Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Four Simulated Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions, North Carolina

Economic Evaluations of Interventions Addressing Inequalities in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Although substantial evidence exists on the costs and benefits of cancer care and screening programs for the general population, economic evidence of interventions addressing inequalities is less well known. This systematic review summarized economic evaluations of interventions addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care to inform decision makers on the value for money of such interventions.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published from database inception to October 27, 2023. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were economic evaluations of interventions to improve or address inequalities in cancer care among disadvantaged population groups. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results (US dollars 2023) were summarized. Study quality was assessed by 2 authors using the Drummond checklist.

RESULTS

The searches yielded 2937 records, with 30 meeting the eligibility criteria for data extraction. In most of the studies (n = 27, 90%), interventions were considered cost-effective in addressing inequalities in cancer care and screening among disadvantaged populations. Notably, 60% of the studies were rated as high quality, 33.3% as good, and 6.7% as fair quality.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identified cost-effective strategies addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care that have the potential to be replicated in other locations. The interventions were mainly focused on screening programs, and few addressed equity gaps around risk reduction and diagnostic and treatment outcomes. This underscores the need for targeted approaches to address inequalities in under-researched priority population groups along the cancer care continuum.

Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions

PURPOSE

We aimed to understand how an interactive, web-based simulation tool can be optimized to support decision-making about the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with decision-makers, including health administrators, advocates, and researchers, with a strong foundation in CRC prevention. Following a demonstration of the microsimulation modeling tool, participants reflected on the tool's potential impact for informing the selection and implementation of strategies for improving CRC screening and outcomes. The interviews assessed participants' preferences regarding the tool's design and content, comprehension of the model results, and recommendations for improving the tool.

RESULTS

Seventeen decision-makers completed interviews. Themes regarding the tool's utility included building a case for EBI implementation, selecting EBIs to adopt, setting implementation goals, and understanding the evidence base. Reported barriers to guiding EBI implementation included the tool being too research-focused, contextual differences between the simulated and local contexts, and lack of specificity regarding the design of simulated EBIs. Recommendations to address these challenges included making the data more actionable, allowing users to enter their own model inputs, and providing a how-to guide for implementing the simulated EBIs.

CONCLUSION

Diverse decision-makers found the simulation tool to be most useful for supporting early implementation phases, especially deciding which EBI(s) to implement. To increase the tool's utility, providing detailed guidance on how to implement the selected EBIs, and the extent to which users can expect similar CRC screening gains in their contexts, should be prioritized.

Assessing the impact of multicomponent interventions on colorectal cancer screening through simulation: What would it take to reach national screening targets in North Carolina?

Healthy People 2020 and the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable established colorectal cancer (CRC) screening targets of 70.5% and 80%, respectively. While evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have increased CRC screening, the ability to achieve these targets at the population level remains uncertain. We simulated the impact of multicomponent interventions in North Carolina over 5 years to assess the potential for meeting national screening targets. Each intervention scenario is described as a core EBI with additional components indicated by the "+" symbol: patient navigation for screening colonoscopy (PN-for-Col+), mailed fecal immunochemical testing (MailedFIT+), MailedFIT+ targeted to Medicaid enrollees (MailedFIT + forMd), and provider assessment and feedback (PAF+). Each intervention was simulated with and without Medicaid expansion and at different levels of exposure (i.e., reach) for targeted populations. Outcomes included the percent up-to-date overall and by sociodemographic subgroups and number of CRC cases and deaths averted. Each multicomponent intervention was associated with increased CRC screening and averted both CRC cases and deaths; three had the potential to reach screening targets. PN-for-Col + achieved the 70.5% target with 97% reach after 1 year, and the 80% target with 78% reach after 5 years. MailedFIT+ achieved the 70.5% target with 74% reach after 1 year and 5 years. In the Medicaid population, assuming Medicaid expansion, MailedFIT + forMd reached the 70.5% target after 5 years with 97% reach. This study clarifies the potential for states to reach national CRC screening targets using multicomponent EBIs, but decision-makers also should consider tradeoffs in cost, reach, and ability to reduce disparities when selecting interventions.

Using decision analysis to support implementation planning in research and practice

BACKGROUND

The process of implementing evidence-based interventions, programs, and policies is difficult and complex. Planning for implementation is critical and likely plays a key role in the long-term impact and sustainability of interventions in practice. However, implementation planning is also difficult. Implementors must choose what to implement and how best to implement it, and each choice has costs and consequences to consider. As a step towards supporting structured and organized implementation planning, we advocate for increased use of decision analysis.

MAIN TEXT

When applied to implementation planning, decision analysis guides users to explicitly define the problem of interest, outline different plans (e.g., interventions/actions, implementation strategies, timelines), and assess the potential outcomes under each alternative in their context. We ground our discussion of decision analysis in the PROACTIVE framework, which guides teams through key steps in decision analyses. This framework includes three phases: (1) definition of the decision problems and overall objectives with purposeful stakeholder engagement, (2) identification and comparison of different alternatives, and (3) synthesis of information on each alternative, incorporating uncertainty. We present three examples to illustrate the breadth of relevant decision analysis approaches to implementation planning.

CONCLUSION

To further the use of decision analysis for implementation planning, we suggest areas for future research and practice: embrace model thinking; build the business case for decision analysis; identify when, how, and for whom decision analysis is more or less useful; improve reporting and transparency of cost data; and increase collaborative opportunities and training.

When History and Heterogeneity Matter: A Tutorial on the Impact of Markov Model Specifications in the Context of Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Markov models are used in health research to simulate health care utilization and disease states over time. Health phenomena, however, are complex, and the memoryless assumption of Markov models may not appropriately represent reality. This tutorial provides guidance on the use of Markov models of different orders and stratification levels in health decision-analytic modeling. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is used as a case example to examine the impact of using different Markov modeling approaches on CRC outcomes.

METHODS

This study used insurance claims data from commercially insured individuals in Oregon to estimate transition probabilities between CRC screening states (no screen, colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test or fecal occult blood test). First-order, first-order stratified by sex and geography, and third-order Markov models were compared. Screening trajectories produced from the different Markov models were incorporated into a microsimulation model that simulated the natural history of CRC disease progression. Simulation outcomes (e.g., future screening choices, CRC incidence, deaths due to CRC) were compared across models.

RESULTS

Simulated CRC screening trajectories and resulting CRC outcomes varied depending on the Markov modeling approach used. For example, when using the first-order, first-order stratified, and third-order Markov models, 30%, 31%, and 44% of individuals used colonoscopy as their only screening modality, respectively. Screening trajectories based on the third-order Markov model predicted that a higher percentage of individuals were up-to-date with CRC screening as compared with the other Markov models.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited to insurance claims data spanning 5 y. It was not possible to validate which Markov model better predicts long-term screening behavior and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings demonstrate the impact that different order and stratification assumptions can have in decision-analytic models.

HIGHLIGHTS

This tutorial uses colorectal cancer screening as a case example to provide guidance on the use of Markov models of different orders and stratification levels in health decision-analytic models.Colorectal cancer screening trajectories and projected health outcomes were sensitive to the use of alternate Markov model specifications.Although data limitations precluded the assessment of model accuracy beyond a 5-y period, within the 5-y period, the third-order Markov model was slightly more accurate in predicting the fifth colorectal cancer screening action than the first-order Markov model.Findings from this tutorial demonstrate the importance of examining the memoryless assumption of the first-order Markov model when simulating health care utilization over time.

Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science

Background

Economic evaluations of the implementation of health-related evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are conducted infrequently and, when performed, often use a limited set of quantitative methods to estimate the cost and effectiveness of EBIs. These studies often underestimate the resources required to implement and sustain EBIs in diverse populations and settings, in part due to inadequate scoping of EBI boundaries and underutilization of methods designed to understand the local context. We call for increased use of diverse methods, especially the integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches, for conducting and better using economic evaluations and related insights across all phases of implementation.

Main body

We describe methodological opportunities by implementation phase to develop more comprehensive and context-specific estimates of implementation costs and downstream impacts of EBI implementation, using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. We focus specifically on the implementation of complex interventions, which are often multi-level, resource-intensive, multicomponent, heterogeneous across sites and populations, involve many stakeholders and implementation agents, and change over time with respect to costs and outcomes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening EBIs as examples, we outline several approaches to specifying the “boundaries” of EBI implementation and analyzing implementation costs by phase of implementation. We describe how systems mapping and stakeholder engagement methods can be used to clarify EBI implementation costs and guide data collection—particularly important when EBIs are complex. In addition, we discuss the use of simulation modeling with sensitivity/uncertainty analyses within implementation studies for projecting the health and economic impacts of investment in EBIs. Finally, we describe how these results, enhanced by careful data visualization, can inform selection, adoption, adaptation, and sustainment of EBIs.

Conclusion

Health economists and implementation scientists alike should draw from a larger menu of methods for estimating the costs and outcomes associated with complex EBI implementation and employ these methods across the EPIS phases. Our prior experiences using qualitative and systems approaches in addition to traditional quantitative methods provided rich data for informing decision-making about the value of investing in CRC screening EBIs and long-term planning for these health programs. Future work should consider additional opportunities for mixed-method approaches to economic evaluations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a community-based colorectal cancer screening program in Shanghai, China

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of a community-based colorectal cancer-screening program (C-CRCSP) in Shanghai, China, among the residents in the urban, suburban and rural areas.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a 25-year annual C-CRCSP including 100 000 populations. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); referring to either life-years gained, or quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The threshold was gross domestic product per capita. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the influence of compliance, prevalence, technological performance, medical cost and annual cost discount rate (3.5%) on ICER. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated the probability of the cost-effectiveness of C-CRCSP at different maximum acceptable ceiling ratios.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, the C-CRCSP resulted in total gains of 7840 QALYs and 2210 life-years (LY), at a total cost of CNY 58.54 million; that is, the ICER were CNY 7460/QALYs and CNY 26650/LY. Stratifying by residency, the cumulative gains in QALYs and LY were estimated to be the lowest in the urban populations compared with the rural and suburban populations. The cost for the urban population was 3-fold and 6-fold that of the suburban and rural populations. The ICER for QALYs ranged from 2180 (rural) to 16 840 (urban).

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness of a C-CRCSP in Shanghai was most favorable for the rural population, while the urban population benefits less in terms of QALYs. ICER could be enhanced by measures that increase compliance.

Optimal cholesterol treatment plans and genetic testing strategies for cardiovascular diseases

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is among the leading causes of death in the US. Although research has shown that ASCVD has genetic elements, the understanding of how genetic testing influences its prevention and treatment has been limited. To this end, we model the health trajectory of patients stochastically and determine treatment and testing decisions simultaneously. Since the cholesterol level of patients is one controllable risk factor for ASCVD events, we model cholesterol treatment plans as Markov decision processes. We determine whether and when patients should receive a genetic test using value of information analysis. By simulating the health trajectory of over 64 million adult patients, we find that 6.73 million patients undergo genetic testing. The optimal treatment plans informed with clinical and genetic information save 5,487 more quality-adjusted life-years while costing $1.18 billion less than the optimal treatment plans informed with clinical information only. As precision medicine becomes increasingly important, understanding the impact of genetic information becomes essential.

Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening Modality Among Newly Age-Eligible Medicaid Enrollees

INTRODUCTION

This study examines individual- and practice-level predictors of screening modality among 1,484 Medicaid enrollees who initiated colorectal cancer screening (fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood tests or colonoscopy) within a year of turning age 50 years. Understanding screening modality patterns for patients and health systems can help optimize colorectal cancer screening initiatives that will lead to high screening completion rates.

METHODS

Multivariable logistic regression was conducted in 2019 to analyze Medicaid claims data (January 2013-June 2015) to explore predictors of colonoscopy screening (versus fecal testing).

RESULTS

Overall, 64% of enrollees received a colonoscopy and 36% received a fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood test. Male (OR=1.21, 95% CI=1.08, 1.37) compared with female enrollees and those with 4-6 (OR=1.57, 95% CI=1.15, 2.15), 7-10 (OR=2.23, 95% CI=1.64, 3.03), and ≥11 (OR=1.79, 95% CI=1.22, 2.65) primary care visits compared with 0-3 visits had higher odds of colonoscopy screening. Non-White, non-Hispanic enrollees (OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.58, 0.87) compared with White, non-Hispanics Whites had lower odds of colonoscopy screening. Practices with an endoscopy facility within their ZIP code (OR=1.50, 95% CI=1.08, 2.08) compared with practices without a nearby endoscopy facility had higher odds of colonoscopy screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Among newly age-eligible Medicaid enrollees who received colorectal cancer screening, non-White, non-Hispanic individuals were less likely and male enrollees and those with ≥4 primary care visits were more likely to undergo colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical test/fecal occult blood test. Colonoscopy also was the more common modality among adults whose primary care clinic had an endoscopy facility in the same ZIP code. Future research is needed to fully understand patient, provider, and practice preferences regarding screening modality.

Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to assess the impact and validity of simulation modeling in informing decision making in a complex area of healthcare delivery: colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched 10 electronic databases for English-language articles published between January 1, 2008, and March 1, 2019, that described the development of a simulation model with a focus on average-risk CRC screening delivery. Included articles were reviewed for evidence that the model was validated, and provided real or potential contribution to informed decision making using the GRADE EtD (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Evidence to Decision) framework.

RESULTS

A total of 43 studies met criteria. The majority used Markov modeling (n = 31 [72%]) and sought to determine cost-effectiveness, compare screening modalities, or assess effectiveness of screening. No study reported full model validation and only (58%) reported conducting any validation. Majority of models were developed to address a specific health systems or policy question; few articles report the model's impact on this decision (n = 39 [91%] vs. n = 5 [12%]). Overall, models provided evidence relevant to every element important to decision makers as outlined in the GRADE EtD framework.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Simulation modeling contributes evidence that is considered valuable to decision making in CRC screening delivery, particularly in assessing cost-effectiveness and comparing screening modalities. However, the actual impact on decisions and validity of models is lacking in the literature. Greater validity testing, impact assessment, and standardized reporting of both is needed to understand and demonstrate the reliability and utility of simulation modeling.

The potential impact of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion on reducing colorectal cancer screening disparities in African American males

Few investigations have explored the potential impact of the Affordable Care Act on health disparity outcomes in states that chose to forgo Medicaid expansion. Filling this evidence gap is pressing as Congress grapples with controversial healthcare legislation that could phase out Medicaid expansion. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a commonly diagnosed, preventable cancer in the US that disproportionately burdens African American men and has substantial potential to be impacted by improved healthcare insurance coverage. Our objective was to estimate the impact of the Affordable Care Act (increasing insurance through health exchanges alone or with Medicaid expansion) on colorectal cancer outcomes and economic costs among African American and White males in North Carolina (NC), a state that did not expand Medicaid. We used an individual-based simulation model to estimate the impact of ACA (increasing insurance through health exchanges alone or with Medicaid expansion) on three CRC outcomes (screening, stage-specific incidence, and deaths) and economic costs among African American and White males in NC who were age-eligible for screening (between ages 50 and 75) during the study period, years of 2013–2023. Health exchanges and Medicaid expansion improved simulated CRC outcomes overall, though the impact was more substantial among AAs. Relative to health exchanges alone, Medicaid expansion would prevent between 7.1 to 25.5 CRC cases and 4.1 to 16.4 per 100,000 CRC cases among AA and White males, respectively. Our findings suggest policies that expanding affordable, quality healthcare coverage could have a demonstrable, cost-saving impact while reducing cancer disparities.

Estimating the impact of insurance expansion on colorectal cancer and related costs in North Carolina: A population-level simulation analysis

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.

Mailed FIT (fecal immunochemical test), navigation or patient reminders? Using microsimulation to inform selection of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening in Medicaid enrollees

Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be effectively prevented or detected with guideline concordant screening, yet Medicaid enrollees experience disparities. We used microsimulation to project CRC screening patterns, CRC cases averted, and life-years gained in the population of 68,077 Oregon Medicaid enrollees 50-64 over a five year period starting in January 2019. The simulation estimated the cost-effectiveness of five intervention scenarios - academic detailing plus provider audit and feedback (Detailing+), patient reminders (Reminders), mailing a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) directly to the patient's home (Mailed FIT), patient navigation (Navigation), and mailed FIT with Navigation (Mailed FIT + Navigation) - compared to usual care. Each intervention scenario raised CRC screening rates compared to usual care, with improvements as high as 11.6 percentage points (Mailed FIT + Navigation) and as low as 2.5 percentage points (Reminders) after one year. Compared to usual care, Mailed FIT + Navigation would raise CRC screening rates 20.2 percentage points after five years - averting nearly 77 cancer cases (a reduction of 113 per 100,000) and exceeding national screening targets. Over a five year period, Reminders, Mailed FIT and Mailed FIT + Navigation were expected to be cost effective if stakeholders were willing to pay $230 or less per additional year up-to-date (at a cost of $22, $59, and $227 respectively), whereas Detailing+ and Navigation were more costly for the same benefits. To approach national CRC screening targets, health system stakeholders are encouraged to implement Mailed FIT with or without Navigation and Reminders.

Economics of public health programs for underserved populations: a review of economic analysis of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of economic analysis methods used in estimating the costs and benefits of public health programs and systematically review the application of these methods to the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP).

METHODS

Published literature on economic analyses of the NBCCEDP was systematically reviewed. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist was used to assess methodological quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

Methods available for economic analysis of public health programs include program cost, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit analysis, and budget impact analysis. Of these, program cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-utility analysis have been applied to the NBCCEDP in previously published literature.

CONCLUSION

While there have been multiple program cost analyses, there are relatively fewer cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies and no cost-benefit and budget impact analysis studies to evaluate the NBCCEDP. Addressing these gaps will inform implementation of effective public health programs with equitable resource allocation to all population subgroups.

Data-Powered Participatory Decision Making: Leveraging Systems Thinking and Simulation to Guide Selection and Implementation of Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions

A robust evidence base supports the effectiveness of timely colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, follow-up of abnormal results, and referral to care in reducing CRC morbidity and mortality. However, only two-thirds of the US population is current with recommended screening, and rates are much lower for those who are vulnerable because of their race/ethnicity, insurance status, or rural location. Multiple, multilevel factors contribute to observed disparities, and these factors vary across different populations and contexts. As highlighted by the Cancer Moonshot Blue Ribbon Panel working groups focused on Prevention and Early Detection and Implementation Science inadequate CRC screening and follow-up represent an enormous missed opportunity in cancer prevention and control. To measurably reduce CRC morbidity and mortality, the evidence base must be strengthened to guide the identification of (1) multilevel factors that influence screening across different populations and contexts, (2) multilevel interventions and implementation strategies that will be most effective at targeting those factors, and (3) combinations of strategies that interact synergistically to improve outcomes. Systems thinking and simulation modeling (systems science) provide a set of approaches and techniques to aid decision makers in using the best available data and research evidence to guide implementation planning in the context of such complexity. This commentary summarizes current challenges in CRC prevention and control, discusses the status of the evidence base to guide the selection and implementation of multilevel CRC screening interventions, and describes a multi-institution project to showcase how systems science can be leveraged to optimize selection and implementation of CRC screening interventions in diverse populations and contexts.

Does a transition to accountable care in Medicaid shift the modality of colorectal cancer testing?

BACKGROUND

Health care reform is changing preventive services delivery. This study explored trajectories in colorectal cancer (CRC) testing over a 5-year period that included implementation of 16 Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs, 2012) and Medicaid expansion (2014) - two provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - within the state of Oregon, USA.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of Oregon's Medicaid claims for enrollee's eligible for CRC screening (50-64 years) spanning January 2010 through December 2014. Our analysis was conducted and refined April 2016 through June 2018. The analysis assessed the annual probability of patients receiving CRC testing and the modality used (e.g., colonoscopy, fecal testing) relative to a baseline year (2010). We hypothesized that CRC testing would increase following Medicaid ACO formation - called Coordinated Care Organizations (CCOs).

RESULTS

A total of 132,424 unique Medicaid enrollees (representing 255,192 person-years) met inclusion criteria over the 5-year study. Controlling for demographic and regional factors, the predicted probability of CRC testing was significantly higher in 2014 (+ 1.4 percentage points, p < 0.001) compared to the 2010 baseline but not in 2012 or 2013. Increased fecal testing using Fecal Occult Blood Tests (FOBT) or Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) played a prominent role in 2014. The uptick in statewide fecal testing appears driven primarily by a subset of CCOs.

CONCLUSIONS

Observed CRC testing did not immediately increase following the transition to CCOs in 2012. However increased testing in 2014, may reflect a delay in implementation of interventions to increase CRC screening and/or a strong desire by newly insured Medicaid CCO members to receive preventive care.

The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Research Framework

We introduce the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) research framework, a product that emerged from the NIMHD science visioning process. The NIMHD research framework is a multilevel, multidomain model that depicts a wide array of health determinants relevant to understanding and addressing minority health and health disparities and promoting health equity. We describe the conceptual underpinnings of the framework and define its components. We also describe how the framework can be used to assess minority health and health disparities research as well as priorities for the future. Finally, we describe how fiscal year 2015 research project grants funded by NIMHD map onto the framework, and we identify gaps and opportunities for future minority health and health disparities research.

Geographic and population-level disparities in colorectal cancer testing: A multilevel analysis of Medicaid and commercial claims data

Morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) can be attenuated through guideline concordant screening and intervention. This study used Medicaid and commercial claims data to examine individual and geographic factors associated with CRC testing rates in one state (Oregon). A total of 64,711 beneficiaries (4516 Medicaid; 60,195 Commercial) became newly age-eligible for CRC screening and met inclusion criteria (e.g., continuously enrolled, no prior history) during the study period (January 2010-December 2013). We estimated multilevel models to examine predictors for CRC testing, including individual (e.g., gender, insurance, rurality, access to care, distance to endoscopy facility) and geographic factors at the county level (e.g., poverty, uninsurance). Despite insurance coverage, only two out of five (42%) beneficiaries had evidence of CRC testing during the four year study window. CRC testing varied from 22.4% to 46.8% across Oregon's 36 counties; counties with higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation had lower levels of testing. After controlling for age, beneficiaries had greater odds of receiving CRC testing if they were female (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08), commercially insured, or urban residents (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.21). Accessing primary care (OR 2.47, 95% CI 2.37-2.57), but not distance to endoscopy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92-1.03) was associated with testing. CRC testing in newly age-eligible Medicaid and commercial members remains markedly low. Disparities exist by gender, geographic residence, insurance coverage, and access to primary care. Work remains to increase CRC testing to acceptable levels, and to select and implement interventions targeting the counties and populations in greatest need.