The effect of delivery structure on costs, screening and health promotional services in state level National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Programs
- 8 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCost effectiveness Cancer screening Breast Cervical
The authors thank Wesley Crouse for his assistance in data collection.
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.
- 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