Defense Department Funds Pharmacy-Based Program to Boost Colorectal Cancer Screening in Veterans

In September 2026, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded a four year, 4.2 million dollar grant to researchers at the University of Missouri School of Medicine. The project involves the University of Missouri Kansas City School of Pharmacy and the Missouri Pharmacy Association. This joint effort will test whether community pharmacies can improve colorectal cancer screening rates among military veterans. The study is scheduled to run through 2030 and focuses on providing practical testing solutions.

Jane McElroy, PhD, serves as the principal investigator for this comprehensive federal grant. She is a professor and research director in the University of Missouri School of Medicine Department of Family and Community Medicine. She also co directs the Rural Health Research Center and serves as an assistant director for the NextGen Center for Influenza and Emerging Infectious Diseases. Her background in community medicine will guide the structure of the new screening intervention.

McElroy will work alongside several specialized academic colleagues to execute the project. Her collaborators include Heather Pierce, MD, who works as an assistant professor of family and community medicine. Nai Wei Chen is an assistant research professor of biomedical informatics and medical epidemiology who serves on the core team. Together, they will evaluate practical strategies for moving patients from initial education to completed diagnostic tests.

The planned intervention may include both colonoscopy and stool based screening methods. The university describes colonoscopies and stool testing kits as the primary screening options for participants. The broader screening literature recognizes stool tests and colonoscopy among the recommended colorectal cancer screening modalities. The central question is whether enhanced pharmacy engagement produces higher screening rates than education alone.

Why Does This Pharmacy Program Matter for Veterans?

This funding matters because it tests a practical solution for a well documented access problem. Many former service members experience sudden disruptions in their healthcare access during the transition out of the military. Veterans might also face elevated colorectal cancer risks due to possible toxic exposures during their active duty service. The University of Missouri cited these specific challenges as reasons for targeting the veteran population.

The statement that veterans are at higher risk is reported in the university announcement with attribution to U.S. Medicine. This rationale helps explain the target audience for the federal grant funding. However, readers should avoid assuming that all veterans have a uniformly elevated risk or that military toxic exposure is the sole explanation for cancer diagnoses. The project simply aims to make preventive care easier for a population that frequently encounters logistical hurdles.

The project relies heavily on the physical proximity of local pharmacies to reach patients effectively. The university announcement states that more than 95 percent of Americans live within 10 miles of a pharmacy. This massive footprint makes community pharmacies a logical testing ground for reaching people who lack easy access to major hospital systems. For rural veterans, a conversation with a local pharmacist is often much easier to arrange than a specialized clinic appointment.

However, the current project operates as a controlled research intervention rather than a finalized policy change. It tests whether local pharmacies can provide meaningful help beyond simply handing out an informational pamphlet. Access to a local pharmacy building does not automatically solve systemic issues like scheduling, health literacy, or insurance coverage. The study will measure if structured professional support can actually overcome these stubborn logistical barriers.

How Will the Screening Study Work in Practice?

The Department of Defense grant structures the research around 100 participating community pharmacies. These locations will be divided into two distinct groups to measure the exact impact of hands on patient support. One group of pharmacies will provide standard education only to their patients. The second group will offer enhanced support throughout the entire screening and follow up process.

This enhanced support model involves specific interventions designed to keep patients engaged. The program includes active reminders to schedule testing and direct follow up guidance to help patients complete the next necessary step. Pharmacy technicians trained as community health workers will discuss individual risk factors and present available screening options. Meanwhile, pharmacists and technicians will assist with complex care navigation and coordinate directly with primary care clinicians.

Researchers want to know if this active navigation leads to more completed tests across the board. Follow up completion remains a critical metric for any successful screening program. A systematic review of 10 controlled studies found that dedicated patient navigation increased diagnostic colonoscopy completion compared to usual care. That particular review reported a pooled risk ratio of 1.27 for completing the procedure.

The evidence base is not equally strong for every type of follow up intervention available to patients. The same systematic review found that eight studies evaluated patient navigation specifically. In contrast, registry based quality improvement and low touch result notification were each represented by only one study. The Missouri study will test if pharmacy staff can replicate the navigation success seen in previous health disparity populations.

Historical data shows that many veterans have at least engaged with screening methods in the past. A recent analysis of veterans in the CONFIRM study reported that 56.5 percent had prior colorectal screening test use. Within that specific group, 40.7 percent reported prior fecal occult blood testing. Another 25.3 percent reported prior colonoscopy use during their medical history.

While these numbers show prior test use, they do not guarantee that all individuals remain currently up to date on their clinical guidelines. Pharmacy based colorectal cancer screening is already being studied in other settings to address these gaps. For instance, the PharmFIT study is currently evaluating whether a pharmacy based fecal immunochemical test intervention increases screening among primary care patients who are not up to date.

McElroy characterized the model as potentially broader than just colorectal cancer screening. She noted that if successful, the pharmacy program could provide a blueprint for delivering additional preventive care services through pharmacies. This remains a project leader's expectation rather than an established scientific result.

What Does This Mean for Your Preventive Health Plan?

The research reinforces the need for clear communication between patients and their primary care teams. Current evidence reviews recommend routine colorectal cancer screening for average risk adults ages 45 through 75. A solid healthy aging plan should include a discussion about which specific test fits your age and medical history. The review identifies fecal immunochemical testing, high sensitivity guaiac based fecal occult blood testing, and multitarget stool DNA testing among stool based options.

The American Cancer Society describes annual stool based testing as one valid and established screening pathway. However, an abnormal stool test result requires a follow up colonoscopy to complete the diagnostic process. Veterans must plan for this potential next step before they select a simple at home testing method. Veterans who receive an abnormal stool test result should ask who is responsible for scheduling the diagnostic colonoscopy and how completion will be tracked.

Screening recommendations for average risk adults do not automatically apply to people with symptoms or a personal history of colorectal cancer. Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary cancer syndromes, or other elevated risk conditions need a different clinical approach. The Missouri announcement does not provide a clinical risk stratification protocol for the general public. Readers should always consult a clinician for individualized guidance regarding their specific health profile.

Veterans should treat the new pharmacy model as an additional tool rather than a complete replacement for standard medical care. You should continue utilizing VA facilities or military health system services for comprehensive physical evaluations. If you have concerns about toxic exposure or a strong family history of disease, bring those up with your doctor immediately. These factors can change your personal screening schedule and require specialized veteran healthcare coordination.

Readers in rural areas should actively confirm if their local pharmacy participates in the new study. You need to know if the local staff can coordinate results with your doctor and help arrange follow up care if necessary. Proper tracking ensures that a positive stool test leads directly to the required diagnostic procedure. Staying informed about these new care models helps active personnel and veterans maintain their physical capability, so check our military health articles for updates.

Will this enhanced pharmacy navigation model ultimately provide a reliable blueprint for delivering other vital preventive care services to veterans in the future?

Sources

1. Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests | Sigmoidoscopy & Colonoscopy
2. Nct06656936 colorectal cancer screening pharmacies pharmfit study (The PharmFIT Study | Clinical Trial)
3. Patient navigation improved colonoscopy completion after an abnormal stool test
4. Race, ethnicity, and prior colorectal screening test use in CONFIRM ...
5. $4 Million Grant to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screenings