ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2019
Assessing adherence and cost-benefit of colorectal cancer screening for accountable providers.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Preventing Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Deaths: Assessing the Impact of Increased Screening.Preventing chronic disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess adherence and costs-benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings from an accountable care organization/population health perspective. We performed a retrospective review of 94 patients (50-75 years of age) in an integrated safety net system for whom fecal CRC screening was abnormal for the period of June 1, 2014, to June 1, 2016. A cost-benefit model was constructed using Medicare payment rates and a sensitivity analysis. Most patients included in the study (64/94, 68%) received or were offered a colonoscopy. Of those receiving a colonoscopy, 24 of 45 (53%) had an abnormal finding. Total direct medical costs avoided by screening the patient panel was $32,926 but could have exceeded $63,237 had more patients received follow-up colonoscopies. A sensitivity analysis with 1000 patients demonstrated total monetary benefits between $2.2 million and $8.16 million when follow-up and colonoscopy rates were allowed to vary. Although the resulting rates of follow-up were within the range reported in the literature, there is room for improvement, especially considering the monetary benefit that could be used on other diseases. Health systems and payers should work cooperatively to structure payment models to better incentivize CRC screenings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.