Caring for the Uninsured with Prostate Cancer

A Comparison of Four Policy Alternatives in California

Published In: Journal of Community Health, v. 35, no. 1, Feb. 2010, p. 18-26

by Jonathan Bergman, Susan Logan, Arlene Fink, David A. Ganz, Mark A. Peterson, Mark Litwin

Read More

Access further information on this document at Springer Netherlands

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

The IMPACT Program seeks to improve access to prostate cancer care for low-income, uninsured men. The objective of the current study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of four policy alternatives in treating this population. The authors analyzed the cost-effectiveness of four policy alternatives for providing care to low-income, uninsured men with prostate cancer: (1) IMPACT as originally envisioned, (2) a version of IMPACT with reduced physician fees, (3) a hypothetical Medicaid prostate cancer treatment program, and (4) the existing county safety net. They calculated cost-effectiveness based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with the formula ICER = (Costalternative strategy ? Costbaseline strategy) / (QALYalternative strategy ? QALYbaseline strategy). The authors measured outcomes as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Best-case scenarios assumed timely access to care in 50% of cases in the county system and 70% of cases in any system that reimbursed providers at Medicaid fee-for-service rates. Worst-case scenarios assumed timely access in 35 and 50% of corresponding cases. In fiscal year 2004-2005, IMPACT allocated 11% of total expenditures to administrative functions and 23% to fixed clinical costs, with an overall budget of $5.9 million. The ICERs ($/QALY) assuming best-case scenarios for original IMPACT, modified IMPACT, and a hypothetical Medicaid program were $32,091; $64,663; and $10,376; respectively. ICERs assuming worst-case scenarios were $27,189; $84,236; and $10,714; respectively. County safety net was used as a baseline. In conclusion, IMPACT provides underserved Californians with prostate cancer care and value-added services with only 11% of funds allocated to administrative fixed costs. Both the original IMPACT program and the hypothetical Medicaid prostate cancer program were cost-effective compared to the county safety net, while the reduced-fees version of IMPACT was not.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.