ObjectiveScreening colonoscopy's effectiveness in reducing colorectal cancer mortality risk in community populations is unclear, particularly for right-colon cancers, leading to recommendations against its use for screening in some countries. This study aimed to determine whether, among average-risk people, receipt of screening colonoscopy reduces the risk of dying from both right-colon and left-colon/rectal cancers.DesignWe conducted a nested case–control study with incidence-density matching in screening-eligible Kaiser Permanente members. Patients who were 55–90 years old on their colorectal cancer death date during 2006–2012 were matched on diagnosis (reference) date to controls on age, sex, health plan enrolment duration and geographical region. We excluded patients at increased colorectal cancer risk, or with prior colorectal cancer diagnosis or colectomy. The association between screening colonoscopy receipt in the 10-year period before the reference date and colorectal cancer death risk was evaluated while accounting for other screening exposures.ResultsWe analysed 1747 patients who died from colorectal cancer and 3460 colorectal cancer-free controls. Compared with no endoscopic screening, receipt of a screening colonoscopy was associated with a 67% reduction in the risk of death from any colorectal cancer (adjusted OR (aOR)=0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52). By cancer location, screening colonoscopy was associated with a 65% reduction in risk of death for right-colon cancers (aOR=0.35, CI 0.18 to 0.65) and a 75% reduction for left-colon/rectal cancers (aOR=0.25, CI 0.12 to 0.53).ConclusionsScreening colonoscopy was associated with a substantial and comparably decreased mortality risk for both right-sided and left-sided cancers within a large community-based population.

IMPORTANCE Adherence to medications prescribed after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is low. Wireless technology and behavioral economic approaches have shown promise in improving health behaviors. OBJECTIVE To determine whether a system of medication reminders using financial incentives and social support delays subsequent vascular events in patients following AMI compared with usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Two-arm, randomized clinical trial with a 12-month intervention conducted from 2013 through 2016. Investigators were blinded to study group, but participants were not. Design was a health plan-intermediated intervention for members of several health plans. We recruited 1509 participants from 7179 contacted AMI survivors (insured with 5 large US insurers nationally or with Medicare fee-for-service at the University of Pennsylvania Health System). Patients aged 18 to 80 years were eligible if currently prescribed at least 2 of 4 study medications (statin, aspirin, β-blocker, antiplatelet agent), and were hospital inpatients for 1 to 180 days and discharged home with a principal diagnosis of AMI. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 2:1 to an intervention using electronic pill bottles combined with lottery incentives and social support for medication adherence (1003 patients), or to usual care (506 patients). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome was time to first vascular rehospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes were time to first all-cause rehospitalization, total number of repeated hospitalizations, medication adherence, and total medical costs. RESULTS A total of 35.5% of participants were female (n = 536); mean (SD) age was 61.0 (10.3) years. There were no statistically significant differences between study arms in time to first rehospitalization for a vascular event or death (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.52; P = .84), time to first all-cause rehospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.09; P = .27), or total number of repeated hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.48; P = .79). Mean (SD) medication adherence did not differ between control (0.42 [0.39]) and intervention (0.46 [0.39])

T elehealth or telemedicine, defined as "the use of communications technologies to provide and support health care at a distance," has become an important part of medical care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 1,2 In response to the emergent need to reduce the spread of COVID-19 by limiting physical contact, Medicare's 1135 Waiver lifted previous limits on patient location, range of providers, and the requirement for patients to reside in designated rural areas or for patients to have established provider relationships to receive medical services through telemedicine. Additionally, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services increased reimbursement for telephone visits on par with video. 3 However, given limited telemedicine use pre-COVID-19, 4 data on clinician and patient attitudes outside of rural and research settings are lacking. We describe a real-world experience of patient-and clinician-rated acceptability of telephone and video outpatient visits during the initial 4 weeks of the emergency COVID-19 response at a large, diverse gastroenterology (GI)/hepatology practice in an academic health system.

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Key Points Question Can different forms of financial incentives (unconditional, conditional, or lottery) boost response rates to mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach? Findings In this randomized clinical trial of 897 patients, there was no statistically significant difference in screening response rates at 2 and 6 months between the incentive arms and mailed outreach without incentive. Meaning Different forms of financial incentives of the same expected value ($10) did not increase fecal immunochemical test completion rates, as the incentive value have been too small or financial incentives may not be effective in this context.

The NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening describe various colorectal screening modalities as well as recommended screening schedules for patients at average or increased risk of developing sporadic CRC. They are intended to aid physicians with clinical decision-making regarding CRC screening for patients without defined genetic syndromes. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on select recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines, including a section on primary and secondary CRC prevention, and provide context for the panel’s recommendations regarding the age to initiate screening in average risk individuals and follow-up for low-risk adenomas.

Key Points Question Are breast and colorectal cancer screening rates associated with the time of day a patient visits the primary care clinician? Findings In this quality improvement study analysis of 33 primary care practices including 19 254 patients eligible for breast cancer screening and 33 468 patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening, both clinician ordering and patient completion of cancer screening tests decreased as the time of day progressed. Meaning Patients with primary care clinic appointment times later in the day were less likely to be ordered for and receive guideline recommended cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Screening outreach programs using population health management principles offer services uniformly to all eligible persons, but racial/ethnic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening patterns in such programs are not well known. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between race/ ethnicity and the receipt of CRC screening and timely follow-up of positive results before and after implementation of a screening program. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of screen-eligible individuals at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California community-based integrated healthcare delivery system (2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013). SUBJECTS: A total of 868,934 screen-eligible individuals 51-74 years of age at cohort entry, which included 662,872 persons in the period before program implementation (2004)(2005)(2006), 654,633 during the first 3 years after implementation (2007)(2008)(2009), and 665,268 in the period from 4 to 7 years (2010-2013) after program implementation. INTERVENTION: A comprehensive system-wide longterm effort to increase CRC that included leadership alignment, goal-setting, and quality assurance through a PHM approach, using mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) along with offering screening at office visits. MAIN MEASURES: Differences over time and by race/ ethnicity in up-to-date CRC screening (overall and by test type) and timely follow-up of a positive screen. Race/ ethnicity categories included non-Hispanic white, nonHispanic black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and multiple races. KEY RESULTS: From 2004 to 2013, age/sex-adjusted CRC screening rates increased in all groups, including 35.2 to 81.1 % among whites and 35.6 to 78.0 % among blacks. Screening rates among Hispanics (33.1 to 78.3 %) and Native Americans (29.4 to 74.5 %) remained lower than those for whites both before and after program implementation. Blacks, who had slightly higher rates before program implementation (adjusted rate ratio [RR] = 1.04, 99 % CI: 1.02-1.05), had lower rates after program implementation (RR for period from 4 to 7 years = 0.97, 99 % CI: 0.96-0.97). There were also substantial improvements in timely follow-up of positive screening results. CONCLUSIONS: In this screening program using core PHM principles, CRC screening increased markedly in all racial/ethnic groups, but disparities persisted for some groups and developed in others, which correlated with levels of adoption of mailed FIT.