4.6 Article

Regional variation in colorectal cancer testing and geographic availability of care in a publicly insured population

Journal

HEALTH & PLACE
Volume 29, Issue -, Pages 114-123

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.07.001

Keywords

Colorectal cancer screening; Medicaid; Medicare; Regional variation; Multilevel modeling; Disabled

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Special Interest Project [11-041]
  2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Mentored Clinical Scientists Comparative Effectiveness Development Award [1-K-12 HS019468-01]
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [K05 CA129166]
  4. State of North Carolina through the University Cancer Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, colorectal cancer (CRC) testing is suboptimal, particularly in vulnerable populations such as those who are publicly insured. Prior studies provide an incomplete picture of the importance of the intersection of multilevel factors affecting CRC testing across heterogeneous geographic regions where vulnerable populations live. We examined CRC testing across regions of North Carolina by using population-based Medicare and Medicaid claims data from disabled individuals who turned 50 years of age during 2003-2008. We estimated multilevel models to examine predictors of CRC testing, including distance to the nearest endoscopy facility, county-level endoscopy procedural rates, and demographic and community contextual factors. Less than 50% of eligible individuals had evidence of CRC testing; men, African-Americans, Medicaid beneficiaries, and those living furthest away from endoscopy facilities had significantly lower odds of CRC testing, with significant regional variation. These results can help prioritize intervention strategies to improve CRC testing among publicly insured, disabled populations. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available