PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Karen A Fitzner

Publications and source records attributed to Karen A Fitzner.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among Veterans.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer screening is underused, particularly in the Veterans Affairs (VA) population. In a randomized controlled trial, a health care provider-directed intervention that offered quarterly feedback to physicians on their patients' colorectal cancer screening rates led to a 9% increase in colorectal cancer screening rates among veterans. The objective of this secondary analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening promotion intervention. METHODS: Providers in the intervention arm attended an educational workshop on colorectal cancer screening and received confidential feedback on individual and group-specific colorectal cancer screening rates. The primary end point was completion of colorectal cancer screening tests. Sensitivity analyses investigated cost-effectiveness estimates varying the data collection methods, costs of labor and technology, and the effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: Rates of colorectal cancer screening for the intervention versus control arms were 41.3% v 32.4%, respectively (P < .05). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollar 978 per additional veteran screened based on feedback reports generated from manual review of records. However, if feedback reports could be generated from information technology systems, sensitivity analyses indicate that the cost-effectiveness estimate would decrease to dollar 196 per additional veteran screened. CONCLUSION: An intervention based on quarterly feedback reports to physicians improved colorectal cancer screening rates at a VA medical center. This intervention would be cost effective if relevant data could be generated by existing information technology systems. Our findings may have broad applicability because a 2005 Medicare initiative will provide the VA electronic medical record system as a free benefit to all US physicians.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Granulocyte colony--stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with small cell lung cancer : the 40% rule revisited.

Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) [filgrastim and lenograstim] and pegylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) have been shown to reduce the severity and duration of chemotherapy-associated febrile neutropenia (FN) when administered prophylactically to cancer patients receiving chemotherapeutic regimens. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) evidence-based clinical guidelines published in 1994, 1996 and 1997 recommended primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for cancer patients. The 2000 ASCO update, with the same recommendation, highlights the importance of economic considerations in decision making for CSFs. This paper reviews the available cost-effectiveness evidence on the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis against FN in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC).Cost-effectiveness ratios from a healthcare payer perspective supported the use of filgrastim as primary prophylaxis for people with SCLC, on the basis of both clinical and economic benefits, treated with chemotherapeutic regimens that have an FN rate in the range of 40-60%. However, when indirect and patient out-of-pocket costs attributable to severe FN are included, available evidence suggests that the risk threshold may be reduced by more than half. Given that FN rates associated with chemotherapeutic regimens for SCLC are generally <40%, then few circumstances would warrant the use of G-CSFs (filgrastim and lenograstim) under the current rule. However, inclusion of indirect costs would lower the cost-effectiveness threshold. Future cost-effectiveness studies of medications such as pegfilgrastim should attempt to capture the societal perspective by incorporating productivity-related costs and using base-case rates of FN reported in the literature.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The financial burden of cancer: estimates from a study of insured women with breast cancer.

The financial impact of cancer can be large, even among persons with comprehensive health insurance policies. Prior studies have found that women with cancer are especially likely to suffer financial hardship. Although controversial, cancer insurance policies are designed to reduce the financial burden of cancer. In this study, we provide estimates of the costs incurred by a cohort of breast cancer patients who were covered by private, Medicare, or Medicaid health insurance. In all, 156 women were interviewed about cancer-related out-of-pocket costs and their knowledge and use of cancer insurance policies. Out-of-pocket expenditures and lost income costs averaged $1,455 per month and varied widely. The majority of out-of-pocket costs were for co-payments for hospitalizations and physician visits. The financial burden of breast cancer accounted for a mean of 98%, 41%, and 26% of monthly income among female breast cancer patients with annual household income levels of < or = $30,000, $30,001-$60,000, and > $60,000, respectively. Cancer insurance policies provided reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenditures for 3% of the women in our study. Our data indicate that even among women with comprehensive health insurance policies, the financial burden of breast cancer can be substantial. Affordable programs that provide reimbursement for medical and nonmedical costs incurred following a diagnosis of breast cancer should be developed, especially for lower income women.

Adult↗