This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Initiatives aim to improve screening rates for colorectal cancer
NIH panel concludes insurance, access most important factors in decision to get screened.
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Removing financial obstacles to colorectal cancer screening and providing regular access to health care providers are crucial factors in increasing the rate of colorectal cancer screening, a council of experts concluded after a three-day state-of-the-science conference in Bethesda, Md.
Colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. During the NIH State-of-the-Science Conference: Enhancing Use and Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening, an independent panel considered the results of a systematic literature review, expert presentations and audience input to produce a statement regarding ways to increase screening, the factors that influence the decision to get screened and the most effective screening modalities.
Donald M. Steinwachs, PhD, panel chair and director of the Health Services Research and Development Center at Johns Hopkins University, said rates of screening have improved in the past decade but still lag behind.
“When you look at rates of which individuals have been screened for purposes of prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer, those rates have gone up substantially,” Steinwachs said. “They were in the 20% to 30% range in 1997. In 2008, the rate was up to 55%, yet this is lower than what we’d all expect. Looking at other cancer prevention efforts, screening rates sometimes go into the 70% or even 80% range.”
Screening rates for colorectal cancer have already exceeded the 50% target established by Healthy People, a set of national health objectives managed by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The NIH panel did not set a formal target for screening, but Steinwachs said he would like to see rates increase to 80% to 85% in adults older than 50 years.
In addition, the panel said targeted initiatives to improve screening rates and reduce disparities in under-screened communities could further reduce colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality.
“We looked at what associations there are between characteristics of the patient, provider and system of care and whether or not the individual got screened. We were looking to identify those things that might help shape opportunities for implementation,” Steinwachs said. “One of the most striking findings, one of the greatest barriers for getting screened was financial — not having health insurance or having insurance that does not fully cover the cost of screening.”
Improving screening rates
The panel issued five recommendations for implementation and research opportunities that would improve the use and quality of colorectal screening:
- Widely implement interventions that have proved effective at increasing colorectal cancer screening, including patient reminder systems and one-on-one interactions with providers, educators or navigators.
- Tailor specific approaches to match characteristics and preferences of target population groups to increase colorectal cancer screening.
- Implement systems to ensure appropriate follow-up of positive colorectal cancer screening results.
- Eliminate financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening and appropriate follow-up.
- Develop systems to assure high quality of colorectal cancer screening programs.
Panelists noted that since 2001, use of screening modalities such as fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy and double-contrast barium enema have decreased, whereas use of colonoscopy has steadily increased. Paula Kim, a panel member and chief executive officer of Translating Research Across Communities, said use of colonoscopy increased from 19.2% of all screens to 47.5% from 2000 to 2008.
However, Kaiser Permanente has achieved a screening rate of 75% and the Department of Veterans Affairs has achieved a rate of 80% relying on the fecal immunochemical test and fecal occult blood testing and confirming any positive results with colonoscopy.
“It is important to know more about the factors that lead physicians to recommend, or patients to choose, one test over another. Financial considerations, such as differential reimbursement rates for different tests, may affect physicians’ decisions to recommend endoscopy,” the panelists wrote in their conference statement. “A likely factor affecting patient choices is copayments. Another factor affecting both groups is a perception that colonoscopy is the gold standard, despite the absence of randomized clinical trial evidence supporting the test’s relationship to morbidity and mortality.”
Because there are different rates of screening depending on insurance status, socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, and geography, panelists said each demographic will require a strategy tailored to their particular concerns. Toward that end, panelists called for more research to understand the specific factors influencing the decision-making in a particular group.
“We are convinced by evidence in the literature that efforts to tailor strategies will be very important to test. In different communities, different population subgroups, there need to be different strategies tested to get high rates,” Steinwachs said. “If you look at what are really disparities — geographically or socioeconomic status, etc. — it leads one to think tailoring could be a very important way to increase rates.”
