Trends in the Geospatial Distribution of Adult Inpatient Surgical Cancer Care Across the United States

Poverty and Its Impact on Surgical Care

In this article, the authors explore the intricate relationship between poverty and surgical care, underscoring its multifaceted nature and its profound impact on access and outcomes. Poverty extends beyond financial constraints to encompass barriers related to healthcare infrastructure, geographic isolation, education, mental health, and social determinants of health, resulting in persistent disparities in access to high-quality surgical care, especially for those in persistently impoverished areas and access-sensitive surgical conditions. Additionally, the authors delve into the complex intersection of poverty, race, and ethnicity, emphasizing the heightened risks faced by minority patients in surgical care.

Residential Redlining, Neighborhood Trajectory, and Equity of Breast and Colorectal Cancer Care

OBJECTIVE

To determine the influence of structural racism, vis-à-vis neighborhood socioeconomic trajectory, on colorectal and breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.

BACKGROUND

Inequities in cancer care are well-documented in the United States but less is understood about how historical policies like residential redlining and evolving neighborhood characteristics influence current gaps in care.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adult patients diagnosed with colorectal or breast cancer between 2010 and 2015 in 7 Indiana cities with available historic redlining data. Current neighborhood socioeconomic status was determined by the Area Deprivation Index. Based on historic redlining maps and the current Area Deprivation Index, we created 4 "neighborhood trajectory" categories: advantage stable, advantage reduced, disadvantage stable, and disadvantage reduced. Modified Poisson regression models estimated the relative risks (RRs) of neighborhood trajectory on cancer stage at diagnosis and receipt of cancer-directed surgery (CDS).

RESULTS

A final cohort derivation identified 4862 cancer patients with colorectal or breast cancer. Compared with "advantage stable" neighborhoods, "disadvantage stable" neighborhood was associated with a late-stage diagnosis for both colorectal and breast cancer [RR = 1.30 (95% CI: 1.05-1.59); RR = 1.41 (1.09-1.83), respectively]. Black patients had a lower likelihood of receiving CDS in "disadvantage reduced" neighborhoods [RR = 0.92 (0.86-0.99)] than White patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Disadvantage stable neighborhoods were associated with late-stage diagnoses of breast and colorectal cancer. "Disadvantage reduced" (gentrified) neighborhoods were associated with racial inequity in CDS. Improved neighborhood socioeconomic conditions may improve timely diagnosis but could contribute to racial inequities in surgical treatment.

Variations in Travel Patterns Affect Regionalization of Complex Cancer Surgery in California

INTRODUCTION

Regionalization of complex surgical procedures may improve healthcare quality. We sought to define the impact of regionalization on access to high-volume hospitals for complex oncologic procedures in the state of California.

METHODS

The California Department of Health Care Access and Information Database (2012-2016) identified patients who underwent esophagectomy (ES), pneumonectomy (PN), pancreatectomy (PA), or proctectomy (PR). Geospatial analysis was conducted to determine travel patterns. Clustered multivariable regression was performed to assess the probability of receiving care at a high-volume center.

RESULTS

Among 25,070 patients (ES: n = 1216, 4.9%; PN: n = 13,247, 52.8%; PD: n = 3559, 14.2%; PR: n = 7048, 28.1%), 6575 (26.2%) individuals resided within 30 min, 11,046 (44.1%) resided within 30-60 min, 7125 (28.4%) resided within 60-90 min, and 324 (1.3%) resided beyond a 90-min travel window from a high-volume center. Median travel distance was 13.4 miles (interquartile range [IQR] 6.0-28.7). On multivariable regression, patients residing further away were more likely to bypass a low-volume center to undergo care at a high-volume hospital (odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.55) versus individuals residing closer to high-volume centers. Approximately one-third (29.7%) of patients lived beyond a 1-h travel window to the nearest high-volume hospital, of whom 5% traveled over 90 min. While hospital mortality rates across different travel time windows did not differ, surgery at a high-volume center was associated with an overall 1.2% decrease in in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Regionalization of complex cancer surgery may be associated with a significant travel burden for a large subset of patients with complex cancer.

Impact of Community Privilege on Access to Care Among Patients Following Complex Cancer Surgery

OBJECTIVE

We sought to define the impact of community privilege on variations in travel patterns and access to care at high-volume hospitals for complex surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND

With increased emphasis on centralization of high-risk surgery, social determinants of health play a critical role in preventing equitable access to care. Privilege is a right, benefit, advantage, or opportunity that positively impacts all social determinants of health.

METHODS

The California Office of State-wide Health Planning Database identified patients who underwent esophagectomy (ES), pneumonectomy (PN), pancreatectomy (PA), or proctectomy (PR) for a malignant diagnosis between 2012 and 2016 and was merged using ZIP codes with the Index of Concentration of Extremes, a validated metric of both spatial polarization and privilege obtained from the American Community Survey. Clustered multivariable regression was performed to assess the probability of undergoing care at a high-volume center, bypassing the nearest and high-volume center, and total real driving time and travel distance.

RESULTS

Among 25,070 patients who underwent a complex oncologic operation (ES: n=1216, 4.9%; PN: n=13,247, 52.8%; PD: n=3559, 14.2%; PR: n=7048, 28.1%), 5019 (20.0%) individuals resided in areas with the highest privilege (i.e., White, high-income homogeneity), whereas 4994 (19.9%) individuals resided in areas of the lowest privilege (i.e., Black, low-income homogeneity). Median travel distance was 33.1 miles (interquartile range 14.4-72.2). Roughly, three-quarters of patients (overall: 74.8%, ES: 35.0%; PN: 74.3%; PD: 75.2%; PR: 82.2%) sought surgical care at a high-volume center. On multivariable regression, patients residing in the least advantaged communities were less likely to undergo surgery at a high-volume hospital (overall: odds ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.81). Of note, individuals in the least privileged areas had longer travel distances (28.5 miles, 95% CI 21.2-35.8) to reach the destination facility, as well as over 70% greater odds of bypassing a high-volume hospital to undergo surgical care at a low-volume center (odds ratio 1.74, 95% CI 1.29-2.34) versus individuals living in the highest privileged areas.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Privilege had a marked effect on access to complex oncologic surgical care at high-volume centers. These data highlight the need to focus on privilege as a key social determinant of health that influences patient access to and utilization of health care resources.

Implications of the interaction between travel burden and area deprivation for patients with pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of care and distance traveled are classically surrogates for poor access to care, but little is known about how social determinants of health interact with travel burden to affect survival for patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). We sought to characterize the individual and composite impact of these factors.

METHODS

20769 patients treated for PC between 2005 and 2019 in the Texas Cancer Registry were included. The Area Deprivation Index and Poverty Index were used to quantify social determinants of health. Survival analyses were performed at 2 years as well as subgroup analysis on patients with the greatest travel burden.

RESULTS

Improved survival was associated with FC (HR 0.74, CI 0.71-0.77) and distance from an accredited cancer center (Quartile 4 HR 0.90, CI 0.81-1.00). High ADI led to worse outcomes while low ADI led to improved outcomes with increasing travel burden.

CONCLUSIONS

This data shows a complex relationship between travel burden and survival for patients with pancreatic cancer where stratifying by area deprivation reveals divergent outcomes and the potential to exacerbate disparities.

Differences in sentinel lymph node biopsy utilization in eligible melanoma patients treated with Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision: A population-based logistic regression model and survival analysis

BACKGROUND

Primary melanoma management relies on tumor extirpation and staging sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in eligible patients. This study compares SLNB utilization in patients undergoing wide local excision (WLE) or Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS).

METHODS

American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition ≥ patients with T1b melanoma undergoing WLE or MMS in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program were included. Propensity score matching was performed to compare patients who underwent MMS or WLE. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Fine-Gray cumulative incidence functions were used for overall and melanoma-specific survival.

RESULTS

Eight hundred twenty-five MMS cases and 38,760 WLE cases were identified. SLNB was performed in 32.61% of MMS patients and 61.77% of WLE patients with positive rates of 12.5% and 14.82%, respectively. Multiple logistic regression of factors associated with SLNB utilization revealed that WLE, male gender, younger age, extremity location, and nodular and rare melanoma subtypes were significantly associated with increased odds of receiving SLNB whereas head and neck location and lentigo maligna melanoma subtype were significantly less likely to receive SLNB.

LIMITATIONS

Potential selection bias from a retrospective data set.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving WLE for ≥ T1b melanoma are more likely to receive a SLNB than patients undergoing MMS.

Association of Variation in US County-Level Rates of Liver Surgical Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastasis With Poverty Rates in 2010

IMPORTANCE

Among patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) who are eligible for curative-intent liver surgical resection, only half undergo liver metastasectomy. It is currently unclear how rates of liver metastasectomy vary geographically in the US. Geographic differences in county-level socioeconomic characteristics may, in part, explain variability in the receipt of liver metastasectomy for CRLM.

OBJECTIVE

To describe county-level variation in the receipt of liver metastasectomy for CRLM in the US and its association with poverty rates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This ecological, cross-sectional, and county-level analysis was conducted using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Research Plus database. The study included the county-level proportion of patients who had colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, underwent primary surgical resection, and had liver metastasis without extrahepatic metastasis. The county-level proportion of patients with stage I colorectal cancer (CRC) was used as a comparator. Data analysis was performed on March 2, 2022.

EXPOSURES

County-level poverty in 2010 obtained from the US Census (proportion of county population below the federal poverty level).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was county-level odds of liver metastasectomy for CRLM. The comparator outcome was county-level odds of surgical resection for stage I CRC. Multivariable binomial logistic regression accounting for clustering of outcomes within a county via an overdispersion parameter was used to estimate the county-level odds of receiving a liver metastasectomy for CRLM associated with a 10% increase in poverty rate.

RESULTS

In the 194 US counties included in this study, there were 11 348 patients. At the county level, the majority of the population was male (mean [SD], 56.9% [10.2%]), White (71.9% [20.0%]), and aged between 50 and 64 (38.1% [11.0%]) or 65 and 79 (33.6% [11.4%]) years. The adjusted odds of undergoing a liver metastasectomy was lower in counties with higher poverty in 2010 (per 10% increase; odds ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.96]; P = .02). County-level poverty was not associated with receipt of surgery for stage I CRC. Despite the difference in rates of surgery (mean county-level rates were 0.24 for liver metastasectomy for CRLM and 0.75 for surgery for stage I CRC), the variance at the county-level for these 2 surgical procedures was similar (F370, 193 = 0.81; P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that higher poverty was associated with lower receipt of liver metastasectomy among US patients with CRLM. Surgery for a more common and less complex cancer comparator (ie, stage I CRC) was not observed to be associated with county-level poverty rates. However, county-level variation in surgical rates was similar for CRLM and stage I CRC. These findings further suggest that access to surgical care for complex gastrointestinal cancers such as CRLM may be partially influenced by where patients live.

Telehealth Utilization Among Surgical Oncology Patients at a Large Academic Cancer Center

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic increased the use of telehealth within medicine. Data on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with telehealth utilization among cancer surgical patients have not been well-defined.

Methods

Cancer patients who had a surgical oncology visit at the James Cancer Hospital in March 2020–May 2021 were included. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded; access to modern information technology was measured using the Digital Divide Index (DDI). A logistic regression model was used to assess odds of receiving a telehealth.

Results

Among 2942 patients, median DDI was 18.2 (interquartile range 17.4–22.1). Patients were most often insured through managed care (n = 1459, 49.6%), followed by Medicare (n = 1109, 37.7%) and Medicaid (n = 267, 9.1%). Overall, 722 patients (24.5%) received at least one telehealth visit over the study period. On multivariable analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80–0.98 per 10-year increase), sex (male vs. female: OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.45–2.32), cancer type (pancreatic vs. breast: OR 9.19, 95% CI 6.38–13.23; colorectal vs. breast: OR 5.31, 95% CI 3.71–7.58), insurance type (Medicare vs. Medicaid: OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.04–2.41) and county of residence (distant vs. neighboring: OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06–1.66) were associated with increased odds of receiving a telehealth visit. Patients from high DDI counties were not less likely to receive telehealth visits versus patients from low DDI counties (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.85–1.57).

Conclusions

Several patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics had an impact on the likelihood of receiving a telehealth visit versus an in-person visit, suggesting that telehealth may not be equally accessible to all surgical oncology patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-022-12259-9.

Rural hospitals are not associated with worse postoperative outcomes for colon cancer surgery

PURPOSE

We sought to determine whether colorectal cancer surgery can be done safely at rural hospitals. The current study compared outcomes among rural patients who underwent colon resection at rural and nonrural hospitals.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries who underwent colon resection for cancer between 2013 and 2017 were identified using the Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Patients and hospitals were designated as rural based on rural-urban continuum codes. Risk-adjusted postoperative outcomes and hospitalization spending were compared among patients undergoing resection at rural versus nonrural hospitals.

RESULTS

Among 3,937 patients who resided in a rural county and underwent colon resection for cancer, mean age was 76.3 (SD: 7.1) years and 1,432 (36.4%) patients underwent operative procedure at a rural hospital. On multivariable analyses, no differences in postoperative outcomes were noted among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing colon resection for cancer at nonrural versus rural hospitals. Specifically, the risk-adjusted probability of experiencing a postoperative complication at a nonrural hospital was 15.4% (95% CI: 14.1%-16.8%) versus 16.3% (95% CI: 14.2%-18.3%) at a rural hospital (OR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.85-1.38); 30-day mortality (nonrural: 2.9%, 95% CI: 2.2-3.6 vs rural: 3.5%, 95% CI: 2.4-4.5) was also comparable. In addition, price standardized, risk-adjusted expenditures were similar at nonrural ($18,610, 95% CI: $18,037-$19,183) and rural ($19,010, 95% CI: $18,630-$19,390) hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Among rural Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a colon resection for cancer, there were no differences in postoperative outcomes among nonrural versus rural hospitals. These findings serve to highlight the importance of policies and practice guidelines that secure safe, local surgical care, allowing rural clinicians to accommodate strong patient preferences while delivering high-quality surgical care.

Quality Versus Costs Related to Gastrointestinal Surgery: Disentangling the Value Proposition

BACKGROUND

There has been a dramatic increase in worldwide health care spending over the last several decades. Operative procedures and perioperative care in the USA represent some of the most expensive episodes per patient. In view of both the rising cost of health care in general and the rising cost of surgical care specifically, policymakers and stakeholders have sought to identify ways to increase the value-improving quality of care while controlling (or diminishing) costs. In this context, we reviewed data relative to achieving the "value proposition" in the delivery of gastrointestinal surgical care.

METHODS

The National Library of Medicine online repository (PubMed) was text searched for human studies including "cost," "quality," "outcomes," "health care," "surgery," and "value." Results from this literature framed by the Donabedian conceptual model (identifying structures, processes, and outcomes), and the resulting impact of efforts to improve quality on costs.

RESULTS

The relationship between quality and costs was nuanced. Better quality care, though associated with better outcomes, was not always reported as concomitant with low costs. Moreover, some centers reported higher costs of surgical care commensurate with higher quality. Conversely, higher costs in health care delivery were not always linked to improved outcomes. While higher quality surgical care can lead to lower costs, higher costs of care were not necessarily associated with better outcomes. Strategies to improve quality, reduce cost, or achieve both simultaneously included regionalization of complex operations to high-volume centers of excellence, overall reduction in complications, introducing evidence-based improvements in perioperative care pathways including as enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), and elimination of inefficient or low-value care.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between quality and cost following gastrointestinal surgical procedure is complex. Data from the current study should serve to highlight the various means available to improve the value proposition related to surgery, as well as encourage surgeons to become more engaged in the national conversation around the Triple Aim of better health care quality, lower costs, and improved health care outcomes.

Travel Time to Radiation Oncology Facilities in the United States and the Influence of Certificate of Need Policies

PURPOSE

Radiation therapy often requires weeks of daily treatment making travel distance a known barrier to care. However, the full extent and variability of travel burden, defined by travel time, across the nation is poorly understood. Additionally, some states restrict radiation oncology (RO) services through Certificate of Need (CON) policies, but it is unknown how this affects travel times to care. Therefore, we aim to evaluate travel times to US RO facilities and assess the association with CON policies.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

RO facilities were identified from the 2018 National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (n = 2302). Travel times from populated US census tracts to nearest facility were calculated; differences by rurality, area deprivation, and region were computed. Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate adjusted differences in travel time by area characteristics. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of state CON laws with travel time >1 hour.

RESULTS

Among 72,471 census tracts, 92.4% were within 1 hour of the nearest radiation facility. Among the 12,453 rural tracts, 34.4% were >1 hour. On adjusted analysis, the 3054 isolated rural tracts had an estimated 58-minute (95% confidence interval [CI] 57, 59; P < .001) longer travel time than urban tracts. CON laws decreased rural travel time overall, but the association varied by region with decreased odds of prolonged travel in the South (P < .001), increased odds in the Northeast and Midwest (P < .001), and no association in the West (P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Isolated rural US census tracts, accounting for 9.4 million Americans, have nearly 1-hour longer adjusted travel time to the nearest RO facility, compared with urban tracts. CON laws had region-dependent associations with prolonged travel.

Association of Neighborhood Characteristics with Utilization of High-Volume Hospitals Among Patients Undergoing High-Risk Cancer Surgery

INTRODUCTION

As high-risk cancer surgery continues to become more centralized, it is important to understand the association of neighborhood characteristics relative to access to surgical care. We sought to determine the neighborhood level characteristics that may be associated with travel patterns and utilization of high-volume hospitals.

METHODS

The California Office of Statewide Health Planning database was used to identify patients who underwent pancreatectomy (PD), esophagectomy (ES), proctectomy (PR), or pneumonectomy (PN) for cancer between 2014 and 2016. Total minutes (m) traveled as well as whether a patient bypassed the nearest hospital that performed the operation to get to a higher-volume center was assessed. Data were merged with the Centers for Disease control social vulnerability index (SVI).

RESULTS

Overall, 26,937 individuals (ES: 4.7%; PN: 53.5% PD: 13.9% PR: 27.9%) underwent a complex oncologic operation. Median travel time was 16 m (interquartile range [IQR] 8.3-30.24) [ES: 21.8 m (IQR 10.6-46.9); PN: 14 m (IQR 7.8-27.0); PD: 21.2 m (IQR 10.6-42.6); PR: 15 m (IQR 8.1-28.4)]. Nearly three-quarter of patients (ES: 34%; PN: 73%; PD: 72%; LR: 81%) underwent an operation at a high-volume hospital. For all four operations, patients who resided in a county with a high overall SVI were less likely to have surgery at a high-volume hospital (ES: odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.65; PN: OR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.88; PD: OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.84; PR: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients residing in communities of high social vulnerability were less likely to undergo high-risk cancer surgery at a high-volume hospital. The identification of society-based contextual disparities in access to complex surgical care should serve to inform targeted strategies to direct additional resources toward these vulnerable communities.

Accessing surgical care for esophageal cancer: patient travel patterns to reach higher volume center

While better outcomes at high-volume surgical centers have driven the regionalization of complex surgical care, access to high-volume centers often requires travel over longer distances. We sought to evaluate the travel patterns among patients undergoing esophagectomy to assess willingness of patients to travel for surgical care. The California Office of Statewide Health Planning database was used to identify patients who underwent esophagectomy between 2005 and 2016. Total distance traveled, as well as whether a patient bypassed the nearest hospital that performed esophagectomy to get to a higher volume center, was assessed. Overall 3,269 individuals underwent an esophagectomy for cancer in 154 hospitals; only five hospitals were high volume according to Leapfrog standards. Median travel time to a hospital that performed esophagectomy was 26 minutes (IQR: 13.1-50.7). The overwhelming majority of patients (85%) bypassed the nearest providing hospital to seek care at a destination hospital. Among patients who bypassed a closer hospital, only 36% went to a high-volume hospital. Of the 2,248 patients who underwent esophagectomy at a low-volume center, 1,491 patients had bypassed a high-volume hospital. Of the remaining 757 patients who did not bypass a high-volume hospital, half of the individuals would have needed to travel less than an additional hour to reach a high-volume center. Nearly two-thirds of patients undergoing an esophagectomy for cancer received care at a low-volume center; 85% of patients either bypassed a high-volume hospital or would have needed to travel less than an additional hour to reach a high-volume center.

Accessing surgical care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: Patient variation in travel distance and choice to bypass hospitals to reach higher volume centers

BACKGROUND

While better outcomes at high-volume surgical centers have driven regionalization of complex surgical care, access to high-volume centers often requires travel over longer distances. We sought to evaluate travel patterns of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic cancer to assess willingness of patients to travel for surgical care.

METHODS

The California Office of Statewide Health Planning database was used to identify patients who underwent PD between 2005 and 2016. Total distance traveled, as well as whether a patient bypassed the nearest hospital that performed PD to get to a higher-volume center was assessed. Multivariate analyses were used to identify factors associated with bypassing a local hospital for a higher-volume center.

RESULTS

Among 23 014 patients who underwent PD, individuals traveled a median distance of 18.0 miles to get to a hospital that performed PD. The overwhelming majority (84%) of patients bypassed the nearest providing hospital and traveled a median additional 16.6 miles to their destination hospital. Among patients who bypassed the nearest hospital, 13,269 (68.6%) did so for a high-volume destination hospital. Specifically, average annual PD volume at the nearest "bypassed" vs final destination hospital was 29.6 vs 56 cases, respectively. Outcomes at bypassed vs destination hospitals varied (incidence of complications: 39.2% vs 32.4%; failure-to-rescue: 14.5% vs 9.1%). PD at a high-volume center was associated with lower mortality (OR = 0.46 95% CI, 0.22-0.95). High-volume PD ( > 20 cases) was predictive of hospital bypass (OR = 3.8 95% CI, 3.3-4.4). Among patients who had surgery at a low-volume center, nearly 20% bypassed a high-volume hospital in route. Furthermore, among patients who did not bypass a high-volume hospital, one-third would have needed to travel only an additional 30 miles or less to reach the nearest high-volume hospital.

CONCLUSION

Most patients undergoing PD bypassed the nearest providing hospital to seek care at a higher-volume hospital. While these data reflect increased regionalization of complex surgical care, nearly 1 in 5 patients still underwent PD at a low-volume center.