Association of age with treatment at high-volume hospitals and distance traveled for care, in patients with rectal cancer who seek curative resection

Effect on Travel Distance of a Statewide Regionalization Policy for Initial Breast Cancer Surgery

PURPOSE

Reimbursement strategies to regionalize care can be effective for improving patient outcomes but may adversely affect access to care. We sought to determine the effect on travel distance for surgical treatment of a 2009 New York State (NYS) policy restricting Medicaid reimbursement for breast cancer surgery at low-volume hospitals.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From a linked data set merging the NYS tumor registry with hospital discharge data, we identified women younger than 65 years with stage I-III first breast tumors from pre- and post-policy periods. We classified patients by urbanicity of their residence into four geographic areas (New York City, other large urban core, suburban/large town, and small town/rural). A multivariable difference-in-difference-in-differences model was used to estimate the policy effect on the distance traveled by Medicaid and non-Medicaid insured patients before and after the policy, by area of residence.

RESULTS

Among the 46,029 study sample, 13.5% were covered by Medicaid. Regardless of insurance, women treated more recently traveled longer distances to their surgical facility than those in the prepolicy period. Regardless of time period, Medicaid beneficiaries drove fewer miles to treatment than women with other insurance. Although all women traveled greater distances postpolicy, the increase was not significantly different by insurance status (Medicaid or not), except for those living in suburban areas in which Medicaid patients traveled further postpolicy (+7.7 miles compared with +3.4 miles for non-Medicaid; P = .007).

CONCLUSION

After a policy regionalizing surgical care, only suburban Medicaid patients experienced a statistically significant (albeit small) increase in travel distance compared with non-Medicaid patients. In the state of NY, regionalization of breast cancer care yielded improved outcomes with minimal decrease in access.

The Current State of Regionalization in Otolaryngologic Specialized Tumor Care for Tumor Diagnoses

OBJECTIVE

The current extent of otolaryngologic cancer care regionalization is unclear. This study characterizes case volume regionalization patterns for 4 distinct otolaryngologic tumors-head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs), thyroid cancers (TCs), vestibular schwannomas, and pituitary adenomas (PAs).

METHODS

The 2010-2016 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with HNSCCs, TCs, vestibular schwannomas, and PAs. Facility geographic locations were divided into 4 geographical quadrants. High-volume facilities (HVFs) were defined as top 100 by volume facility for ≥1 pathology.

RESULTS

A total of 191/1342 facilities (4.2%) were defined as an HVF. Vestibular schwannoma was the most regionalized, with 65.9% of patients treated at an HVF. Thyroid cancer (37.4%) and HNSCC (38.8%) were the least commonly treated at HVFs. Forty-one/191 (21.5%) were classified as HVFs for all 4 pathologies. Factors predictive of treatment at HVFs included age <65, higher income, and private insurance, larger tumor size, and lower American Joint Committee on Cancer stage.

CONCLUSION

Over 20% of HVFs were considered high-volume for all 4 pathologies. Vestibular schwannomas were the most regionalized compared with PAs, TCs, and HSNCCs.

Hospital facility characteristics and socioeconomic factors on outcomes and treatment in patients with multiple myeloma: National Cancer Database analysis

Previous studies have shown that socioeconomic factors play an important role in multiple myeloma (MM) health outcomes. We postulated that the type of treatment facilities and their volume of cases also affect overall survival, utilization of various therapies including palliative care services in newly diagnosed MM. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we analyzed 174,551 newly diagnosed MM participants from across the country. We found that at high volume facility centers (over 90^th percentile of new patient volume from 2004 to 2016), the median overall survival (OS) was 62.3 months versus 35.3 months at lower volume facilities (p <0.001). Similarly, high volume academic cancer centers had an improved median OS of 66.4 months (65.3-67.4 CI) versus 39.2 months (37.9-40.4 months CI) in lower volume academic centers (p <0.001). The odds of utilizing chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and autologous transplants were higher in academic cancer centers compared to community cancer centers, after adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic factors (OR 1.10, 1.23, and 2.06 respectively, all with p<0.001). There was significantly decreased odds of receiving palliative care (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85-0.93) in high volume facilities compared to low volume. Palliative care services were more frequently utilized at integrated network cancers and comprehensive community cancer centers compared to community cancer centers, with similar odds of receiving palliative care between community and academic facility types. Our results likely reflect increased provider experience and resources in higher volume and academic facilities. This highlights the need to integrate resources and improve access to community programs.