Cancer screening and the periodic health examination

Promoting cancer screening within the patient centered medical home

While consensus has grown that primary care is the essential access point in a high-performing health care system, the current model of primary care underperforms in both chronic disease management and prevention. The Patient Centered Medical Home model (PCMH) is at the center of efforts to reinvent primary care practice, and is regarded as the most promising approach to addressing the burden of chronic disease, improving health outcomes, and reducing health spending. However, the potential for the medical home to improve the delivery of cancer screening (and preventive services in general) has received limited attention in both conceptualization and practice. Medical home demonstrations to date have included few evidence-based preventive services in their outcome measures, and few have evaluated the effect of different payment models. Decreasing use of hospitals and emergency rooms and an emphasis on improving chronic care represent improvements in effective delivery of healthcare, but leave opportunities for reducing the burden of cancer untouched. Data confirm that what does or does not happen in the primary care setting has a substantial impact on cancer outcomes. Insofar as cancer is the leading cause of death before age 80, the PCMH model must prioritize adherence to cancer screening according to recommended guidelines, and systems, financial incentives, and reimbursements must be aligned to achieve that goal. This article explores capacities that are needed in the medical home model to facilitate the integration of cancer screening and other preventive services. These capacities include improved patient access and communication, health risk assessments, periodic preventive health exams, use of registries that store cancer risk information and screening history, ability to track and follow up on tests and referrals, feedback on performance, and payment models that reward cancer screening.

The impact of prevention on reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is prevalent and expensive. While many interventions are recommended to prevent CVD, the potential effects of a comprehensive set of prevention activities on CVD morbidity, mortality, and costs have never been evaluated. We therefore determined the effects of 11 nationally recommended prevention activities on CVD-related morbidity, mortality, and costs in the U.S.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used person-specific data from a representative sample of the U.S. population (National Health and Nutrition Education Survey IV) to determine the number and characteristics of adults aged 20-80 years in the U.S. today who are candidates for different prevention activities related to CVD. We used the Archimedes model to create a simulated population that matched the real U.S. population, person by person. We then used the model to simulate a series of clinical trials that examined the effects over the next 30 years of applying each prevention activity one by one, or altogether, to those who are candidates for the various activities and compared the health outcomes, quality of life, and direct medical costs to current levels of prevention and care. We did this under two sets of assumptions about performance and compliance: 100% success for each activity and lower levels of success considered aggressive but still feasible.

RESULTS

Approximately 78% of adults aged 20-80 years alive today in the U.S. are candidates for at least one prevention activity. If everyone received the activities for which they are eligible, myocardial infarctions and strokes would be reduced by approximately 63% and 31%, respectively. If more feasible levels of performance are assumed, myocardial infarctions and strokes would be reduced approximately 36% and 20%, respectively. Implementation of all prevention activities would add approximately 221 million life-years and 244 million quality-adjusted life-years to the U.S. adult population over the coming 30 years, or an average of 1.3 years of life expectancy for all adults. Of the specific prevention activities, the greatest benefits to the U.S. population come from providing aspirin to high-risk individuals, controlling pre-diabetes, weight reduction in obese individuals, lowering blood pressure in people with diabetes, and lowering LDL cholesterol in people with existing coronary artery disease (CAD). As currently delivered and at current prices, most prevention activities are expensive when considering direct medical costs; smoking cessation is the only prevention strategy that is cost-saving over 30 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive application of nationally recommended prevention activities could prevent a high proportion of the CAD events and strokes that are otherwise expected to occur in adults in the U.S. today. However, as they are currently delivered, most of the prevention activities will substantially increase costs. If preventive strategies are to achieve their full potential, ways must be found to reduce the costs and deliver prevention activities more efficiently.

The Impact of Prevention on Reducing the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease

Objective— Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is prevalent and expensive. While many interventions are recommended to prevent CVD, the potential effects of a comprehensive set of prevention activities on CVD morbidity, mortality, and costs have never been evaluated. We therefore determined the effects of 11 nationally recommended prevention activities on CVD-related morbidity, mortality, and costs in the United States.

Research Design and Methods— We used person-specific data from a representative sample of the US population (National Health and Nutrition Education Survey IV) to determine the number and characteristics of adults aged 20-80 years in the United States today who are candidates for different prevention activities related to CVD. We used the Archimedes model to create a simulated population that matched the real US population, person by person. We then used the model to simulate a series of clinical trials that examined the effects over the next 30 years of applying each prevention activity one by one, or altogether, to those who are candidates for the various activities and compared the health outcomes, quality of life, and direct medical costs to current levels of prevention and care. We did this under two sets of assumptions about performance and compliance: 100% success for each activity and lower levels of success considered aggressive but still feasible.

Results— Approximately 78% of adults aged 20-80 years alive today in the United States are candidates for at least one prevention activity. If everyone received the activities for which they are eligible, myocardial infarctions and strokes would be reduced by 63% and 31%, respectively. If more feasible levels of performance are assumed, myocardial infarctions and strokes would be reduced 36% and 20%, respectively. Implementation of all prevention activities would add ≈221 million life-years and 244 million quality-adjusted life-years to the US adult population over the coming 30 years, or an average of 1.3 years of life expectancy for all adults. Of the specific prevention activities, the greatest benefits to the US population come from providing aspirin to high-risk individuals, controlling pre-diabetes, weight reduction in obese individuals, lowering blood pressure in people with diabetes, and lowering LDL cholesterol in people with existing coronary artery disease (CAD). As currently delivered and at current prices, most prevention activities are expensive when considering direct medical costs; smoking cessation is the only prevention strategy that is cost-saving over 30 years.

Conclusions— Aggressive application of nationally recommended prevention activities could prevent a high proportion of the CAD events and strokes that are otherwise expected to occur in adults in the United States today. However, as they are currently delivered, most of the prevention activities will substantially increase costs. If preventive strategies are to achieve their full potential, ways must be found to reduce the costs and deliver prevention activities more efficiently.

Do adults who believe in periodic health examinations receive more clinical preventive services?

BACKGROUND

Individuals who have periodic health examinations ("check-ups") with physicians even if they feel well have higher rates of screening and other preventive services than individuals who only see physicians when ill. This study assessed whether individuals' beliefs about the advisability of periodic health examinations contribute to the likelihood that they receive recommended clinical preventive services.

METHODS

This study used data from a 2002-2003 telephone survey of adults in 150 rural counties in 8 states of the U.S. southeast. Weighted Chi-square and logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between attitudes towards periodic health examinations and the receipt of preventative services.

RESULTS

Of the 4879 respondents, 37% were African American, and 43% had annual household incomes of less than $25,000. A total of 8.5% (n=374) did not endorse periodic health examinations. Not endorsing periodic examinations was more common among subjects who were male, younger, white and had no health insurance. Compared to those who endorsed periodic examinations, persons who did not were less likely to have had a periodic examination (42% versus 80%, p<0.001) or mammogram (28% versus 60%, p<0.001) in the previous year, a Pap smear in past 3 years (74% versus 90%, p<0.001), a cholesterol check in the last 5 years (56% versus 81%, p<0.001) or to ever have had endoscopic screening (28% versus 48%, p<0.001). These rate differences remained after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.

CONCLUSION

People's beliefs about the value of periodic health examinations are associated with the likelihood that they receive recommended preventative services. Understanding individuals' beliefs about health, disease prevention and the role of physicians in prevention could lead to improved targeted interventions aimed at increasing uptake of preventative services.

Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis

BACKGROUND

Decision makers at multiple levels need information about which clinical preventive services matter the most so that they can prioritize their actions. This study was designed to produce comparable estimates of relative health impact and cost effectiveness for services considered effective by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

METHODS

The National Commission on Prevention Priorities (NCPP) guided this update to a 2001 ranking of clinical preventive services. The NCPP used new preventive service recommendations up to December 2004, improved methods, and more complete and recent data and evidence. Each service received 1 to 5 points on each of two measures--clinically preventable burden and cost effectiveness--for a total score ranging from 2 to 10. Priorities for improving delivery rates were established by comparing the ranking with what is known of current delivery rates nationally.

RESULTS

The three highest-ranking services each with a total score of 10 are discussing aspirin use with high-risk adults, immunizing children, and tobacco-use screening and brief intervention. High-ranking services (scores of 6 and above) with data indicating low current utilization rates (around 50% or lower) include: tobacco-use screening and brief intervention, screening adults aged 50 and older for colorectal cancer, immunizing adults aged 65 and older against pneumococcal disease, and screening young women for Chlamydia.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies the most valuable clinical preventive services that can be offered in medical practice and should help decision-makers select which services to emphasize.

Preventing cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes: a common agenda for the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association

Collectively, cardiovascular disease (including stroke), cancer, and diabetes account for approximately two-thirds of all deaths in the U.S. and about US dollars 700 billion in direct and indirect economic costs each year. Current approaches to health promotion and prevention of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes do not approach the potential of the existing state of knowledge. A concerted effort to increase application of public health and clinical interventions of known efficacy to reduce prevalence of tobacco use, poor diet, and insufficient physical activity-the major risk factors for these diseases-and to increase utilization of screening tests for their early detection could substantially reduce the human and economic cost of these diseases. In this article, the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, and American Heart Association review strategies for the prevention and early detection of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, as the beginning of a new collaboration among the three organizations. The goal of this joint venture is to stimulate substantial improvements in primary prevention and early detection through collaboration between key organizations, greater public awareness about healthy lifestyles, legislative action that results in more funding for and access to primary prevention programs and research, and reconsideration of the concept of the periodic medical checkup as an effective platform for prevention, early detection, and treatment.

Preventing Cancer, Cardiovascular Disease, and Diabetes

Collectively, cardiovascular disease (including stroke), cancer, and diabetes account for approximately two thirds of all deaths in the United States and about $700 billion in direct and indirect economic costs each year. Current approaches to health promotion and prevention of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes do not approach the potential of the existing state of knowledge. A concerted effort to increase application of public health and clinical interventions of known efficacy to reduce prevalence of tobacco use, poor diet, and insufficient physical activity—the major risk factors for these diseases—and to increase utilization of screening tests for their early detection could substantially reduce the human and economic cost of these diseases. In this article, the ACS, ADA, and AHA review strategies for the prevention and early detection of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, as the beginning of a new collaboration among the three organizations. The goal of this joint venture is to stimulate substantial improvements in primary prevention and early detection through collaboration between key organizations, greater public awareness about healthy lifestyles, legislative action that results in more funding for and access to primary prevention programs and research, and reconsideration of the concept of the periodic medical checkup as an effective platform for prevention, early detection, and treatment.