Proposed · In development

The Prevention Adoption Gap.

America’s preventive services work. Completion is what fails. The Prevention Adoption Initiative is a proposed toolkit to close that gap in safety-net settings — beginning with a colorectal-cancer screening pilot. Everything here is illustrative and future-tense; nothing has been deployed.

§ 00 · In one breath

Proven preventive services exist, but completion fails — colorectal screening sits below target, worst in the safety net. The Prevention Adoption Initiative is a disease-agnostic engine that finds who’s overdue, removes friction, and drives completion — with an explainable, fairness-audited dashboard. I’m looking for a clinic to pilot it and partners to scale it.

WHAT

A completion engine

An installable toolkit — registry + friction removal + reminders + escalation — that makes recommended preventive care actually get finished. CRC first; disease-agnostic by design.

WHY

The failure is adoption, not science

Every lever is already recommended and cost-effective; what’s missing is reliable execution in under-resourced settings — a measurable, economic problem.

HOW

Prove it, then scale it

A pre-registered single-site pilot with internal controls, an explainable AI dashboard, and a named sustainability path — then replicate across a network.

§ 01 · The problem

Recommended, reimbursed, and still not completed.

The failure is in adoption, not in the science. Proven, recommended services stall before completion — especially in the communities safety-net systems serve.
SIGNAL 01

~8% get everything

Only about 8% of U.S. adults 35+ received all 15 high-priority clinical preventive services measured (Borsky et al., Health Affairs, 2018) — directional, but stark.

SIGNAL 02

63.5% vs 72.8%

U.S. colorectal-cancer screening sits at 63.5% (2023) against the Healthy People 2030 target of 72.8% — and has barely moved off baseline.

SIGNAL 03

~44% in FQHCs

Federally Qualified Health Centers screened just 44.1% (2018 UDS) — the gap concentrates exactly where the pilot proposes to work.

SOURCES — Borsky et al., Health Affairs 2018; Healthy People 2030 objective C-07 (2023); NCCRT / HRSA UDS 2018. Figures reconciled to current objectives; the older 68.3%/74.4% pair referred to the prior 50–75 age objective.

§ 02 · Does the model work?

Every lever is already evidence-based — the hard part is execution.

The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends each mechanism, with quantified median effects. But real-world safety-net effect sizes depend on implementation fidelity.
LeverMedian increase in CRC screeningPillar
Reducing structural barriers (mailed at-home FIT)+16.1 ppService redesign
Provider reminder / recall systems+15.3 ppData infrastructure
Patient navigation+13.6 ppImplementation
Client (patient) reminders+10.9–11.5 ppData infrastructure
The honest caveat that shapes the whole design. The flagship real-world FQHC trial (STOP CRC, 26 clinics) raised FIT completion only ~3.4 points on average — with site results ranging from −7 to +18 points, driven almost entirely by how faithfully each clinic executed the mailing. Implementation fidelity, not the science, is the binding constraint. That is precisely why this initiative leads with an implementation-enablement pillar.

SOURCES — CDC Community Guide (CRC screening findings); Coronado et al., STOP CRC cluster-RCT (JAMA Internal Medicine, 2018).

§ 03 · The approach

Three pillars, one completion loop.

PILLAR 01

Service redesign & friction reduction

Make the completed path the easiest one — defaults, mailed at-home FIT, one-click scheduling, barrier removal.

PILLAR 02

Behaviorally-configured data infrastructure

Registries and dashboards that surface who is overdue and where patients drop out; FHIR integration; automated reminders; CHW escalation.

PILLAR 03

Implementation enablement

Training so a site can run and sustain the toolkit itself — the pillar the evidence says matters most.

01
Identify — surface who is overdue from the registry.
02
Reduce friction — mail the at-home test, default the easy path.
03
Communicate — literacy-tailored reminders in the patient’s language.
04
Escalate — community health worker outreach for non-responders.
05
Measure — close the loop, including diagnostic follow-up after a positive result.
§ 04 · The demonstration

A proposed 12-month colorectal-cancer completion pilot.

One Southeast Michigan FQHC. Disease-agnostic infrastructure, proven first on a single measure the site already reports and is paid on.

The pilot would target a clinic below the UDS colorectal-cancer benchmark, with a FHIR-capable EHR, an existing outreach function, and a quality-improvement sponsor. Evaluation would follow the RE-AIM framework against the site’s own baseline.

What would make the evidence credible — and where the honest weaknesses are. A single-site pre/post design cannot separate the intervention from secular trends. To be credible, the pilot should pre-register a benchmarked target (for example, ≥10 points above the site’s trend and above the ~3.4-point STOP CRC benchmark), add a comparison clinic or stepped-wedge where feasible, name the payment mechanism that sustains staffing after the grant, and guarantee diagnostic follow-up after a positive test.
§ 05 · Who this is for

Built for the people who own preventive-care completion.

The same argument, told in each partner’s terms. If one of these is you, there’s a way in.
§ 06 · Global by design

One engine, many diseases — and not only in the U.S.

Colorectal cancer is the first proof, not the scope. The completion gap is the same wherever recommended care stalls before it is finished.

The registry-plus-outreach loop is deliberately disease-agnostic — the same mechanism applies to cervical and breast screening, hypertension, diabetes follow-up, and immunizations. It is also system-portable. National screening systems abroad face the identical problem: Bangladesh, for example, runs a community-clinic cervical and breast screening program with a national registry, yet reports low uptake and loss to follow-up — a completion-and-fidelity gap, not a science gap.

As the initiative matures, the engine is intended to extend to those settings — beginning where the founder already has standing and screening-service experience — so a method proven in one U.S. health center can inform preventive-care completion far more broadly. This global extension is a future direction, in development; the current work is the U.S. demonstration above.

§ 06b · Bangladesh — the engagement models

Different partners, different value — same completion engine.

PRIVATE HEALTHCARE

It has to make them money — and it does

For a private network (a natural first partner such as the founder’s former employer), completion is revenue: more screenings mean more diagnostics, more downstream care, higher patient retention, and stronger corporate-wellness and payer contracts. BDOT lifts the completion rate the business is already trying to grow — solving the health problem and the P&L at once.

GOVERNMENT

Fix a program that already exists

Who: the DGHS Non-Communicable Disease Control (NCDC) programme, the national cervical & breast screening leadership, and the Community Clinic Health Support Trust. How: embed the completion loop into the existing ~14,000 community clinics and the national electronic registry to close the uptake and follow-up gaps the programme’s own evaluation reports — piloted in a few upazilas, aligned to the national strategy.

RESEARCH & NGO

Reach, rigor, and credibility

BRAC and Marie Stopes for community reach; icddr,b, BSMMU, and NICRH for evaluation and clinical authority. These partners turn a pilot into publishable, scalable evidence — and open doors to both government and donor funding.

§ 07 · Development roadmap

From MOU to national scale.

Phase 0 · Mo 1–3
Site MOU

Recruit a Wayne/Washtenaw FQHC via the Michigan Primary Care Association and EMU faculty; lock outcomes and follow-up in the agreement.

Phase 1 · 12 months
CRC completion beta

Run the loop; evaluate with RE-AIM against baseline (and a comparison where feasible).

Phase 2
Productize & replicate

Package the toolkit, seek peer review, replicate at a second site.

Phase 3
National scale

Distribute via PCA / HCCN / NTTAP networks and professional bodies (NACCHO, ASTHO, APHA, SOPHE).

§ 08 · Status & participation

This is an HSREP initiative in development. All designs are illustrative, all language is future-tense, and no patient data has been collected. Operational materials will be reviewed by counsel before any launch.

I’m seeking the institutional home to lead this pilot — a partnership, a role, or a funded engagement with a health center, a payer, or a research group that owns this problem.

If your organization owns preventive-care completion, let’s talk. Host the pilot, fund it, or bring me in to lead it.Book 30 min