Costs of promoting cancer screening: Evidence from CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP)

Costs of Implementing Teen Dating Violence and Youth Violence Prevention Strategies: Evidence From 5 CDC-Funded Local Health Departments

OBJECTIVES

In 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supported 5 local health departments (LHDs) to implement teen dating violence and youth violence primary prevention strategies across multiple levels of the social-ecological model and build capacity for the expansion of such prevention efforts at the local level. The objective of this study was to estimate the total cost of implementing primary prevention strategies for all LHDs across 3 years of program implementation.

METHODS

We used a microcosting analytic approach to identify resources and compute costs for all prevention strategies implemented by LHDs. We computed the total program cost, total and average cost per strategy by social-ecological model level, and average cost of implementation per participant served by the program. All costs were inflated via the monthly Consumer Price Index and reported in August 2020 dollars.

RESULTS

For 3 years of program implementation, the total estimated cost of implementing teen dating violence and youth violence primary prevention strategies was >$7.1 million across all 5 LHDs. The largest shares of program-related costs were program staff (55.9%-57.0%) and contracts (22.4%-25.5%). Among prevention strategies, the largest share of total costs was for strategies implemented at the community level of the social-ecological model (42.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this analysis provide a first look at the total costs of implementing comprehensive teen dating violence and youth violence primary prevention strategies and serve as a foundation for investments in local violence prevention funding for young people.

Costs and outcomes of colorectal cancer screening program in Isfahan, Iran

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is one of the most prevalent gastrointestinal cancers in Iran i.e., the fourth and the second prevalent cancer among Iranian males and females, respectively. A routine screening program is effective in the early detection of disease which can reduce the cancer burden both for individuals and society. In 2015, Iran's Package of Essential Non- communicable Diseases program had been piloted in Shahreza city in Isfahan province. Colorectal cancer screening for the population aged 50-70 was a part of this program. So far, there was no study about the cost and outcomes of that program. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the costs and outcomes of colorectal cancer screening done from 2016 to 2019 in Shahreza.

METHODS

This cost-outcome description study used the data of 19,392 individuals who were 50-70 years old experienced a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and had an electronic health record. All direct costs including personnel, building space, equipment, training, etc. were extracted from the financial documents existing in the Isfahan province Health Center. The outcome was defined as positive FIT, detection of adenoma or malignancy as recorded in the E-integrated health system.

RESULTS

The results of this study indicated that the direct costs of the colorectal cancer screening program during the years 2016-2019 were 7,368,707,574 Rials (321,029 PPP$) in Shahreza, Isfahan province. These costs resulted in identifying 821 people with a positive FIT test, of those 367 individuals were undergone colonoscopy. Of whom 8 cases of colorectal cancer, and 151 cases with polyps were diagnosed.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that by paying a small amount of 320 thousand international dollars we could prevent 151 cases of polyps to be progressed to colorectal cancer,resulting in a significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence.

Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs-the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program-to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Health systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success.

CONCLUSION

Integrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

Yield of Post-Acute Diverticulitis Colonoscopy for Ruling Out Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy is recommended post-acute diverticulitis (AD) to exclude underlying adenocarcinoma (CRC). However, post-AD colonoscopy utility remains controversial. We aimed to examine yield of post-AD colonoscopy in our majority-Hispanic patient population.

METHODS

Patients undergoing post-AD colonoscopy between 11/1/2015-7/31/2021 were identified from a prospectively maintained endoscopic database. AD cases without computed tomography confirmation were excluded. Pertinent data, including complicated vs uncomplicated AD, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result post-AD/pre-colonoscopy, and number/type/location of non-advanced adenomas, advanced adenomas, and CRC, were abstracted. Analyses were conducted using two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

208 patients were included, of whom 62.0% had uncomplicated AD. Median age was 53, 54.3% were female, and 77.4% were Hispanic. Ninety non-advanced adenomas were detected in 45 patients (21.6%), in addition to advanced adenoma in eight patients (3.8%). Two patients (1.0%) had CRC, both of whom had complicated AD in the same location seen on imaging, and one of whom was FIT+ (the other had not undergone FIT). Patients with uncomplicated versus complicated AD had similarly low rates of advanced adenomas (4.7% vs. 2.5%, p=0.713). FIT data were available in 51 patients and positive in three (5.9%); non-advanced adenomas were found in all three FIT+ patients. No FIT- patient had an advanced adenoma or CRC.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy post-AD is generally low yield, with CRC being rare and found only in those with complicated AD. Colonoscopy post-complicated AD appears advisable, whereas less invasive testing (e.g. FIT) may be considered post-uncomplicated AD to inform the need for colonoscopy.

Effects of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective, screening rates lag far below recommended levels, particularly for low-income people. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) funded $100 million in competitively awarded grants to 25 states from 2009-2015 to increase CRC screening rates among low-income, uninsured populations, in part by directly providing and paying for screening services. Using data from the 2001-2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and a difference-in-differences strategy, we find no effects of CRCCP on the use of relatively cheap fecal occult blood tests (FOBT). We do, however, find that the CRCCP significantly increased the likelihood that uninsured 50-64-year-olds report ever having a relatively expensive endoscopic CRC screening (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) by 2.9 percentage points, or 10.7%. These effects are larger for women, minorities, and individuals who did not undertake other types of preventive care. We do not find that the CRCCP led to significant changes in CRC cancer detection. Our results indicate that the CRCCP was effective at increasing CRC screening rates among the most vulnerable.

Effect of a physician led education invention on colon cancer screening at underserved clinics in Georgia

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are much lower at federally qualified health centers (FQHC) than the rest of the nation. The study aim was to determine if a physician led, low cost intervention, can improve CRC screening rates at FQHCs for underserved patients.

METHODS

A CRC quality improvement outreach program was conducted at 4 FQHCs. The program included direct provider education sessions, systems process improvements, patient education resources and low cost testing. We analyzed pre and post intervention screening rates for all eligible patients, defined as age 50-74 at average CRC risk.

RESULTS

CRC screening rates significantly increased at all sites 3 months following intervention: Site 1: 41%-48.3%, p < .0001; site 2: 31.6%-37.8%, p < .0001; site 3: 30.5%-38.2%, p < .0001 and site 4: 43.9%-46.8%, p = .012.

CONCLUSION

The education program successfully increased CRC screening rates in the underserved by 2.9%-7.7% 3 months post-intervention.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This approach of direct provider education sessions, systems process improvements, patient education resources and low cost testing improved underserved CRC screening. Implementation across Georgia would be expected to improve CRC related mortality and morbidity for the state's underserved.

Creating a Workplace Culture of Preventive Health: Process and Outcomes of the Colon Cancer-Free Zone at Virginia Cooperative Extension

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the USA, yet is highly preventable and detectable at an early stage through screening. Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) implemented a worksite colon cancer awareness program to increase colorectal cancer screening rates and preventive lifestyle behaviors among its employees. The Colon Cancer-Free Zone program is designed using best practice principles of worksite health programs and includes information sessions covering the topics of colorectal cancer, screening guidelines, insurance coverage, and preventive lifestyle behaviors. It is conducted in a campaign format that includes a strategic communication strategy targeting relevant screening barriers and facilitators, peer champions, and incentives. The program was implemented with VCE employees statewide utilizing a web-based system for the information sessions, and resulted in broad participation, a significant increase in screening self-efficacy (4.15 ± 0.64 vs 3.81 ± 0.76, ρ = 0.006), changes in diet and physical activity (50% and 40% of participants, respectively), and a 20.6% increase in the employee colorectal cancer screening rate. A Colon Cancer-Free Zone toolkit was developed for use by Extension Agents to implement the program at worksites in their service communities.

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the Medicaid population

BACKGROUND

Mailed reminders to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) have been shown to be effective in the Medicaid population, in which screening is underused. However, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, with or without an included FIT kit.

METHODS

The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of a reminder + FIT intervention versus a reminder-only intervention in increasing FIT screening. The analysis compared the costs per person screened for CRC screening associated with the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative using a 1-year time horizon. Input data for a cohort of 35,000 unscreened North Carolina Medicaid enrollees ages 52 to 64 years were derived from the trial and microcosting. Inputs and outputs were estimated from 2 perspectives-the Medicaid/state perspective and the health clinic/facility perspective-using probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate uncertainty.

RESULTS

The anticipated number of CRC screenings, including both FIT and screening colonoscopies, was higher for the reminder + FIT alternative (n = 8131; 23.2%) than for the reminder-only alternative (n = 5533; 15.8%). From the Medicaid/state perspective, the reminder + FIT alternative dominated the reminder-only alternative, with lower costs and higher screening rates. From the health clinic/facility perspective, the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 per person screened.

CONCLUSIONS

The reminder + FIT alternative was cost saving per additional Medicaid enrollee screened compared with the reminder-only alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective and likely cost-effective from the health clinic/facility perspective. The results also demonstrate that health departments and state Medicaid programs can efficiently mail FIT kits to large numbers of Medicaid enrollees to increase CRC screening completion.

Cost-Effectiveness of Current Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

Cost-effectiveness analysis compares benefits and costs of different interventions to inform decision makers. Alternatives are compared based on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reported in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Multiple cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been performed. Although regional epidemiology of CRC, relevant screening strategies, regional health system, and applicable medical costs in local currencies differ by country and region, several overarching points emerge from literature on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. Cost-effectiveness analysis informs decisions in ongoing debates, including preferred age to begin average-risk CRC screening, and implementation of CRC screening tailored to predicted CRC risk.

Adoption and Implementation of Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions Among Cancer Control Program Grantees, 2009-2015

Purpose and Objectives

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Although effective CRC screening tests exist, CRC screening is underused. Use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to increase CRC screening could save many lives. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a unique opportunity to study EBI adoption, implementation, and maintenance. We assessed 1) the number of grantees implementing 5 EBIs during 2011 through 2015, 2) grantees’ perceived ease of implementing each EBI, and 3) grantees’ reasons for stopping EBI implementation.

Intervention Approach

CDC funded 25 states and 4 tribal entities to participate in the CRCCP. Grantees used CRCCP funds to 1) provide CRC screening to individuals who were uninsured and low-income, and 2) promote CRC screening at the population level. One component of the CRC screening promotion effort was implementing 1 or more of 5 EBIs to increase CRC screening rates.

Evaluation Methods

We surveyed CRCCP grantees about EBI implementation with an online survey in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. We conducted descriptive analyses of closed-ended items and coded open-text responses for themes related to barriers and facilitators to EBI implementation.

Results

Most grantees implemented small media (≥25) or client reminders (≥21) or both all program years. Although few grantees reported implementation of EBIs such as reducing structural barriers (n = 14) and provider reminders (n = 9) in 2011, implementation of these EBIs increased over time. Implementation of provider assessment and feedback increased over time, but was reported by the fewest grantees (n = 17) in 2015. Reasons for discontinuing EBIs included funding ending, competing priorities, or limited staff capacity.

Implications for Public Health

CRCCP grantees implemented EBIs across all years studied, yet implementation varied by EBI and did not get easier with time. Our findings can inform long-term planning for EBIs with state and tribal public health institutions and their partners.

The impact of screening on the survival of colorectal cancer in Shanghai, China: a population based study

Background

Shanghai is one of the earliest cities in developing countries to introduce an organized colorectal screening program for its residents to fight against the rising disease burden of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aims to investigate the impact of the Shanghai screening program implemented in 2013 on the survival rates of CRC patients.

Methods

We calculated up to 5-year survival rates for 18,592 CRC patients from a representative district of Shanghai during 2002–2016, using data from the Shanghai Cancer Registry. We performed joinpoint regressions to examine temporal changes in the trends of the CRC survival rates. We then conducted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards modelling to study the association of the survival rates with screening behaviors of the patients. In all the model specifications, we took into account the gender, age and TNM stage at diagnosis, and level of treatment hospital of the patients.

Results

We find that the annual percentage changes of the survival rates increased faster after somewhere around 2013, however, the differential trends were not significant. Results from the Cox multivariate regression analysis suggest that patients who did not participate in the screening program showed significantly lower cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.46; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12–1.91) and all-causes survival (HR = 1.37; 95% CI: 1.05–1.77), compared to those who did. Among program participants, delayed colonoscopy was associated with poor cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.93; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.64–5.23) and all-causes survival (HR = 3.29; 95% CI: 1.85–5.84).

Conclusion

Screening participation and high level of colonoscopy compliance can improve the survival of CRC participants.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-7318-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Expenditures on Screening Promotion Activities in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009-2014

Introduction

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and increase screening and follow-up as recommended. We estimate the cost for evidence-based intervention and non–evidence-based intervention screening promotion activities and examine expenditures on screening promotion activities. We also identify factors associated with the costs of these activities.

Methods

By using cost and resource use data collected from 25 state grantees over multiple years (July 2009 to June 2014), we analyzed the total cost for each screening promotion activity. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the factors associated with screening promotion costs reported by grantees.

Results

The promotion activities with the largest allocation of funding across the years and grantees were mass media, patient navigation, outreach and education, and small media. Across all years of the program and across grantees, the amount spent on specific promotion activities varied widely. The factor significantly associated with promotion costs was region in which the grantee was located.

Conclusion

CDC’s CRCCP grantees spent the largest amount of the screening promotion funds on mass media, which is not recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Given the large variation across grantees in the use of and expenditures on screening promotion interventions, a systematic assessment of the yield from investment in specific promotion activities could better guide optimal resource allocation.

Developing a Web-Based Cost Assessment Tool for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs

Introduction

We developed a web-based cost assessment tool (CAT) to collect cost data as an improvement from a desktop instrument to perform economic evaluations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees. We describe the development of the web-based CAT, evaluate the quality of the data obtained, and discuss lessons learned.

Methods

We developed and refined a web-based CAT to collect 5 years (2009–2014) of cost data from 29 CRCCP grantees. We analyzed funding distribution; costs by budget categories; distribution of costs related to screening promotion, screening provision, and overarching activities; and reporting of screenings for grantees that received funding from non-CDC sources compared with those grantees that did not.

Results

CDC provided 85.6% of the resources for the CRCCP, with smaller amounts from in-kind contributions (7.8%), and funding from other sources (6.6%) (eg, state funding). Grantees allocated, on average, 95% of their expenditures to specific program activities and 5% to other activities. Some non-CDC funds were used to provide screening tests to additional people, and these additional screens were captured in the CAT.

Conclusion

A web-based tool can be successfully used to collect cost data on expenditures associated with CRCCP activities. Areas for future refinement include how to collect and allocate dollars from other sources in addition to CDC dollars.

Identifying optimal approaches to scale up colorectal cancer screening: an overview of the centers for disease control and prevention (CDC)'s learning laboratory

Use of recommended screening tests can reduce new colorectal cancers (CRC) and deaths, but screening uptake is suboptimal in the United States (U.S.). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a second round of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2015 to increase screening rates among individuals aged 50-75 years. The 30 state, university, and tribal awardees supported by the CRCCP implement a range of multicomponent interventions targeting health systems that have low CRC screening uptake, including low-income and minority populations. CDC invited a select subset of 16 CRCCP awardees to form a learning laboratory with the goal of performing targeted evaluations to identify optimal approaches to scale-up interventions to increase uptake of CRC screening among vulnerable populations. This commentary provides an overview of the CRCCP learning laboratory, presents findings from the implementation of multicomponent interventions at four FQHCs participating in the learning laboratory, and summarizes key lessons learned on intervention implementation approaches. Lessons learned can support future program implementation to ensure scalability and sustainability of the interventions as well as guide future implementation science and evaluation studies conducted by the CRCCP learning laboratory.

Effectiveness and cost of multilayered colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions at federally qualified health centers in Washington State

BACKGROUND

It has been demonstrated that fecal immunochemical test (FIT) mailing programs are effective for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The objectives of the current study were to assess the magnitude of uptake that could be achieved with a mailed FIT program in a federally qualified health center and whether such a program can be implemented at a reasonable cost to support sustainability.

METHODS

The Washington State Department of Health's partner HealthPoint implemented a direct-mail FIT program at 9 medical clinics, along with a follow-up reminder letter and automated telephone calls to those not up-to-date with recommended screening. Supplemental outreach events at selected medical clinics and a 50th birthday card screening reminder program also were implemented. The authors collected and analyzed process, effectiveness, and cost measures and conducted a systematic assessment of the short-term cost effectiveness of the interventions.

RESULTS

Overall, 5178 FIT kits were mailed with 4009 follow-up reminder letters, and 8454 automated reminder telephone calls were made over 12 months. In total, 1607 FIT kits were returned within 3 months of the end of the implementation period: an overall return rate of 31% for the mailed FIT program. The average total intervention cost per FIT kit returned was $39.81, and the intervention implementation cost per kit returned was $18.76.

CONCLUSIONS

The mailed FIT intervention improved CRC screening uptake among HealthPoint's patient population. This intervention was implemented for less than $40 per individual successfully screened. The findings and lessons learned can assist other clinics that serve disadvantaged populations to increase their CRC screening adherence.

Economic assessment of patient navigation to colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening in the real-world setting at the University of Chicago Medical Center

BACKGROUND

This report details the cost effectiveness of a non-nurse patient navigation (PN) program that was implemented at the University of Chicago Medical Center to increase colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

The authors investigated the impact of the PN intervention by collecting process measures. Individuals who received navigation were compared with a historic cohort of non-navigated patients. In addition, a previously validated data-collection instrument was tailored and used to collect all costs related to developing, implementing, and administering the program; and the incremental cost per patient successfully navigated (the cost of the intervention divided by the change in the number who complete screening) was calculated.

RESULTS

The screening colonoscopy completion rate was 85.1% among those who were selected to receive PN compared with 74.3% when no navigation was implemented. With navigation, the proportion of no-shows was 8.2% compared with 15.4% of a historic cohort of non-navigated patients. Because the perceived risk of noncompletion was greater among those who received PN (previous no-show or cancellation, poor bowel preparation) than that in the historic cohort, a scenario analysis was performed. Assuming no-show rates between 0% and 50% and using a navigated rate of 85%, the total incremental program cost per patient successfully navigated ranged from $148 to $359, whereas the incremental intervention-only implementation cost ranged from $88 to $215.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings indicate that non-nurse PN can increase colonoscopy completion, and this can be achieved at a minimal incremental cost for an insured population at an urban academic medical center.

Costs of colorectal cancer screening provision in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program: Comparisons of colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT based screening

We assess annual costs of screening provision activities implemented by 23 of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees and report differences in costs between colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT-based screening programs. We analysed annual cost data for the first three years of the CRCCP (July 2009-June 2011) for each screening provision activity and categorized them into clinical and non-clinical screening provision activities. The largest cost components for both colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT-based programs were screening and diagnostic services, program management, and data collection and tracking. During the first 3 years of the CRCCP, the average annual clinical cost for screening and diagnostic services per person served was $1150 for colonoscopy programs, compared to $304 for FIT/FOBT-based programs. Overall, FOBT/FIT-based programs appear to have slightly higher non-clinical costs per person served (average $1018; median $838) than colonoscopy programs (average $980; median $686). Colonoscopy-based CRCCP programs have higher clinical costs than FOBT/FIT-based programs during the 3-year study timeframe (translating into fewer people screened). Non-clinical costs for both approaches are similar and substantial. Future studies of the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening initiatives should consider both clinical and non-clinical costs.