Advertisement

The effect of delivery structure on costs, screening and health promotional services in state level National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Programs

  • Justin G. TrogdonEmail author
  • Donatus U. Ekwueme
  • Sujha Subramanian
  • Jacqueline W. Miller
  • Faye L. Wong
Original paper
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

We estimated the costs and effectiveness of state programs in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) based on the type of delivery structure.

Methods

Programs were classified into three delivery structures: (1) centralized, (2) decentralized, and (3) mixed. Centralized programs offer clinical services in satellite offices, but all other program activities are performed centrally. Decentralized programs contract with other entities to fully manage and provide screening and diagnostic services and other program activities. Programs with mixed service delivery structures have both centralized and decentralized features. Programmatic costs were averaged over a 3 year period (2006–2007, 2008–2009, and 2009–2010). Effectiveness was defined in terms of the average number of women served over the 3 years. We report costs per woman served by program activity and delivery structure and incremental cost effectiveness by program structure and by breast/cervical services.

Results

Average costs per woman served were lowest for mixed program structures (breast = $225, cervical = $216) compared to decentralized (breast = cervical = $276) and centralized program structures (breast = $259, cervical = $251). Compared with decentralized programs, for each additional woman served, centralized programs saved costs of $281 (breast) and $284 (cervical). Compared with decentralized programs, for each additional woman served, mixed programs added an additional $109 cost for breast but saved $1,777 for cervical cancer.

Conclusions

Mixed program structures were associated with the lowest screening and diagnostic costs per woman served and had generally favorable incremental costs relative to the other program structures.

Keywords

Cost effectiveness Cancer screening Breast Cervical 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Wesley Crouse for his assistance in data collection.

Funding

This study was funded by Contract No. 200-2002-00575 TO 06 and 200-2008-27958 TO 9 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ekwueme DU, Gardner JG, Subramanian S, Tangka FK, Bapat B, Richardson LC (2008) Cost analysis of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: selected states, 2003 to 2004. Cancer 112:626–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Subramanian S, Ekwueme DU, Gardner JG, Bapat B, Kramer C (2008) Identifying and controlling for program-level differences in comparative cost analysis: lessons from the economic evaluation of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Eval Program Plan 31:136–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Subramanian S, Ekwueme DU, Gardner JG, Trogdon J (2009) Developing and testing a cost-assessment tool for cancer screening programs. Am J Prev Med 37:242–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ekwueme DU, Hall IJ, Richardson LC, Gardner JG, Royalty J, Thompson TD (2008) Estimating personal costs incurred by a woman participating in mammography screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Cancer 113:592–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller JW, Plescia M, Ekwueme DU (2014) Public health national approach to reducing breast and cervical cancer disparities. Cancer 120(Suppl 16):2537–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Espey DK, Wu XC, Swan J et al (2007) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2004, featuring cancer in American Indians and Alaska Natives. Cancer 110:2119–2152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ekwueme DU, Subramanian S, Trogdon JG et al (2014) Cost of services provided by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Cancer 120(Suppl 16):2604–2611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Subramanian S, Tangka FK, Ekwueme DU, Trogdon J, Crouse W, Royalty J (2015) Erratum to: explaining variation across grantees in breast and cervical cancer screening proportions in the NBCCEDP. Cancer Causes Control 26:697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Subramanian S, Tangka FK, Ekwueme DU, Trogdon J, Crouse W, Royalty J (2015) Explaining variation across grantees in breast and cervical cancer screening proportions in the NBCCEDP. Cancer Causes Control 26:689–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trogdon JG, Ekwueme DU, Subramanian S, Crouse W (2014) Economies of scale in federally-funded state-organized public health programs: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Programs. Health Care Manag Sci 17:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health and the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Division of Cancer Prevention and ControlCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)AtlantaUSA
  3. 3.RTI InternationalWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations