An Analysis of Cancer Registry Cost Data: Methodology and Results (original) (raw)
Related papers
Economic assessment of central cancer registry operations, Part III: Results from 5 programs
J Registry Manag
In this article, we report on the development of methods and a framework to guide the economic evaluation of central cancer registry operations. We used both quantitative and qualitative information collected from central cancer registries funded by the National Program of Cancer Registries to develop the framework. Several factors were identified that can influence the cost of registry operations: size of the geographic area served, quality of the hospital-based registries, setting of the registry, local cost of living, presence of rural areas, years in operation, volume of cases, complexity of out-of-state case ascertainment, extent of consolidation of records to cases, and types of advanced activities performed. A range of state-level and central cancer registry-level factors may influence the cost and cost-effectiveness of registries. These findings will inform planned future economic data collection and cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of central cancer registries.
Economic Assessment of Central Cancer Registry Operations. Part I: Methods and Conceptual Framework
J Registry Manag
In this article, we report on the development of methods and a framework to guide the economic evaluation of central cancer registry operations. We used both quantitative and qualitative information collected from central cancer registries funded by the National Program of Cancer Registries to develop the framework. Several factors were identified that can influence the cost of registry operations: size of the geographic area served, quality of the hospital-based regis-tries, setting of the registry, local cost of living, presence of rural areas, years in operation, volume of cases, complexity of out-of-state case ascertainment, extent of consolidation of records to cases, and types of advanced activities performed. A range of state-level and central cancer registry-level factors may influence the cost and cost-effectiveness of registries. These findings will inform planned future economic data collection and cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of central cancer registries.
Estimating the cost of operating cancer registries: Experience in Colombia
Cancer Epidemiology, 2016
Background-Maintaining population-based registries requires adequate and sustained resources; however, to date there has been no systematic evaluation to identify the resource needs for cancer registration in most countries, including Colombia. A systematic assessment of the costs can quantify the funding required and identify processes to improve efficiency of cancer registries. Methods-The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) International Registry Costing Tool (IntRegCosting Tool) was tailored specifically for the Colombian registries and was used to collect resource use data from five regional population-based cancer registries: Barranquilla, Bucaramanga, Cali, Manizales, and Pasto. The registries provided cost data for the year 2013 and cancer cases corresponding to the year 2010. Results-We identified an almost threefold variation in the average cost per case (77,932 to 214,082 Colombian pesos or US 41toUS41 to US 41toUS113 in 2013) across the registries, but there were also substantial differences in data collection approaches, types of data collected, and activities performed. Cost per inhabitant varied between 95 and 415 Colombian pesos (US 0.05toUS0.05 to US 0.05toUS0.22). Between 20% and 45% of the total cost was due to fixed cost activities. Conclusions-The detailed economic information presented in this study constitutes a valuable source of activity-based cost data that registries can use to compare operations, assess key factors that lead to differences in cost per case, and identify potential approaches to improve efficiencies. Furthermore, the knowledge gained from studying the Colombian registries can help inform the planning and operations of other registries in the region.
Cancer Epidemiology, 2016
All governments have approved the Global Monitoring Framework on Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs), which includes a commitment to reduce premature NCD (including cancer-related) deaths by 25% by 2025. The global monitoring framework requires WHO member states to collect cancer incidence, by type of cancer per 100,000 population-one of 25 indicators to monitor progress toward the 25 by 25 targets [1]. Population-based cancer registries are units that collect and report high quality data on cancer incidence. The data generated by population-based cancer registries are essential for informing health programs, policies and strategies regarding cancer screening and treatment, and for evaluating the impact of national programs for cancer prevention, screening, and treatment [2,3]. However, there are large differences in the existence, coverage and quality of cancer registration across ☆ The findings and conclusion of this presentation do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Economic assessment of integrated cancer and cardiovascular registries: The Barbados experience
Cancer epidemiology, 2016
This report describes the resources required to support the integrated approach of the Barbados National Registry for Chronic Non-communicable Diseases (BNR) to non-communicable disease (NCD) case registration, and to identify differences in cost for collecting and maintaining information on cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) case registration. We used the modified Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's International Registry Costing Tool to collect data from the CVD and cancer registries. We used cancer and CVD cost data for the annual period April 2014 through March 2015 to estimate the total cost and cost per case. We used prospectively collected average annual CVD cases, and for cancer cases we assumed 2 or 3 years are needed for retrospective data collection. The Ministry of Health provided 56% of the resources for the registries. Labor accounted for over 70% of both registries' budgets, while management and administration, along with data collection and anal...
Economic evaluation of cancer registration in Europe
Journal of registry management, 2014
Little has been reported on costs of cancer registration, and standard indicators have not yet been identified. This study investigated costs and outcomes of a sample of 18 European registries covering a population of 58.8 million inhabitants. Through a questionnaire, we asked registries for real cost data including personnel, information technology (IT), and infrastructure. Staff costs were grouped by professional position and by activity performed. As outcomes, besides the production of current data, we considered publications in peer-reviewed journals (last 5 years' impact factor [IF]) and characteristics of registry websites. In our sample, the average cost of cancer registration per inhabitant was €0.27 at purchasing power standard (PPS) (range €0.03-€0.97), while the mean cost per case registered was €50.71 PPS (range €6-€213). Personnel costs accounted for an average of 79 percent of total resources. Resources spent in routine activities (an average of 51 percent, range 2...
Cancer Epidemiology, 2016
Introduction-Cancer registration is an important activity for informing cancer control activities. Cancer registries in Sub-Saharan Africa have limited resources to effectively operate because of competing priorities. To date, there has not been an assessment of the resources and funding needed to perform all the activities essential for cancer registration in Kenya. Evidence will help registries to quantify and advocate for the funds needed to sustain, enhance, and expand high quality cancer registration in Kenya. Methods-In this study, we used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) International Registry Costing Tool (IntRegCosting Tool) to evaluate the funding, cost, and labor resources used to perform the cancer registry operations in Nairobi County for two annual periods between July 2012 and June 2014. Results-Funding from grants, research studies, and international organizations provided 70% of the registry operations' cost. For both time periods, the most-costly registry activities were related to administration, management, and training, along with data acquisition activities such as data abstraction, entry, and validation. Even among these core registry activities, however, substantial variations existed. Conclusions-Stable funding for cancer registry operations is necessary to sustain core registry activities in other to deliver high-quality data, which in turn is necessary to foster evidence-based policies to improve cancer outcomes. As stakeholders look into expanding the Nairobi Cancer Registry into a national program, the cost data provided in this study will help justify the funding required for sustaining and expanding registry activities.
Completeness and timeliness: Cancer registries could/should improve their performance
European Journal of Cancer, 2015
The mission of a cancer registry is to provide complete and reliable incidence data with a short delay. Methods for monitoring completeness and timeliness are available to registries ranging from less to more complex. We wanted to know which methods are currently in use among cancer registries and to compare results with those obtained in a previous survey conducted in year 2006. Methods We launched a new survey with questions on type of registry, completeness methods used and time and type of result dissemination. We sent the questionnaire to all general (GCR) and specialised (SCR) registries active in Europe, including the 27 countries of the European Union, the candidate members, Norway and Switzerland, from the list made available by the European Network of Cancer registries (ENCR). Results With a response rate of 65.8% among GCR and 58.3% among SCR, we obtained 116 registries (population covered: 280 millions) available for analysis. The most common methods used were trends comparison (79%), and mortality-incidence ratio (above 60%). More complex methods resulted less used: capture-recapture (30%), the flow method (18%), and MIAMOD/PIAMOD (14%). Median time for completing the incidence was 18 months, but with wide variation. Result dissemination delay was shorter, although more than one third (36.3%) declared to not publish their results on own, but only contributing to larger national or international data repositories and publications. Conclusions Cancer registries should further improve the practice of measuring their completeness and should shift from traditional to more modern quantitative methods. Words: 246
Development of a tool for comprehensive evaluation of population-based cancer registries
International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2018
Several methods have been suggested for evaluation of population-based cancer registries (PBCR) worldwide. However, most of these methods evaluate the data and outputs of the cancer registries. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive tool and protocol for evaluation of inputs, processes and outputs of a PBCR. Methods: The standards of the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) were used to draft a comprehensive checklist. In addition, the national guidelines of PBCR were used to develop a questionnaire for evaluation of knowledge and practice of the PBCR personnel. Furthermore, a protocol for evaluation of the completeness and validity of the PBCR data was developed according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the NAACCR guidelines. A 0-4 Likert based score and expert opinions (10 experts) were used to assess validity of the eight questionnaires/checklists. A modified Delphi method was applied to validate the checklists and questionnaires. Questions with a score higher than 3 remained in the final tools. Results: The final package consists of 546 questions including 108 (19.8%) for evaluation of guidelines, 54 (9.9%) for analysis and reports, 87 (15.9%) for governance and infrastructure, 155 (28.4%) for information technology, 21 (3.8%) for personnel knowledge and 121 (22.2%) for their practice. Additionally, data quality indicators were also considered for evaluation of PBCRs. Conclusion: This comprehensive tool can be used to show the gaps and limitations of the PBCR programs and provide informative clues for their improvement.