCEP, this study aimed to provide empirical evidence on the cost structure and mechanisms underlying cost generation in conducting GC surveillance, thus informing resource allocation and programme budgeting for the Singapore government. Methods From a societal perspective, we reported on the direct cost (resource consumption) of conducting endoscopic surveillance through the GCEP network. We retrospectively collected individual-level data of 216 subjects recruited at the National University Hospital, Singapore from 01/04/2004 to 31/10/2010. The Overall Cost, Clinical Cost, GCEP Cost and Personal Cost incurred in serving one subject was computed and discounted as 2004 US dollar (US$) per capita for every year. The Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) was used to model the data. Results All cost indices continuously declined over the 6.5-year costing period. For the total sample, Overall Cost, Clinical Cost, GCEP Cost and Personal Cost declined by 42.3%, 54.1%, 30% and 25.7% respectively. This downward trend existed for age and gender subgroups and the high risk group only with cost reductions varying between 3.5% and 58.4%. The GEE models confirmed statistical significance of the downward trend and of its association with risk profile, where the moderate risk group had cost indices at most 77% of the high risk group. Conclusions Our study offered empirical evidence of improved cost efficiency of a surveillance programme for GC in the early phase of programme implementation. Mechanisms such as economies of scale and self-learning were found to be involved in the cost reduction. Our findings highlighted the importance of assessing the cost efficiency and offered valuable insights for future programme budgeting and policy making.
    BMC Health Services Research 04/2013; 13(1):139. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-139 · 1.66 Impact Factor