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.

Which one are you?Pick one to see what this means for you.
United States
Bangladesh
Either context
The short versionProposed · in development
Problem
Adults 45–75 up to date on screening63.5%
National target 72.8% (marked). FQHC average 44.89% (CY2025 UDS).
Positive stool tests that get the colonoscopy24–75%
A reported range, not a settled figure. NCQA has proposed a HEDIS measure to close it.

Screening fails twice, and the second failure is the one that costs a life. The services work; completion is what fails.

Solution
Never screenedA mailed kit and reminders, aimed first at whoever is least likely to finish.
Positive test, no colonoscopyNavigation, and time-to-colonoscopy tracked until the result is closed.

One proposed disease-agnostic completion engine covers both gaps, on a fidelity dashboard. An explainable, fairness-audited model layer is on the roadmap, not in the first pilot. The weekly loop it runs is set out under “How it works.”

Evidence
Median increase
Mailed FIT outreach+16pp
Reminders+15pp
Patient navigation+14pp

All three already carry a Community Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Nothing here needs a new intervention invented. One honest limitation: real-world gains depend on implementation fidelity, which this design exists to protect.

Cost
DirectWith overhead
Per patient screened$54.83$72.90
Per additional patient screened$67.05$91.47

Mailed-FIT outreach, Pignone et al., JGIM 2021. The second row assumes 5% of the panel would have been screened anyway; where background screening is near zero the two rows are the same number. Funding is discussed with each partner.

The ask
One clinic to run a pre-registered 12-month pilot; partners to scale it.
What this means for you

Improve a measure you already report

Why youCRC completion is a UDS measure you report every year, and the national FQHC average is 44.89% (Michigan: 48.74%), CY2025 UDS.
DifferentNot a new program: a fidelity loop that runs inside your existing staffing, your clinical team in the lead.

Move a system measure with a fidelity-first loop

Why youYour population-health team owns HEDIS COL and value-based targets, and soon, follow-up-after-positive completion.
DifferentThe loop instruments execution (who was reached, what closed) not just outcomes, so gains hold across sites.

Move the measure you're already paid on

Why youColorectal cancer screening (COL) has been in the CMS Medicaid Adult Core Set since 2022, and managed-care contracts commonly tie Core Set performance to a quality withhold or incentive payment. NCQA has proposed the follow-up measure itself (COF-E, HEDIS MY2027: colonoscopy within 180 days of a positive test).
DifferentA published mailed-FIT cost benchmark, $54.83 direct per patient screened (Pignone 2021), equity-stratified, run inside your network's clinics.

Co-design a publishable pilot

Why youA pre-registered stepped-wedge / RE-AIM evaluation of completion fidelity in a safety-net site, implementation science's live question.
DifferentProtocol-first publication, rigor built in from day one, co-authorship on the table.

Fund a cost-effective, scalable model

Why youA published mailed-FIT cost benchmark, $54.83 direct per patient screened (Pignone 2021), equity-stratified, with a named post-grant sustainability path.
DifferentYou fund execution infrastructure that outlasts the grant, not another one-off program. In Bangladesh: a donor-supported implementation-research pilot inside the national screening program.

Bring a measurable completion model to your members

Why youYour member sites report these measures, and most face the same completion gap.
DifferentA turnkey, evidence-based package members run inside existing staffing, with the fidelity discipline included.

Finish the tests you already start

Why youYou already run entry-level test campaigns. The leak is conversion: price shock at the next step, urgency that never lands, and second-visit logistics.
DifferentThe loop attacks all three: transparent bundled next-step pricing, literacy-tailored urgency communication, one-visit and home-collection logistics. An operational lesson from inside a private network: coverage alone doesn't complete care; a designed loop does.

Strengthen a program that already exists

Why youBangladesh's national screening program has reach and a registry (roughly 14,000 community clinics on e-HIS as of 2019) yet its own evaluation found only 40.4% of VIA-positive women attended for colposcopy between January 2018 and May 2023 (Nessa et al., BMC Global and Public Health 2025;3:34).
DifferentEmbed, don't build: the completion loop plugs into the registry and clinics you already run, DGHS NCDC, NCCBCST, and the Community Clinic Health Support Trust, piloted in a few upazilas.

For patients: care that actually reaches you

Why youThis work exists so recommended care actually reaches people, with dignity, in plain language.
DifferentYour data is not sold or exploited, decisions can be explained, and the limits are stated plainly.
How it worksOne loop, run every week. Colorectal cancer screening is the first test of it.
  1. 01
    FindEveryone overdue, plus every positive test still waiting on a colonoscopy.
  2. 02
    RankPrioritize by transparent rules: days overdue, days since a positive test, prior no-shows. A predictive model comes only after a validated pilot.
  3. 03
    ActMatch the action to the barrier: a mailed kit, a reminder, navigation, or a community health worker.
  4. 04
    CloseRecord completion and time-to-colonoscopy, and watch the equity gap so outreach never widens it.
Then it runs again next weekSee the loop running
§ 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.

Only about 8% of U.S. adults 35 and older received all fifteen high-priority clinical preventive services measured (Borsky et al., Health Affairs, 2018). Colorectal-cancer screening is one measure inside that failure, and it is the one this pilot takes on.

Panel A · Screening completion

Share of the eligible population up to date with colorectal-cancer screening.

U.S. adults, 202363.5%
Michigan health centers, CY2025 UDS48.74%
Federally Qualified Health Centers, national CY2025 UDS44.89%

Vertical marks show the Healthy People 2030 target of 72.8% (objective C-07). Bars run on a 0–100% axis. Read the denominators. The Healthy People objective is defined for ages 50–75; HRSA UDS has reported ages 45–75 since CY2023, so the health-center bars and the target are close but not identical measures.

Panel B · Follow-up after a positive test

Share of people with a positive stool test who complete the diagnostic colonoscopy. Reported figures vary widely by setting.

Reported range, national24-75%

Different denominator. Panel A is measured on everyone eligible for screening. Panel B is measured only on those who screen positive. The two are not stages of one funnel and the percentages should not be multiplied together.

SOURCES: Borsky et al., Health Affairs 2018; Healthy People 2030 objective C-07 (2023 baseline 63.5%, target 72.8%); HRSA Uniform Data System CY2025 national and Michigan state performance indicators, accessed 3 August 2026. UDS changed its screening denominator from ages 50–75 to 45–75 beginning CY2023, so UDS years before and after that break are not directly comparable.

§ 02 · The constraint

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+11.5 pp standalone, +10.9 pp incrementalData infrastructure
The same mailed-FIT program, 26 safety-net clinics. Change in completion, percentage points.
CPSTF median for mailed FIT+16.1 STOP CRC average+3.4
−70+18

The coral bar is the full spread of site results, not a distribution; individual clinic values are not published. Every one of these clinics ran the same program. What separates the two ends is how faithfully each one executed it.

The honest limitation 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 Preventive Services Task Force, colorectal-cancer screening findings, accessed 3 August 2026 (all figures are median effect sizes); Coronado et al., STOP CRC cluster-RCT (JAMA Internal Medicine, 2018).

§ 03 · What makes this different

The execution layer for the interventions you already run.

Every lever here is already recommended and, in most systems, already attempted. The difference is what happens between recommendation and completion.
01 · COMPLETION, NOT INITIATION

Designed around finishing

The test returned, the positive followed up, the loop closed. Follow-up after a positive result, the measure NCQA has proposed for HEDIS MY2027 (COF-E: colonoscopy within 180 days of a positive test), is this initiative’s core object, not an afterthought.

02 · FIDELITY-FIRST

Execution quality decides outcomes

STOP CRC’s range, −7 to +18 points on the same intervention, shows fidelity is where results leak. The dashboard tracks whether each step actually happened, not just the end number.

03 · INSIDE WHAT EXISTS

Runs inside what exists

Inside existing staffing, EHRs, and national programs. No parallel system, no new burden: the completed path becomes the easiest path.

§ 04 · The approach

Three core pillars run the loop. Three more are the roadmap.

One loop, four stages, run on a weekly cycle. The first site runs it on three core pillars. The other three are what the toolkit grows into after a validated pilot; they are not part of the first pilot.
01Find 02Rank 03Act 04Close
  1. 01
    Find

    Pull everyone overdue from the registry, plus every positive test still waiting on a colonoscopy.

  2. 02
    Rank

    Prioritize by transparent rules, days overdue, days since a positive test, prior no-shows, and show the reason beside each name. A predictive model comes only after a validated pilot.

  3. 03
    Act

    Match the action to the barrier: a mailed at-home test, a reminder in the patient’s language, help with scheduling, or a community health worker.

  4. 04
    Close

    Record completion and time to colonoscopy, and watch the equity gap so outreach does not widen it.

Then it runs again the following week

The pilot loop: the three pillars the first site runs.

CORE 01 · Act

Service redesign & friction reduction

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

CORE 02 · Find

Interoperable data infrastructure

Registries and dashboards that surface who is overdue and where patients drop out, one nightly de-identified 19-column file for the pilot (FHIR / TEFCA-ready integration later), automated reminders, and CHW escalation on one record.

CORE 03 · All four

Implementation enablement

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

The roadmap: three more pillars the toolkit grows into after a validated pilot. None of these run in the first pilot.

ROADMAP 01 · Rank

Predictive AI, explainable

After a validated pilot. A proposed model layer that flags who is most likely to fall out of the loop and prioritizes outreach accordingly, explainable and fairness-audited, human-in-the-loop, never a black box.

ROADMAP 02 · Act

Agentic & conversational outreach

After a validated pilot, and only under the site’s consent process and a BAA. Generative-AI patient navigation: multilingual, two-way reminders over SMS and messaging that shepherd each patient through scheduling and at-home testing, culturally tailored, and always handing off to a human when it matters.

ROADMAP 03 · Close

Algorithmic equity & governance

After a validated pilot. Continuous bias and fairness auditing, SDOH-aware targeting, and privacy-by-design under a human review board, so the model narrows disparities in who completes care rather than widening them.

§ 05 · See it working

The registry a site would work each week.

Everything above is a claim about how completion gets closed. This is the screen where it would happen, built and open, so you can judge it instead of taking it on trust.
Demonstration · synthetic data only · no EHR connection · no PHI · messages simulated, not sent
The demonstration dashboard, showing the urgent queue of patients with a positive stool test still awaiting a colonoscopy. Each row carries days since the positive result, a banded time-to-colonoscopy clock, an explainable risk score broken into its drivers, and a next-best action.Interactive · open the demo

If you have one minute

  1. Read the top row. One patient is 194 days past a positive stool test, already outside the 180-day window of the follow-up measure NCQA has proposed. Most EHRs have no screen that shows you this.
  2. Press Complete colonoscopy on that patient. The follow-up rate, the median days-to-colonoscopy and the equity gap all move together. That is the loop a site would work.
  3. Open Equity, follow-up by language. That gap is the number a QI committee is graded on, and the one outreach automation most often makes worse.
Open the demo dashboard

Static and synthetic. No real patients, no PHI, no EHR connection, and nothing is deployed. The file a site would send is specified field by field, all 19 columns, with a sample you can download.

§ 06 · The demonstration

A proposed pilot, end to end.

One Southeast Michigan FQHC, twelve months, colorectal cancer first. The infrastructure is disease-agnostic; it gets proven 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. The route to that clinic runs through the Michigan Primary Care Association and EMU faculty; the academic principal investigator is to be confirmed. Evaluation would follow the RE-AIM framework against the site’s own baseline.

Pilot at a glance
SiteOne Southeast Michigan FQHC below the UDS colorectal benchmark, with an outreach function and a QI sponsor
Duration12 months, after a 1–3 month MOU and baseline phase
MeasuresScreening completion (UDS / HEDIS COL) and follow-up after a positive test (proposed COF-E: colonoscopy within 180 days)
The site providesA QI sponsor, existing outreach staff time (sized together at baseline; no new hires), and one nightly de-identified 19-column file
HSREP providesImplementation lead: training, the fidelity dashboard, weekly measurement, coordination
EvaluationOwned independently by a faculty principal investigator with IRB coverage. PI: to be confirmed
PatientsConsent and outreach run under the site’s own policies; no patient data leaves the site’s environment
First readoutAfter one full screening cycle, about month six; full results at month 12, published whichever way they go
If it does not workThe site keeps its baseline workflow; the protocol and the negative result are published
Phase 0 · Mo 1-3Phase 1 · The pilot yearPhase 2-3 · After the pilot
  1. Step 01
    MOU

    One host FQHC plus an academic and IRB home. No entity required.

  2. Step 02
    Baseline

    Pull the site’s own screening and follow-up data, then pre-register the target and the protocol before anything runs.

  3. Step 03
    Install

    Embed the completion loop in existing staffing and the EHR. The fidelity dashboard tracks whether each step actually happens.

  4. Step 04 · 12 months
    Evaluate

    RE-AIM against the site’s own baseline, a comparison clinic where feasible, and guaranteed diagnostic follow-up after a positive test.

  5. Step 05
    Publish

    Protocol and results in the open, including the parts that did not work.

  6. Step 06
    Second site

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

  7. Step 07
    Network

    Distribute through PCA, HCCN and NTTAP networks and professional bodies: NACCHO, ASTHO, APHA, SOPHE.

YOUR TEAM

Delivers care

The site’s own clinical staff keep doing their jobs; the loop removes friction around them, not on top of them.

MY ROLE

Implementation lead

Fidelity, training, measurement, and coordination, the discipline that makes the interventions land as designed.

ACADEMIC PARTNER

Owns the evaluation

Research standing, IRB coverage, and the pre-registered protocol, rigor held independently of the implementer.

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.

DATA GOVERNANCE: the host site remains the covered entity; patient data stays in the site's environment or a BAA-covered tenant; HSREP operates under a signed BAA with minimum-necessary access.

§ 08 · 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 loop does not care which disease it runs on. The same registry-plus-outreach mechanism applies to cervical and breast screening, hypertension, diabetes follow-up, and immunizations. It travels across health systems too. The table below sets the U.S. demonstration beside the health system the founder knows best.

The same four stages, either wayFind → Rank → Act → Close
United States
Bangladesh
Where it runs
One Southeast Michigan health center, colorectal cancer screening first.
Community clinics under the national cervical and breast screening program.
What already exists
UDS reporting, a FHIR-capable EHR, and an outreach function the site already staffs.
Roughly 14,000 community clinics as of 2019, and a national electronic registry.
Where it leaks
Screening gets counted, but a positive test is not always followed to colonoscopy.
Low uptake and loss to follow-up, reported by the program’s own evaluation.
Status
The demonstration described above.
A future direction, in development.

Where the work begins abroad is where the founder already has standing and screening-service experience. That is a reason to start there, not evidence that it will work there. The current work is the U.S. demonstration above.

§ 08b · Bangladesh, the engagement models

Different partners, different value, same completion engine.

PRIVATE HEALTHCARE

Where completion is also good business

For a private network, a natural first partner, higher completion compounds commercially: more screenings lead to more diagnostics, more appropriate downstream care, stronger patient retention, and better-positioned corporate-wellness and payer contracts. The initiative raises the completion rate the business is already working to grow, advancing patient health and commercial performance together.

GOVERNMENT

Strengthening a program that already exists

For the DGHS Non-Communicable Disease Control Programme (NCDC), the national cervical & breast screening leadership, and the Community Clinic Health Support Trust, the completion loop embeds into the existing network of roughly 14,000 community clinics as of 2019 and the national electronic registry, closing the uptake and follow-up gaps the program’s own evaluation identifies, piloted in a few upazilas and aligned to the national strategy.

RESEARCH & NGO

Reach, rigor, and credibility

BRAC and Marie Stopes bring community reach; icddr,b, BSMMU, and NICRH bring evaluation and clinical authority. Together, these partners can turn a pilot into publishable, scalable evidence, and open pathways to both government and donor funding.

§ 09 · Credibility

The work already done.

Judge the initiative by what exists before the ask, not by claims.
+34%

Screening growth, operationally

At a private healthcare network in Bangladesh, led the growth strategy that raised preventive screening utilization 34%, this exact class of metric, moved inside a real delivery system.

Proves · operational delivery
2 countries

A published evidence base

An MPH capstone (Eastern Michigan University) examining health-system fragility and prevention across the U.S. and Bangladesh, published publicly as Season 1’s nine-article argument.

Proves · research grounding
57,274

Attention on a $0 budget

Season 1’s advocacy campaign drew 57,274 impressions, summed across three platforms and reconciled to better than 94%, with no ad spend, 5.7× the target set in advance. Attention can be mobilized without a grant.

Proves · mobilization
Built

The engine, before the ask

The completion loop, its three core pillars and three-pillar roadmap, the evaluation approach, the dashboard demo, and both country briefs are already designed and public. Nothing is deployed; the discipline is shown before anyone is asked to commit.

Proves · execution discipline
Md Shafaat Ali Choyon, Founder, HSREP · MBA, MCIM, MPH, CHES®
Proposed · no pilot yet, that is the point of the ask
§ 10 · 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 one host site, an academic partner to own the evaluation, and the partners to scale what works. Step one, in every case, is a 30-minute conversation.

WHAT I BRING

Designed and demonstrated, not yet deployed

The completion toolkit (registry logic, friction-removal playbook, fidelity dashboard, and the evaluation framework) designed and documented, with an explainable model layer on the roadmap. You start from a plan, not a blank page.

WHO LEADS IT

Public-health & growth strategy

MPH, CHES®, and 16+ years turning complex systems into measurable results, with screening-service and safety-net experience. I lead the pilot end to end.

WHAT YOU GET

A fundable demonstration

A pre-registered single-site pilot with internal controls and a named sustainability path, a result you can publish, scale, or take to funders.

If your organization owns preventive-care completion, let’s talk. Host the pilot, fund it, or partner on it. Step one is a conversation.Book 30 min
· Take it to your team

The data spec is the whole ask of your IT team: 19 de-identified columns in one nightly file. No name, MRN, date of birth, address or phone leaves your system. Field-by-field notes are in the demo.

Frequently asked

The initiative, in plain answers.

What the Prevention Adoption Initiative is, and, just as important, what it is not yet.
What is the Prevention Adoption Gap?
The distance between preventive care that is recommended and reimbursed and the care that is actually completed. The failure is adoption and execution, not the underlying science: people start a preventive pathway far more often than they finish it.
Why track follow-up colonoscopy, not just the screening test?
Because that is where the pathway breaks and where lives are lost. A positive stool test is only a warning; the diagnosis needs a follow-up colonoscopy, and nationally, between 24% and 75% of positive tests get one. In Italian screening-program data, people who never completed one were about twice as likely to die of colorectal cancer (hazard ratio 2.03; Zorzi, Gut 2022), and in a 70,124-patient Kaiser Permanente cohort the odds of advanced-stage disease beyond twelve months were more than three times those of a colonoscopy done within a month (Corley, JAMA 2017). Both are associations rather than measured causal effects. Most registries mark screening “done” at the stool test; this initiative treats an unresolved positive result as an open, time-critical item, aligned with COF-E, the follow-up measure NCQA has proposed for HEDIS MY2027 (colonoscopy within 180 days of a positive test). The dashboard demo shows that queue.
Is the colorectal-cancer screening pilot running yet?
No. The pilot is proposed and in development. Nothing has been deployed, and all operational designs shown here are illustrative.
Where would the first pilot run?
The proposed first site is a safety-net setting in Southeast Michigan, chosen because that is where the completion gap is widest and the toolkit can be tested under real constraints.
Is the initiative specific to colorectal cancer?
No. It is a disease-agnostic toolkit for closing preventive-care completion gaps. Colorectal-cancer screening completion is simply the first demonstration.
How can an organization host or partner on the pilot?
Organizations that own this problem (health systems, safety-net clinics, payers, or public-health agencies) can start a conversation through the platform to host the pilot, partner on it, or fund it.
Does the first pilot use AI?
No. The first site runs the completion loop on transparent rules: days overdue, days since a positive test, prior no-shows. Reminders and navigation are delivered by the site’s own staff through its existing channels. A predictive, explainable model and conversational outreach are on the roadmap, to be considered only after a validated pilot, under the site’s governance and a BAA. No patient messaging is automated in the first pilot.
How is this different from CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program?
CRCCP funds the same evidence-based levers, and this initiative is designed to complement it, not compete with it. The difference is where results actually leak: STOP CRC showed outcomes hinge on execution fidelity, which no federal program instruments. This initiative adds a fidelity dashboard that tracks whether each step happened, treats follow-up after a positive test (the proposed COF-E measure) as the core object rather than an afterthought, and reuses the same engine across diseases. A CRCCP-funded site could run this loop inside its existing award.