ArticlePreventive medicine2019
Estimating the impact of insurance expansion on colorectal cancer and related costs in North Carolina: A population-level simulation analysis.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating the long-term health impact and program cost-effectiveness of providing direct screening services to low-income, medically underserved patients through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP).Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Hispanic Patients Reported Factors for Colonoscopy "No-Shows" Despite a Culturally Tailored Patient Navigation Program.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2025Observational
- Closing the Gap: Approaches to Improving Colorectal Surgery Care for the Uninsured and Underinsured.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies Using Active Learning and Monte Carlo Simulation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Provision of colonoscopy in rural settings: A qualitative assessment of provider context, barriers, facilitators, and capacity.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2024Article
- Multi-level predictors of being up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Article
- Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Article
- Assessing the impact of multicomponent interventions on colorectal cancer screening through simulation: What would it take to reach national screening targets in North Carolina?Preventive medicine · 2022Article
- Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- Effects of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.Health economics · 2021Article
- Mailed FIT (fecal immunochemical test), navigation or patient reminders? Using microsimulation to inform selection of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening in Medicaid enrollees.Preventive medicine · 2019Article
- The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN): Advancing public health and implementation science.Preventive medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Although screening is effective in reducing incidence, mortality, and costs of treating colorectal cancer (CRC), it remains underutilized, in part due to limited insurance access. We used microsimulation to estimate the health and financial effects of insurance expansion and reduction scenarios in North Carolina (NC). We simulated the full lifetime of a simulated population of 3,298,265 residents age-eligible for CRC screening (ages 50-75) during a 5-year period starting January 1, 2018, including polyp incidence and progression and CRC screening, diagnosis, treatment, and mortality. Insurance scenarios included: status quo, which in NC includes access to the Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA); no ACA; NC Medicaid expansion, and Medicare-for-all. The insurance expansion scenarios would increase percent up-to-date with screening by 0.3 and 7.1 percentage points for Medicaid expansion and Medicare-for-all, respectively, while insurance reduction would reduce percent up-to-date by 1.1 percentage points, compared to the status quo (51.7% up-to-date), at the end of the 5-year period. Throughout these individuals' lifetimes, this change in CRC screening/testing results in an estimated 498 CRC cases averted with Medicaid expansion and 6031 averted with Medicare-for-all, and an additional 1782 cases if health insurance gains associated with ACA are lost. Estimated cost savings - balancing increased CRC screening/testing costs against decreased cancer treatment costs - are approximately $30 M and $970 M for Medicaid expansion and Medicare-for-all scenarios, respectively, compared to status quo. Insurance expansion is likely to improve CRC screening both overall and in underserved populations while saving money, with the largest savings realized by Medicare.
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.