Association of Medicaid Insurance With Survival Among Patients With Small Cell Lung Cancer

Influence of Health Insurance Types on Clinical Cancer Care Accessibility and Quality Using All of Us Database

Background and Objectives: Cancer, as the second leading cause of death in the United States, poses a huge healthcare burden. Barriers to access to advanced therapies influence the outcome of cancer treatment. In this study, we examined whether insurance types affect the quality of cancer clinical care. Materials and Methods: Data for 13,340 cancer patients with Purchased or Medicaid insurance from the All of Us database were collected for this study. The chi-squared test of proportions was employed to determine the significance of patient cohort characteristics and the accessibility of healthcare services between the Purchased and Medicaid insurance groups. Results: Cancer patients who are African American, with lower socioeconomic status, or with lower educational attainment are more likely to be insured by Medicaid. An analysis of the survey questions demonstrated the relationship between income and education level and insurance type, as Medicaid cancer patients were less likely to receive primary care and specialist physician access and more likely to request lower-cost medications. Conclusions: The inequities of the US healthcare system are observed for cancer patient care; access to physicians and medications is highly varied and dependent on insurance types. Socioeconomic factors further influence insurance types, generating a significant impact on the overall clinical care quality for cancer patients that eventually determines treatment outcomes and the quality of life.

The Gap of Health Inequalities Amongst Lung Cancer Patients of Different Socioeconomic Status: A Brief Reference to the Greek Reality

Lung cancer treatment and patient care are constantly improving, but it remains doubtful whether this applies equally to all socioeconomic groups. It is nowadays well established that there are socioeconomic inequalities regarding lung cancer incidence, screening, effective treatment, overall survival, and prognosis. One of the key contributing factors to low socioeconomic status is low education. Low educational level is correlated with several factors, such as smoking habits, bad lifestyle behaviors, lower paid and unhealthier occupations, polluted neighborhoods, and genetic-familial risk, that lead to increased lung cancer incidence. The disparities regarding lung cancer care are further enhanced by stigma. On this basis and inspired by the gap in health equality among the Greek population, the Greek Society of Lung Cancer initiated a campaign, "MIND THE GAP", to help increase awareness and minimize the gap associated with lung cancer, both in Greece and across Europe. The aim of this review is to explore the gap of health inequalities regarding lung cancer incidence and prognosis between patients of different SES and its root of causality. Key pivotal actions towards bridging this gap are reviewed as well.

Understanding inequities in precision oncology diagnostics

Advances in molecular diagnostics have enabled the identification of targetable driver pathogenic variants, forming the basis of precision oncology care. However, the adoption of new technologies, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels, can exacerbate healthcare disparities. Here, we summarize data on use patterns of advanced biomarker testing, highlight the disparities in both accessing NGS testing and using this data to match patients to appropriate personalized therapies and propose multidisciplinary strategies to address inequities looking forward.

Association of individual low-income status and area deprivation with mortality in multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

Lower individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) and area-level SES have each been associated with poor survival outcomes among patients with multiple myeloma (MM). A body of literature suggests that individual-level SES may be differentially associated with mortality depending on area-level SES, and vice versa. This study assessed the effect of the cross-level interaction between individual low-income status and area deprivation on mortality among patients with MM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data (2006-2016). Individuals were defined as having low income if they were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and/or if they received the Low-Income Subsidy. The county-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI) was linked to individual-level SEER-Medicare data and categorized into quintiles, from the least deprived (Quintile 1) to the most deprived (Quintile 5). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the associations between low-income status, area deprivation, and all-cause mortality were estimated from a mixed-effects Cox proportional-hazards (PH) model.

RESULTS

The mortality hazard was higher for individuals with low income than individuals without low income in all quintiles of area deprivation, with the exception of Quintile 5 (Quintile 1: HR 1.53 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32-1.77]; Quintile 2: HR 1.17 [95%CI: 1.01-1.36]; Quintile 3: HR 1.34 [95%CI: 1.18-1.53]; Quintile 4: HR 1.33 [95%CI: 1.17-1.52]; Quintile 5: HR 1.09 [95%CI: 0.96-1.23]). Among individuals without low income, individuals residing in the most deprived area had a higher mortality hazard than individuals residing in the least deprived area (HR: 1.22 [95%CI: 1.03-1.45]). In contrast, among individuals with low income, residing in a more deprived area, Quintile 2, was associated with a lower hazard of death than residing in the least deprived area, Quintile 1 (HR: 0.82 [95%CI: 0.67-0.99]), and there was no statistically significant difference between Quintile 1 and Quintiles 3, 4, and 5.

DISCUSSION

In this analysis, there was a statistically significant cross-level interaction between individual low-income status and area deprivation on mortality. More research is needed to fully understand the mechanism behind these associations, but the findings show that patients and their health should be considered in the context of where they live.

Role of Medicaid in Early Detection of Screening-Amenable Cancers

BACKGROUND

This study examines the association between Medicaid enrollment, including through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), and distant stage for three screening-amenable cancers: breast, cervical, and colorectal.

METHODS

We use the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Cancer Registry linked with Medicaid enrollment data to compare patients who were Medicaid insured with patients who were not Medicaid insured. We estimate the likelihood of distant stage at diagnosis using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Medicaid enrollment following diagnosis was associated with the highest likelihood of distant stage. Medicaid enrollment through NBCCEDP did not mitigate the likelihood of distant stage disease relative to Medicaid enrollment prior to diagnosis. Non-Hispanic Black patients had a greater likelihood of distant stage breast and colorectal cancer. Residing in higher socioeconomic areas was associated with a lower likelihood of distant stage breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid enrollment prior to diagnosis is associated with a lower likelihood of distant stage in screen amenable cancers but does not fully ameliorate disparities.

IMPACT

Our study highlights the importance of health insurance coverage prior to diagnosis and demonstrates that while targeted programs such as the NBCCEDP provide critical access to screening, they are not a substitute for comprehensive insurance coverage.

Associations Between Medicaid Insurance, Biomarker Testing, and Outcomes in Patients With Advanced NSCLC

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that patients with Medicaid experience lower-quality cancer care than those with commercial insurance. Whether this trend persists in the era of personalized medicine is unclear. This study examined the associations between Medicaid (vs commercial) insurance and receipt of biomarker testing, targeted therapy, and overall survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients who received an aNSCLC diagnosis from January 2011 to September 2019 using a nationwide US healthcare database. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 64 years with Medicaid or commercial insurance at diagnosis. Receipt of biomarker testing (ALK, EGFR, ROS1, BRAF, and PD-L1) was assessed. The likelihood of testing, biomarker-driven therapy (cancer immunotherapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment), and mortality were compared by insurance type using adjusted Cox regression.

RESULTS

Our sample included 6,145 commercially insured and 865 Medicaid beneficiaries. Medicaid beneficiaries were more likely to be Black or African American (20% vs 9.3%; P <.001) and were less likely to have undergone biomarker testing (57% vs 71%; P <.001). In the adjusted analysis, Medicaid beneficiaries were less likely to have evidence of testing (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; P <.001), any first-line treatment (HR, 0.72; P <.001), and first-line biomarker-driven therapy (HR, 0.70; P <.001). Medicaid beneficiaries with evidence of biomarker testing had a lower risk of death compared with those without evidence of biomarker testing (HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.06-1.52]; P =.010). Higher risk of death was observed in patients with Medicaid versus commercially insured patients (HR, 1.23; P <.001); this result remained unchanged after adjusting for biomarker testing (HR, 1.22; P < .001) but was partially ameliorated after adjustment for testing and treatment type (HR, 1.12; P =.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid beneficiaries with aNSCLC were less likely to receive biomarker testing and biomarker-driven therapies, which may in part contribute to a higher observed risk of mortality compared with commercially insured patients.

Association of Medicaid expansion and insurance status, cancer stage, treatment and mortality among patients with cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Currently, little is known about the effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion on care delivery and outcomes in cervical cancer.

AIM

We evaluated whether Medicaid expansion was associated with changes in insurance status, stage at diagnosis, timely treatment, and survival outcomes in cervical cancer.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using the National Cancer Database, we performed a difference-in-differences (DID) cross-sectional analysis to compare insurance status, stage at diagnosis, timely treatment, and survival outcomes among cervical cancer patients residing in Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states before (2011-2013) and after (2014-2015) Medicaid expansion. January 1, 2014 was used as the timepoint for Medicaid expansion. The primary outcomes of interest were insurance status, stage at diagnosis, treatment within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis, and overall survival. Fifteen thousand two hundred sixty-five patients (median age 50) were included: 42% from Medicaid expansion and 58% from nonexpansion states. Medicaid expansion was significantly associated with increased Medicaid coverage (adjusted DID = 11.0%, 95%CI = 8.2, 13.8, p < .01) and decreased rates of uninsured (adjusted DID = -3.0%, 95%CI = -5.2, -0.8, p < .01) among patients in expansion states compared with non-expansion states. However, Medicaid expansion was not associated with any significant changes in cancer stage at diagnosis or timely treatment. There was no significant change in survival from the pre- to post-expansion period in either expansion or nonexpansion states, and no significant differences between the two (DID-HR = 0.95, 95%CI = 0.83, 1.09, p = .48).

CONCLUSION

Although Medicaid expansion was associated with an increase in Medicaid coverage and decrease in uninsured among patients with cervical cancer, the effects of increased coverage on diagnosis and treatment outcomes may have yet to unfold. Future studies, including longer follow-up are necessary to understand the effects of Medicaid expansion.

Understanding the Implications of Medicaid Expansion for Cancer Care in the US: A Review

Importance

Insurance status has been linked to important differences in cancer treatment and outcomes in the US. With more than 15 million individuals gaining health insurance through Medicaid expansion, there is an increasing need to understand the implications of this policy within the US cancer population. This review provides an overview of the fundamental principles and nuances of Medicaid expansion, as well as the implications for cancer care.

Observations

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act presented states with an option to expand Medicaid coverage by broadening the eligibility criteria (eg, raising the eligible income level). During the past 10 years, Medicaid expansion has been credited with a 30% reduction in the population of uninsured individuals in the US. Such a significant change in the insurance profile could have important implications for the 1.7 million patients diagnosed with cancer each year, the oncology teams that care for them, and policy makers. However, several factors may complicate efforts to characterize the effect of Medicaid expansion on the US cancer population. Most notably, there is considerable variation among states in terms of whether Medicaid expansion took place, when expansion occurred, eligibility criteria for Medicaid, and coverage types that Medicaid provides. In addition, economic and health policy factors may be intertwined with factors associated with Medicaid expansion. Finally, variability in the manner in which cancer care has been captured and depicted in large databases could affect the interpretation of findings associated with expansion.

Conclusions and Relevance

The expansion of Medicaid was a historic public policy initiative. To fully leverage this policy to improve oncological care and to maximize learning for subsequent policies, it is critical to understand the effect of Medicaid expansion. This review aims to better prepare investigators and their audiences to fully understand the implications of this important health policy initiative.

Association of Race, Socioeconomic Factors, and Treatment Characteristics With Overall Survival in Patients With Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer

IMPORTANCE

It has been established that disparities in race and socioeconomic status are associated with outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer. However, it remains unknown whether this extends to stage I, II, or III small cell lung cancer (SCLC), or limited-stage SCLC (L-SCLC).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the associations of race, socioeconomic factors, and treatment characteristics with survival among patients with L-SCLC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Demographic information for patients with L-SCLC diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 was obtained from the National Cancer Database. The follow-up end point is death or last follow-up (date of last contact). Patients were divided into 5 mutually exclusive cohorts by race. Data analysis was performed in October 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate univariable and multivariable models. Multivariable analyses were conducted to assess the associations of race and socioeconomic factors with risk-adjusted outcomes. Overall survival between groups was depicted by Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Of 72 409 patients analyzed (median [range] age, 67.0 [23.0-90.0] years), 40 289 (55.6%) were women. The distribution of disease stage was 10 619 patients (14.7%) with stage I disease, 7689 patients (10.6%) with stage II disease, and 54 101 patients (74.7%) with stage III disease. The median (range) duration of follow-up was 8.2 (2.4-15.8) months. Compared with White patients, the hazard of death decreased to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.95; P < .001) for African American patients and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91; P < .001) for Asian patients. The difference in median survival among different racial groups was significant only among those with stage III SCLC. Other factors associated with better survival were female sex, high income, high education, private insurance, diagnostic confirmation by positive cytological analysis, increase in number of sampled regional lymph nodes, and earlier stage at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This analysis highlights disparities in race and socioeconomic factors associated with outcomes of L-SCLC. Racial minorities, including African American and Asian patients, have better survival than White patients for L-SCLC after adjustment for sociodemographic factors.

Racial and Other Healthcare Disparities in Patients With Extensive-Stage SCLC

INTRODUCTION

Systemic treatment with chemotherapy is warranted for patients with extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The objective of this study was to determine whether racial and other healthcare disparities exist in receipt of chemotherapy for ES-SCLC.

METHODS

Utilizing the National Cancer Database, 148,961 patients diagnosed to have stage IV SCLC from 2004 to 2016 were identified. Adjusted ORs with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were computed for receipt of chemotherapy using multivariate logistic regression modeling. Cox regression modeling was used to perform overall survival analysis, and adjusted hazard ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 82,592 patients were included, among which chemotherapy was not administered to 6557 (7.9%). Higher education, recent year of diagnosis, and treatment at more than one facility were associated with increased odds of receiving chemotherapy. Factors associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving chemotherapy were increasing age, race, nonprivate insurance, and comorbidities. On multivariate analysis, black patients had lower odds of receiving chemotherapy compared with white patients (adjusted OR, 0.85; 95% CI: 0.77-0.93, p = 0.0004). Furthermore, black patients had better survival compared with white patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI: 0.89-0.94, p = 0.91). The 1-year survival (median survival) for black and white patients was 31.7% (8.3 mo) and 28.6% (8 mo), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients with ES-SCLC were less likely to receive chemotherapy, as were elderly, uninsured, and those with nonprivate insurance. Further studies are required to address underlying reasons for lack of chemotherapy receipt in black patients with ES-SCLC and guide appropriate interventions to mitigate disparities.

Assessment of hospital quality and safety standards among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery for cancer

BACKGROUND

We sought to assess the relationship between Leapfrog minimum volume standards, Hospital Safety Grades, and Magnet recognition with outcomes among patients undergoing rectal, lung, esophageal, and pancreatic resection for cancer.

METHODS

Standard Analytical Files linked with the Leapfrog Hospital Survey and the Leapfrog Safety Scores Denominator Files were used to identify Medicare patients who underwent surgery for cancer from 2016 to 2017. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine textbook outcomes relative to Leapfrog volume, safety grades, and Magnet recognition.

RESULTS

Among 26,268 Medicare beneficiaries, 7,491 (28.5%) were treated at hospitals meeting the quality trifactor (Leapfrog, safety grade A, and Magnet recognition) vs 18,777 (71.5%) at hospitals not meeting ≥1 designation. Patients at trifactor hospitals had lower odds of complications (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.89), prolonged duration of stay (odds ratio = 0.89, 95% confidence interval: 0.82-0.97), and higher odds of experiencing textbook outcome (odds ratio = 1.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.19). Patients undergoing surgery for lung (odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-1.30) and pancreatic cancer (odds ratio = 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.21-1.55) at trifactor hospitals had higher odds of textbook outcome, whereas this effect was not noted after esophageal (odds ratio = 1.16, 95% confidence interval: 0.90-1.48) or rectal cancer (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.27) surgery. Leapfrog minimum volume standards mediated the effect of the quality trifactor on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Quality trifactor hospitals had better short-term outcomes after lung and pancreatic cancer surgery compared with nontrifactor hospitals.