Notes from the Field: Increase in Coccidioidomycosis - California, 2016.

Coccidioidomycosis, or Valley Fever, is an infectious disease caused by inhalation of Coccidioides spp. spores (1). This soil-dwelling fungus is endemic in the southwestern United States, with most (97%) U.S. cases reported from Arizona and California (1,2). Following an incubation period of 1-3 weeks, symptomatic patients most often experience self-limited, influenza-like symptoms, but coccidioidomycosis also can lead to severe pulmonary disease and to rare cases of disseminated disease, including meningitis (1). Those at increased risk for severe disease include persons of African or Filipino descent, pregnant women, adults in older age groups, and persons with weakened immune systems (1). In 2016, a large increase in coccidioidomycosis incidence was observed in California compared with previous years (3). Using data reported by health care providers and laboratories via local health departments to the California Department of Public Health as of May 9, 2017, incidence rates were calculated by estimated year of illness onset as the number of confirmed coccidioidomycosis cases per 100,000 population (3). Estimated year of illness onset was extracted from the closest date to the time when symptoms first appeared for each patient. From 1995, when coccidioidomycosis became an individually reportable disease in California, to 2009, annual incidence rates ranged from 1.9 to 8.4 per 100,000, followed by a substantial increase to 11.9 per 100,000 in 2010 and a peak of 13.8 per 100,000 in 2011 (Figure). Annual rates decreased during 2012-2014, but increased in 2016 to 13.7 per 100,000, with 5,372 reported cases, the highest annual number of cases in California recorded to date.

Program-specific cost-effectiveness analysis: breast cancer screening policies for a safety-net program.

BACKGROUND: Every Woman Counts (EWC), a California breast cancer screening program, faced challenging budget cutbacks and policy choices. METHODS: A microsimulation model evaluated costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of EWC program mammography policy options on coverage for digital mammography (which has a higher cost than film mammography but recent legislation allowed reimbursement at the lower film rate); screening eligibility age; and screening frequency. Model inputs were based on analyses of program claims data linked to California Cancer Registry data, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, and the Medi-Cal literature. Outcomes included number of procedures, cancers, cancer deaths, costs, and incremental cost per life-year. RESULTS: Projected model outcomes matched program data closely. With restrictions on the number of clients screened, strategies starting screening at age 40 years were dominated (not cost-effective). This finding was highly robust in sensitivity analyses. Compared with no screening, biennial film mammography for women aged 50 to 64 years was projected to reduce 15-year breast cancer mortality by nearly 7.8% at $18,999 per additional life-year, annual film mammography was $106,428 per additional life-year, and digital mammography $180,333 per additional life-year. This more effective, more expensive strategy was projected to reduce breast cancer mortality by 8.6%. Under equal mammography reimbursement, biennial digital mammography beginning at age 50 years was projected to decrease 15-year breast cancer mortality by 8.6% at an incremental cost per additional life-year of $17,050. CONCLUSIONS: For the EWC program, biennial screening mammography starting at age 50 years was the most cost-effective strategy. The impact of digital mammography on life expectancy was small. Program-specific cost-effectiveness analysis can be completed in a policy-relevant time frame to assist policymakers faced with difficult program choices.

Adherence to recent screening mammography among Latinas: findings from the California Women's Health Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Latinas are less likely than other racial/ethnic groups to engage in mammography rescreening, but little research has examined why Latinas overdue for screening have not had a mammogram recently. This study investigates the factors that affect adherence to screening mammography guidelines among previously screened Latinas. METHODS: Data are from a population-based, random-digit-dial annual probability survey of California women. Participants included 1298 Latinas aged > or =40 who ever had a mammogram. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine what factors differentiate adherence to recent screening (having a mammogram < or =2 years ago) from being overdue for screening (having a last mammogram >2 years ago). Perceived barriers to screening were also examined among women overdue for a mammogram. Relationships between self-reported perceived barriers to screening and the identified differentiating factors were assessed using chi-square tests. RESULTS: Adherence to recent mammography was reported by 83.9% of previously screened Latinas. When controlling for significant covariates, factors associated with adherence to recent screening included being aged 50-64, having a college education, preferring to interview in Spanish, having health insurance, and reporting a usual source of care (p < 0.05). Lack of affordability was the most frequently cited perceived barrier to screening among Latinas overdue for screening. Age, education, health insurance, and usual source of care were significantly associated with specific perceived barriers to screening mammography. CONCLUSIONS: Results underscore the impact that affordability of, knowledge about, and convenience in obtaining mammograms have on adherence to recent screening. Strategies to improve mammography adherence among Latinas may need to consider that solely improving access to insurance or a regular source of healthcare, although important, may not be sufficient to improve rates of Latinas' screening mammography adherence.

Applying the small-area estimation method to estimate a population eligible for breast cancer detection services.

INTRODUCTION: Populations eligible for public health programs are often narrowly defined and, therefore, difficult to describe quantitatively, particularly at the local level, because of lack of data. This information, however, is vital for program planning and evaluation. We demonstrate the application of a statistical method using multiple sources of data to generate county estimates of women eligible for free breast cancer screening and diagnostic services through California's Cancer Detection Programs: Every Woman Counts. METHODS: We used the small-area estimation method to determine the proportion of eligible women by county and racial/ethnic group. To do so, we included individual and community data in a generalized, linear, mixed-effect model. RESULTS: Our method yielded widely varied estimated proportions of service-eligible women at the county level. In all counties, the estimated proportion of eligible women was higher for Hispanics than for whites, blacks, Asian/Pacific Islanders, or American Indian/Alaska Natives. Across counties, the estimated proportions of eligible Hispanic women varied more than did those of women of other races. CONCLUSION: The small-area estimation method is a powerful tool for approximating narrowly defined eligible or target populations that are not represented fully in any one data source. The variability and reliability of the estimates are measurable and meaningful. Public health programs can use this method to estimate the size of local populations eligible for, or in need of, preventive health services and interventions.