Search

Purpose: Colonoscopy can prevent morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) and is the most commonly used screening method in the United States. Barriers to colonoscopy at multiple levels can contribute to disparities. Yet, in rural settings, little is known about who delivers colonoscopy and facilitators and barriers to colonoscopy access through screening completion. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with providers in rural Oregon who worked in endoscopy centers or primary care clinics. Semistructured interviews, conducted in July and August, 2021, focused on clinician experiences providing colonoscopy to rural Medicaid patients, including workflows, barriers, and access. We used thematic analysis, through immersion crystallization, to analyze interview transcripts and develop emergent themes. Findings: We interviewed 19 providers. We found two categories of colonoscopy providers: primary care providers (PCPs) doing colonoscopy on their own patients (n = 9; 47%) and general surgeons providing colonoscopy to patients referred to their services (n = 10; 53%). Providers described barriers to colonoscopy at the provider, community, and patient levels and suggested patient supports could help overcome them. Providers found current colonoscopy capacity sufficient, but noted PCPs trained to perform colonoscopy would be key to continued accessibility. Finally, providers shared concerns about the shrinking number of PCP endoscopists, especially with anticipated increased screening demand related to the CRC screening guideline shift. Conclusions: These themes reflect opportunities to address multilevel barriers to improve access, colonoscopy capacity, and patient education approaches. Our results highlight that PCPs are an essential part of the workforce that provides colonoscopy in rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Screening rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) remain low, especially among certain populations. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) outreach initiated by U.S. health plans could reach underserved individuals, while solving CRC screening data and implementation challenges faced by health clinics. We report the models and motivations of two health insurance plans implementing a mailed FIT program for age-eligible U.S. Medicaid and Medicare populations. One health plan operates in a single state with ~220,000 enrollees; the other operates in multiple states with ~2 million enrollees. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and observed leadership and clinic staff planning during program development and implementation. Interviews were transcribed and coded using a content analysis approach; coded interview reports and meeting minutes were iteratively reviewed and summarized for themes. Between June and September 2016, nine participants were identified, and all agreed to the interview. Interviews revealed that organizational context was important to both organizations and helped shape program design. Both organizations were hoping this program would address barriers to their prior CRC screening improvement efforts and saw CRC screening as a priority. Despite similar motivations to participate in a mailed FIT intervention, contextual features of the health plans led them to develop distinct implementation models: a collaborative model using some health clinic staffing versus a centralized model operationalizing outreach primarily at the health plan. Data are not yet available on the models' effectiveness. Our findings might help inform the design of programs to deliver mailed FIT outreach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer screening uptake is low, particularly among individuals enrolled in Medicaid. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the effectiveness of direct-to-member outreach by Medicaid health insurance plans to raise colorectal cancer screening use, nor how best to deliver such outreach.Methods: BeneFIT is a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of 2 program models that health plans developed for a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) intervention. The programs differed with regard to whether they used a centralized approach (Health Plan Washington) or collaborated with health centers (Health Plan Oregon). The primary implementation outcome of the current study was the percentage of eligible enrollees to whom the plans delivered each intervention component. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of FIT completion within 6 months of mailing of the introductory letter.Results: The health plans identified 12,000 eligible enrollees (8551 in Health Plan Washington and 3449 in Health Plan Oregon). Health Plan Washington mailed an introductory letter and FIT kit to 8551 enrollees (100%) and delivered a reminder call to 839 (10.3% of the 8132 attempted). Health Plan Oregon mailed an introductory letter, and a letter and FIT kit plus a reminder postcard to 2812 enrollees (81.5%) and 2650 enrollees (76.8%), respectively. FIT completion rates were 18.2% (1557 of 8551 enrollees) in Health Plan Washington. In Health Plan Oregon, completion rates were 17.4% (488 of 2812 enrollees) among enrollees who were mailed an introductory letter and 18.3% (484 of 2650 enrollees) among enrollees who also were mailed a FIT kit plus reminder postcard.Conclusions: The implementation of mailed FIT outreach by health plans may be effective and could reach many individuals at risk of developing colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Methods Findings Conclusion Patient navigation is a recommended practice to improve cancer screenings among underserved populations including those residing in rural areas with care access barriers. We report on patient navigation programme adaptations to increase follow‐up colonoscopy rates after abnormal fecal testing in rural primary care practices.Participating clinics delivered a patient navigation programme to eligible patients from 28 affiliated clinics serving rural communities in Oregon clustered within 3 Medicaid health plans. Patient navigation adaptations were tracked using data sources including patient navigation training programme reflections, qualitative interviews, clinic meetings, and periodic reflections with practice facilitators.Initial, planned (proactive) adaptations were made to address the rural context; later, unplanned (reactive) adaptations were implemented to address the impact of the COVID‐19 global pandemic. Initial planned adaptations to the patient navigation programme were made before the main trial to address the needs of the rural context, including provider shortages and geographic dispersion limiting both patient access to care and training opportunities for providers. Later unplanned adaptations were made primarily in response to COVID‐19 care suspension and staff redeployments and shortages that occurred during implementation.While unplanned adaptations were implemented to address the contextual impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on care access patterns and staffing, the changes to training content and context were beneficial to the rural setting overall and should be sustained. Our findings can guide future efforts to optimise the success of such programmes in other rural settings and highlight the important role of adaptations in implementation projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since implementation of the Affordable Care Act, 7 million+ individuals are newly covered on state-managed Medicaid programs and millions more on subsidized commercial insurance plans. We describe Oregon's experience in including colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as a measure for the state's new pay-for-performance Medicaid program. Using Oregon Health Authority data, we present 1) frequencies of Medicaid enrollees age-eligible for CRC screening, before and after Medicaid expansion; 2) CRC screening rates for 2011 and 2013; and 3) stakeholder perceptions about incentivizing CRC screening. Between December 2013 and June 2014, the size of the Medicaid-enrolled population age-eligible for CRC screening increased by 55% (104,920 to 163,078). Between 2011 and 2013, CRC screening rates improved by more than three percent for 6/15 (40%) CCOs; the majority of stakeholders surveyed (70%) supported the CRC screening metric. Inclusion of CRC screening as a Medicaid quality metric may present a unique opportunity to raise rates among historically underserved populations.