A Community-Partnered, Evidence-Based Approach to Improving Cancer Care Delivery for Low-Income and Minority Patients with Cancer

Promising Directions: A Systematic Review of Psychosocial and Behavioral Interventions with Cultural Incorporation for Advanced and Metastatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Improving quality of life (QOL) in advanced and metastatic cancer is a priority with increasing survivorship. This systematic review synthesizes psychosocial and behavioral interventions incorporating culture with the goal of examining their benefit for understudied and medically underserved populations with advanced and metastatic cancer.

METHOD

Reports were systematically screened for (1) a focus on advanced and metastatic cancer survivors, (2) psychosocial or behavioral intervention intended to improve QOL, (3) evidence of incorporating the culture(s) of understudied/underserved populations, and (4) availability in English. Bias was evaluated using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist and the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. Qualitative synthesis and quantitative meta-analyses were completed.

RESULTS

Eighty-six reports containing 5981 participants' data were examined. Qualitative synthesis of 23 studies identified four overarching themes relevant for incorporating culture in interventions. Meta-analysis of 19 RCTs and 4 quasi-experimental studies containing considerable heterogeneity indicated greater improvements in QOL (g = 0.84), eudaimonic well-being (g = 0.53), distress (g = -0.49), and anxiety (g = -0.37) for main intervention conditions compared to controls. Meta-analysis of 10 single-arm trials containing minimal to moderate heterogeneity found benefit for anxiety (g = -0.54), physical symptoms (g = -0.39), and depression (g = -0.38).

CONCLUSION

Psychosocial and behavioral interventions with cultural incorporation appear beneficial for improving QOL-related outcomes in advanced and metastatic cancer. Studies incorporating culture in psychosocial or behavioral interventions offer noteworthy insight and suggestions for future efforts such as attending to deep cultural structure.

Effect of a Community Health Worker-Led Intervention Among Low-Income and Minoritized Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether a community health worker (CHW)-led intervention could improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL; primary outcome) more than usual care among low-income and racial and ethnic minoritized populations newly diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted from November 1, 2018, until August 31, 2021, in outpatient cancer clinics in Atlantic City, NJ, and Chicago, IL. Hourly low-wage worker members of an employer union health fund age 18 years or older with newly diagnosed solid tumor and hematologic malignancies were randomly assigned 1:1 to usual care (control group) or usual care augmented with a trained CHW for 12 months (intervention group). The CHW assisted participants with advance care planning (ACP), proactively screened symptoms, and referred participants to community-based resources for identified health-related social needs. Usual care comprised nurse case management and benefits redesign (waived copayments and free transportation for any cancer care received at preferred oncology clinics in each city). The primary outcome was HRQoL. Secondary outcomes included patient activation, satisfaction with decision, ACP documentation, health care use, total health care costs, and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 160 participants were enrolled. Intervention group participants had a greater increase in mean HRQoL scores at 4-month and 12-month follow-up as compared with baseline than control group participants (expected mean difference, 11.25 [95% CI, 7.28 to 15.22]; 11.29 [95% CI, 6.96 to 15.62], respectively).

CONCLUSION

In this randomized trial, a CHW-led intervention significantly improved HRQoL for low-income and racial and ethnic minoritized patients with cancer more than usual care alone.

Palliative and End-of-Life Care Interventions with Minoritized Populations in the US with Serious Illness: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 20 years, palliative care in the United States has grown significantly. Yet, access to and/or engagement with palliative care for minoritized persons with serious illness remains limited. In addition, the focus of palliative and end-of-life care research has not historically focused on equity-informed intervention development that collaborates directly with minoritized populations. Equity-informed interventions within palliative and end-of-life care research have the potential to champion collaborations with persons with serious illness and their families to mitigate health inequities. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine and describe the literature on the approaches used in the design and development of palliative and end-of-life care interventions with minoritized populations with serious illness.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews was followed for tracking and reporting purposes. Included articles were described quantitatively and analyzed qualitatively with content analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria: eight used quantitative methods, eight used qualitative methods, ten reported a community-based participatory research method, nine used mixed-methods, and two had research designs that could not be determined. The qualitative analysis revealed three themes: (1) stakeholder involvement and feedback, (2) intervention focus, and (3) target intervention population (population vs healthcare clinician).

CONCLUSIONS

Using an equity-informed research approach is vital to improve palliative and end-of-life care interventions for minoritized communities with serious illness. There is also a need for more robust publishing guidelines related to community-based participatory research methods to ensure publication consistency among research teams that employ this complex research method.

The Colocation Model in Community Cancer Care: A Description of Patient Clinical and Demographic Attributes and Referral Pathways

PURPOSE

Cancer disparities are well documented among Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, yet little is known about the characteristics of programs that serve these populations. Integrating specialized cancer care services within community settings is important for addressing the needs of historically marginalized populations. Our National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center initiated a clinical outreach program incorporating cancer diagnostic services and patient navigation within a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) to expedite evaluation and resolution of potential cancer diagnoses with the goal of collaboration between oncology specialists and primary care providers in a historically marginalized community in Boston, MA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed from patients who were referred to the program for cancer-related care between January 2012 and July 2018.

RESULTS

The majority of patients self-identified as Black (non-Hispanic) followed by Hispanic (Black and White). Twenty-two percent of patients had a cancer diagnosis. Treatment and surveillance plans were established for those with and without cancer at a median time to diagnostic resolution of 12 and 28 days, respectively. The majority of patients presented with comorbid health conditions. There was a high prevalence of self-reported financial distress among patients seeking care through this program.

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight the wide spectrum of cancer care concerns in historically marginalized communities. This review of the program suggests that integrating cancer evaluation services within community-based primary health care settings offers promise for enhancing the coordination and delivery of cancer diagnostic services among historically marginalized populations and could be a method to address clinical access disparities.

Health Care Professionals' Perspectives on Implementation, Adoption, and Maintenance of a Community Health Worker-Led Advance Care Planning and Cancer Symptom Screening Intervention: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

Advance care planning (ACP) and symptom screening are nationally recommended for all patients with advanced stages of cancer. Yet, routine delivery of such care remains challenging because of multilevel barriers. We hired and trained community health workers (CHWs) to assist with delivery of these services across the United States. The aim of this study was to explore health care professionals' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to these team-based approaches.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 44 health care professionals in 21 cancer clinics in seven US cities using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. We recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews using the framework analysis approach.

RESULTS

Participants noted barriers and facilitators to implementation, adoption, and maintenance of CHW-led ACP and symptom management approaches. Participants were initially skeptical; however, they noted a positive shift in their views over time because of personal experiences and effectiveness in their clinics. There was significant variation in adoption with some using a prescriptive top-down approach and others a bottom-up approach. Most agreed that the combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches would be most efficient and effective for promoting team-based care. All participants discussed implementation and provided suggestions for maintenance including organizational support, leadership, and CHW retention.

CONCLUSION

CHW-led ACP and proactive symptom management interventions are effective and accepted by cancer care professionals at scale. Tailoring on the basis of organization and local contexts is required to ensure successful adoption, implementation, and maintenance of these effective team-based care delivery approaches.

A Community-Engaged Process for Adapting a Proven Community Health Worker Model to Integrate Precision Cancer Care Delivery for Low-income Latinx Adults With Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Disparities in precision cancer care delivery among low-income Latinx adults are well described. In prior work, we developed a community health worker-led goals of care and cancer symptom assessment intervention. The objective of this study was to adapt this intervention for a community setting, incorporating precision cancer care delivery.

METHODS

We used a two-phased systematic approach to adapt an evidence-based intervention for our community. Specifically, we used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to identify barriers and facilitators to precision cancer care delivery via 1-hr interviews with Latinx adults with cancer, Latinx caregivers, community leaders, primary care and oncology clinicians, and community health workers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method and grounded theory analysis. Phase 2 involved interviews with key community advisors using the Expert Panels Method to decide on final adaptations.

RESULTS

Using this community-engaged approach, we identified specific intervention adaptations to ensure precision cancer care delivery in a community setting, which included: (a) expansion of the intervention inclusion criteria and mode of delivery; (b) integration of low-literacy precision cancer care intervention activities in Spanish in collaboration with community-based organizations; (c) ensuring goals reflective of patient and community priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic and community-engaged approach to adapt an intervention for use in delivering precision cancer care strengthened an evidence-based approach to promote the needs and preferences of patients and key community stakeholders.

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation.

METHODS

The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers.

RESULTS

Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.

Assessing the Acceptability of a Co-Produced Long COVID Intervention in an Underserved Community in the UK

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected people from more deprived communities. The experience of Long COVID is similarly distributed but very few investigations have concentrated on the needs of this population. The aim of this project was to co-produce an acceptable intervention for people with Long COVID living in communities recognised as more deprived.

METHODS

The intervention was based on a multi-disciplinary team using approaches from sport and exercise medicine and functional rehabilitation. The co-production process was undertaken with a stakeholder advisory group and patient public involvement representation. This study identified participants by postcode and the indices of multiple deprivation (IMD); recruitment and engagement were supported by an existing health and wellbeing service. A virtual 'clinic' was offered with a team of professional practitioners who met participants three times each; to directly consider their needs and offer structured advice. The acceptability of the intervention was based on the individual's participation and their completion of the intervention.

RESULTS

Ten participants were recruited with eight completing the intervention. The partnership with an existing community health and wellbeing service was deemed to be an important way of reaching participants. Two men and six women ages ranging from 38 to 73 were involved and their needs were commonly associated with fatigue, anxiety and depression with overall de-conditioning. None reported serious hardship associated with the pandemic although most were in self-employment/part-time employment or were not working due to retirement or ill-health. Two older participants lived alone, and others were single parents and had considerable challenges associated with managing a household alongside their Long COVID difficulties.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents the needs and perspectives of eight individuals involved in the process and discusses the needs and preferences of the group in relation to their support for self- managed recovery from Long COVID.

A Parent Coach-Led Model of Well-Child Care for Young Children in Low-Income Communities: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The Parent-focused Redesign for Encounters, Newborns to Toddlers (PARENT) intervention was created as a team-based approach to well-child care (WCC) that relies on a health educator (Parent Coach) to provide the bulk of WCC services, address specific needs faced by families in low-income communities, and decrease reliance on the clinician as the primary provider of WCC services.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the impact of PARENT using a cluster randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

This study tested the effectiveness of PARENT at 10 clinical sites in 2 federally qualified health centers in Tacoma, Washington, and Los Angeles, California. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial that included 916 families with children aged ≤12 months at the time of the baseline survey. Parents will be followed up at 6 and 12 months after enrollment. The Parent Coach, the main element of PARENT, provides anticipatory guidance, psychosocial screening and referral, developmental and behavioral surveillance, screening, and guidance at each WCC visit. The coach is supported by parent-focused previsit screening and visit prioritization, a brief, problem-focused clinician encounter for a physical examination and any concerns that require a clinician's attention, and an automated text message parent reminder and education service for periodic, age-specific messages to reinforce key health-related information recommended by Bright Futures national guidelines. We will examine parent-reported quality of care (receipt of nationally recommended WCC services, family-centeredness of care, and parental experiences of care), and health care use (WCC, urgent care, emergency department, and hospitalizations), conduct a cost analysis, and conduct a separate time-motion study of clinician time allocation to assess efficiency. We will also collect data on exploratory measures of parent-and parenting-focused outcomes. Our primary outcomes were receipt of anticipatory guidance and emergency department use.

RESULTS

Participant recruitment began in March 2019. After recruitment, 6- and 12-month follow-up surveys will be completed. As of August 30, 2021, we enrolled a total of 916 participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This large pragmatic trial of PARENT in partnership with federally qualified health centers will assess its utility as an evidence-based and financially sustainable model for the delivery of preventive care services to children in low-income communities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03797898; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03797898.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/27054.

Association of a Lay Health Worker-Led Intervention on Goals of Care, Quality of Life, and Clinical Trial Participation Among Low-Income and Minority Adults With Cancer

PURPOSE

New approaches are needed to overcome low supportive care and clinical trial participation among low-income and minority adults with cancer. The objective of this project was to determine whether a lay health worker intervention was associated with improvements in supportive care and trial participation.

METHODS

We conducted a quality improvement initiative in collaboration with a union organization. We enrolled union members newly diagnosed with cancer into a 6-month lay health worker-led intervention from October 15, 2016, to February 28, 2017. The primary outcome was goals of care. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQOL), health care use, and trial participation. All outcomes except HRQOL were compared with a cohort of union members diagnosed within the 6-month preintervention period.

RESULTS

Sixty-six adults participated in the intervention group, and we identified 72 adults in the control group. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. The mean age was 56.0 years; 47 (34%) were male, and 22 were White (16%). Within 6 months enrollment, more intervention group participants, as compared with the control, had clinician-documented goals of care (94% v 26%; P < .001) and participated in cancer clinical trials (72% v 22%; P < .001). At 4 months postenrollment, as compared with baseline, intervention participants experienced HRQOL improvements (mean difference, 3.98 points; standard deviation, 2.83; P < .001). Before death, more intervention group participants used palliative care and hospice than the control group.

CONCLUSION

Lay health worker-led interventions may improve supportive care and clinical trial participation among low-income and minority populations with cancer.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Health Insurance Coverage Disruptions and Cancer Care and Outcomes: Systematic Review of Published Research

BACKGROUND

Lack of health insurance coverage is associated with poor access and receipt of cancer care and survival in the United States. Disruptions in coverage are common among low-income populations, but little is known about associations of disruptions with cancer care, including prevention, screening, and treatment, as well as outcomes of stage at diagnosis and survival.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies of health insurance coverage disruptions and cancer care and outcomes published between 1980 and 2019. We used the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL databases and identified 29 observational studies. Study characteristics and key findings were abstracted and synthesized qualitatively.

RESULTS

Studies evaluated associations between coverage disruptions and prevention or screening (31.0%), treatment (13.8%), end-of-life care (10.3%), stage at diagnosis (44.8%), and survival (20.7%). Coverage disruptions ranged from 4.3% to 32.8% of patients age-eligible for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening. Between 22.1% and 59.5% of patients with Medicaid gained coverage only at or after cancer diagnosis. Coverage disruptions were consistently statistically significantly associated with lower receipt of prevention, screening, and treatment. Among patients with cancer, those with Medicaid disruptions were statistically significantly more likely to have advanced stage (odds ratios = 1.2-3.8) and worse survival (hazard ratios = 1.28-2.43) than patients without disruptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Health insurance coverage disruptions are common and adversely associated with receipt of cancer care and survival. Improved data infrastructure and quasi-experimental study designs will be important for evaluating the associations of federal and state policies on coverage disruptions and care and outcomes.

A randomized trial of a multi-level intervention to improve advance care planning and symptom management among low-income and minority employees diagnosed with cancer in outpatient community settings

INTRODUCTION

Equitable delivery of advance care planning and symptom management among patients is crucial to improving cancer care. Existing interventions to improve the uptake of these services have predominantly occurred in clinic settings and are limited in their effectiveness, particularly among low-income and minority populations.

METHODS

The "Lay health worker Educates Engages and Activates Patients to Share (LEAPS)" intervention was developed to improve advance care planning and symptom management among low-income and minority hourly-wage workers with cancer, in two community settings. The intervention provides a lay health worker to all patients newly diagnosed with cancer and aims to educate and activate patients to engage in advance care planning and symptom management with their oncology providers. In this randomized clinical trial, we will evaluate the effect on quality of life (primary outcome) using the validated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey, at enrollment, 4- and 12- months post-enrollment. We will examine between-group differences on our secondary outcomes of patient activation, patient satisfaction with healthcare decision-making, and symptom burden (at enrollment, 4- and 12-months post-enrollment), and total healthcare use and healthcare costs (at 12-months post-enrollment).

DISCUSSION

Multilevel approaches are urgently needed to improve cancer care delivery among low-income and minority patients diagnosed with cancer in community settings. The current study describes the LEAPS intervention, the study design, and baseline characteristics of the community centers participating in the study. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration #NCT03699748.

Successful Strategies to Address Disparities: Insurer and Employer Perspectives

Disparities in cancer have been documented for decades and continue to persist despite clinical advancements in cancer prevention, detection, and treatment. Disparate cancer outcomes continue to affect many populations in the United States and globally, including racial and ethnic minorities, populations with low income and education, and residents of rural areas or low socioeconomic neighborhoods, among others. Addressing cancer disparities requires approaches that are multilevel. Addressing social determinants of health, such as removing obstacles to health (e.g., poverty, discrimination, access to housing and education, jobs with fair pay, and health care) can reduce cancer disparities. However, to achieve cancer health equity, multilevel approaches are required to ensure that access to high-quality cancer care and equitable receipt of evidence-based services can reduce cancer disparities. Policy, health system interventions, and innovative delivery and health care coverage approaches by private and public payers, employer-based payers, and labor union organizations can assist in ensuring access to and receipt of high-quality cancer care while addressing the high costs of care delivery. Partnerships among patients, caregivers, employers, health care providers, and health care payers can make impactful changes in the way in which cancer care is delivered and, in turn, can assist in reducing cancer disparities.