Expanding CRC screening: Understanding the options and the costs to providers Paul Brown Kelly Kohler University of North Carolina 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Practice Explorer Hearing Health Care Practice Management Program Contact Us (888)
Advertisements

MEDICAL HOME 1/2009 Mary Goldman, D.O., President of MAOFP.
Ideal Practice Workflow Revenue Maximization and Cost Efficiency Contact us : 2222 Morris Ave. 2nd Floor, Union, NJ Ph: (908)
All Payer Claims Database APCD Databases created by state mandate, that includes data derived from medical, eligibility, provider, pharmacy and /or dental.
CADF’s 2013 Programs I.Health Alliance for Austin’s Musicians II. St. Vincent De Paul III. Goodwill Central Texas IV. Donated Dental Services V.Austin.
Centralized Eligibility For Take Charge! program contracted healthcare providers.
The primary care excellence model Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake with a Patient Navigator Dr. Brian Mitchell, Co-Investigator Northern Ontario.
PATIENT NAVIGATION OVERVIEW CRF-CPEST 4/15/15
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs
Cancer Program Fewer Montanans experience late stage cancer. Fewer Montanans die of cancer. Metrics Biannual percent of Montanans who are up-to-date with.
Effective Date: March 16, 2012 Representatives must submit the following electronically: Request for appeal forms i561 and i501 The Disability Report-Appeal.
Proposed Cross-center Project Survey of Federally Qualified Health Centers Vicky Taylor & Vicki Young.
2015 User Conference How Care Plans Impact your Practice OP User Conference 2015 Presented by: Rena Lefkowitz PA-C Director of Training EHR Session.
Colorectal Cancer Screening: 2014 Change in methodology from previous years and 2013: administrative (claims) data only, rate per 1,000 mm. 2014:
Cost Effectiveness Analysis To Enhance Mammography Use Dave Alvey Paul Moley.
Patient Centered Medical Home What it means for Duffy Health Center Board Presentation September 10 th 2012.
Implementation of an evidence-based cancer screening program for an urban disabled population Ryan Goetz BSCh Lewis Cancer & Research Pavilion at St. Joseph’s/
Gender differences in colorectal cancer screening, attitudes and information preferences Joan M. Griffin, PhD Greta Friedemann-Sánchez, PhD Diana Burgess,
The Value of Partnerships: Advancing Our Efforts Through Collaboration ICC Cancer Summit October 3-4, 2011 Lorrie Graaf, American Cancer Society Bobbie.
American Public Health Association
The 2011 Iowa Dialogue on Colorectal Cancer Iowa Colorectal Cancer Focus Groups: What We Learned Iowa Dialogue on Colorectal Cancer September 16, 2011.
Shellie Ray Auburn University. Obesity is one of the most challenging health crises the country has ever faced. Second only to cigarette smoking, obesity.
Fall  designed for Honors College students or students with Honors College credentials  a full semester program in Rome in Fall 2011  hosted.
TouchPointCare Managing Care Transitions to Reduce Unplanned Readmissions for patients with Heart Failure, MI & Pneumonia.
The FluFIT Program: Leveraging Flu Shot Campaigns to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening October 11, 2013.
The Importance of Stool Occult Blood Tests in Getting to 80% Durado Brooks, MD, MPH Director, Cancer Control Interventions American Cancer Society.
IMPROVING IMMUNIZATION RATES. LEARNING OBJECTIVES Enhance understanding of benefits of a recall system for adolescent immunizations and well checks. Increase.
The Importance of Stool Occult Blood Tests in Getting to 80% Durado Brooks, MD, MPH Director, Cancer Control Interventions American Cancer Society, Inc.
June 18, 2010 Marty Larson.  Health Information Exchange  Meaningful Use Objectives  Conclusion.
Who Does What Improvement Facilitator Training Session 2.
Finding non-traditional allies for CRC screening Gloria D. Coronado, PhD Beverly B. Green, MD, MPH Policy- makers Community Partners Clinic staffPatients.
1 Department of Medical Assistance Services MMIS Training Out of State Addresses November 2012
Cancer Mortality Target Measuring and Monitoring at a National Level Jennifer Benjamin, Department of Health Kathy Elliott, National Cancer Action Team.
American College of Radiology Imaging Network ACRIN 6664 ACRIN 6664 – Protocol Review The National CT Colonography Trial Name(s) of presenters.
Improving Cancer Outcomes in Camden Dr Lucia Grun 15 October 2014.
Subject Screening, Recruitment, and Retention
Patient Care Coordination Community Health Center Challenges Belma Andric, MD, MPH May 26 th, 2015.
Presented by: Liz M. Baker, CHES NC Comprehensive Cancer Program 1.
ANNUAL WELLNESS VISIT PROGRAM PRESENTATION FOR [SUNSHINE CLINIC] ANNUAL WELLNESS VISIT PROGRAM PRESENTATION FOR [SUNSHINE CLINIC] Presented By: [Distributor.
New Links to Colorectal Cancer Prevention American Cancer Society Wellmark Foundation.
Developing an Effective Ambulatory Care Process to Improve Rates of Colorectal Cancer Screening Shabana Farooq MD,FAAFP April 27, 2015.
Medical Advisory Board Quality assurance Maine Cancer Registry US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cancer Treatment Centers and Cancer Treating.
Colorectal Cancer: Education and Screening in a Rural Community Grinnell Regional Public Health.
Hiding in Plain Sight: Undiagnosed Hypertension Melissa Barajas Director of Population Health.
Cash Assistance to Improve Access to Maternal Health Services in an Urban Humanitarian Setting — Initial Findings From An Innovative Pilot Project Jordan,
Dr. Rachel Syme AD, Institute of Cancer Research, CIHR Dr. Bernie Eigl Provincial Director, Clinical Trials, BCCA Incremental Costs of Cancer Clinical.
Children’s Outcomes Research Program The Children’s Hospital Aurora, CO Children’s Outcomes Research Program The Children’s Hospital Aurora, CO Colorado.
Effective and Collaborative Communication with KPD
ALAMO FAMILY HEALTH TEAM 1.
Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines
WellOne Primary Medical and Dental Care
Penn State University Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
Strategies to Improve AAA Screening Rates in Primary Care
OLD PROCESS FLOW FOR NEW PATIENT REGISTRATION
Hayes High School Counseling Dept
Increasing Access to Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural East Texas
WellOne Primary Medical and Dental Care
Process Indicators for Patient Navigation
Cervical Cancer Screening Primary Drivers (Practice Level)
Bell work Think back to our previous discussions concerning HIPAA. Research the following: Name at least 5-7 items that would be included in our Electronic.
Colon Alert: Providers Need Reminders Too August 23, 2017
Standing Orders as a System Change
New Medicines Service(NMS) Maximising Advances Services
OLD PROCESS FLOW FOR NEW PATIENT REGISTRATION
Information for Patients Please return to reception
Duke Carolina Visiting Professorship in Geriatric Nursing
Discussion Topics Addressing Immunization Challenges
Mount Auburn Medical Associates
OLD PROCESS FLOW FOR NEW PATIENT REGISTRATION
National Immunization Conference 2005 March 22, 2005 ~ Washington D.C.
Presentation transcript:

Expanding CRC screening: Understanding the options and the costs to providers Paul Brown Kelly Kohler University of North Carolina 1

Two types of studies 1. Effectiveness/Cost effectiveness Addresses the question Should we screen for CRC and, if so, with what modality? Example: – 2002 review of colorectal cancer screening – Cost effective $10,000 to $25,000 per life year gain Conclusion Colorectal cancer screening with FOBT should be undertaken 2

2. Micro-level costing study Addresses the question How should we screen and what does it cost to screen? Focus on screening process – Recruitment, testing, relaying results, etc 3

CRC Screening Program Overview Identify Eligible Population Recruit and enroll Test Dispatch Results Normal Routine re-call Abnormal Diagnostic CS NormalPolypCancer Unclear Repeat FOBT/FIT Registry, EHRs, media ads, awareness campaigns Reminder letters, phone calls, Dr visits, etc. Phone calls, follow- up appointments, endoscopy referrals, case manager FOBT, colonoscopy, etc. 4

Costing study – Question is not “Should we screen”? – Question is “Should we increase our current efforts?” Relevant to the providers in the US – Most already doing some type of screening – Question What will it cost us to increase our efforts? What will the benefit be? 5

Issues Not looking at the total cost – Interested in marginal (additional) cost Actual expenditures not needed – Not an ‘audit’ of expenditures Identify resources Unit costs Overheads – “What cost could other providers expect to incur?” Sensitivity analysis Explore robustness of results to assumptions or areas of uncertainty 6

Example – Colorectal cancer screening (Lewis et al, 2008) Issue: – People not coming in for regular CRC screening Context – Hospital clinic with records of patients – Can access records, identify who is not up-to-date Intervention – Send letter signed by provider – Include decision aid (video tape) – Follow up phone calls to schedule appointment 7

Effectiveness 137 patients – identified from database as being eligible but not current for screening Sent materials 97 followed up with phone call – 55 contacted Final numbers screened – 20/137 intervention (15%) – 4/100 control group (4%) 8

Is the program “worth it?” Is the program effective? – Yes – Improved screening rates is good Will the clinic continue with the program? – “Will the clinic be willing to pay for the program?” 9

Cost of program 10 Item costQuantityCost Mail out postage$ mailed$ Mail back postage$ returned$ Video/DVD$ sent$ Materials$ sent$ Staff time$17.00 per hour9 hours$ Telephone * Staff time$17.00 per hour 5 minutes for each of 97 called $ minutes for each of 55 reached $ Sub total $1, Overhead80% $1, Total cost (per 137) $3, Cost per additional patient screened $205.68

Is the program “worth it?” Society $206 per person screened Look at benefit of having an additional person screened Prob of getting preventing CR Cost and benefit from getting CRC Etc. Organization Unlikely to realize long term benefits Net Revenue will depend upon Effectiveness Reimbursement Etc. 11

Net revenue – Each program 12 n = 137 No programWith program Effectiveness Original4.0% 0 Program0 15.0% Revenue Reimbursement$498 * Total Revenue$2,729$10,234 Cost Cost per test$300 $300 ** Program$0 $3,291 Total cost$1,644$9,456 Difference * from CMS **lose money > $338 $1,085$778

Comparing programs 13 n = 137 Effectiveness Original4.0% Program15.0% Revenue Reimbursement$498 Total Revenue$7,505 Cost Cost per test $300 Program$3,291 Total cost $7,812 Difference-$307

Motivation for costing study “How much will it cost to expand screening beyond our current efforts?” “What do the results depend upon? Confidence?” – Break-even/sensitivity analysis Level of effectiveness that need to be reached Level of reimbursement, Etc. 14

Break even analysis 15 Break even n = 137 Screening costReimbursementEffectiveness Original4.0% Program15.0% 16.1% Revenue Reimbursement$498$519$498 Total Revenue$7,505$7,814$8,255 Cost Cost per screen $280$300 Program$3,291 Total cost $7,505$7,814$8,255 Difference* from CMS$0

Motivation for costing study If hospital medical directors care about costs… – Can help overcome financial barrier – Profits or budgets? 16