Access to Accredited Cancer Hospitals Within Federal Exchange Plans Under the Affordable Care Act

Clinician-to-clinician connectedness and access to gastric cancer surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers

BACKGROUND

For patients with gastric cancer, the pathway from primary care (PC) clinician to gastroenterologist to cancer specialist (medical oncologist or surgeons) is referral dependent. The impact of clinician connectedness on disparities in quality gastric cancer care, such as at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCI-CC), remains underexplored. This study evaluated how clinician connectedness influences access to gastrectomy at NCI-CC.

METHODS

Maryland's All-Payer Claims Database was used to evaluate 667 patients who underwent gastrectomy for cancer from 2013 to 2018. Two separate referral linkages, defined as ≥9 shared patients, were examined: (1) PC clinicians to gastroenterologists at NCI-CC and (2) gastroenterologists to cancer specialists at NCI-CC. Multiple logistic regression models determined associations between referral linkages and odds of undergoing gastrectomy at NCI-CC.

RESULTS

Only 15% of gastrectomies were performed at NCI-CC. Patients of gastroenterologists with referral links to cancer specialists at NCI-CC were more likely to be <65 years, male, White, and privately insured. Every additional referral link between PC clinician and gastroenterologist at NCI-CC and between gastroenterologist and cancer specialist at NCI-CC increased the odds of gastrectomy at NCI-CC by 71% and 26%, respectively. Black patients had half the odds as White patients in receiving gastrectomy at NCI-CC; however, adjusting for covariates including clinician-to-clinician connectedness attenuated this observation.

CONCLUSION

Patients of clinicians with low connectedness and Black patients are less likely to receive gastrectomy at NCI-CC. Enhancing clinician connectedness is necessary to address disparities in cancer care. These results are relevant to policy makers, clinicians, and patient advocates striving for health equity.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on access to accredited facilities for cancer treatment

OBJECTIVE

To examine differential changes in receipt of surgery at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers (NCI-CCC) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited hospitals for patients with cancer more likely to be newly eligible for coverage under Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance expansions, relative to those less likely to have been impacted by the ACA.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

Pennsylvania Cancer Registry (PCR) for 2010-2019 linked with discharge records from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council (PHC4).

STUDY DESIGN

Outcomes include whether cancer surgery was performed at an NCI-CCC or a CoC-accredited hospital. We conducted a difference-in-differences analysis, estimating linear probability models for each outcome that control for residence in a county with above median county-level pre-ACA uninsurance and the interaction between county-level baseline uninsurance and cancer treatment post-ACA to capture differential changes in access between those more and less likely to become newly eligible for insurance coverage (based on area-level proxy). All models control for age, sex, race and ethnicity, cancer site and stage, census-tract level urban/rural residence, Area Deprivation Index, and year- and county-fixed effects.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified adults aged 26-64 in PCR with prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer who received cancer-directed surgery and had a corresponding surgery discharge record in PHC4.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We observe a differential increase in receiving care at an NCI-CCC of 6.2 percentage points (95% CI: 2.6-9.8; baseline mean = 9.8%) among patients in high baseline uninsurance areas (p = 0.001). Our estimate of the differential change in care at the larger set of CoC hospitals is positive (3.9 percentage points [95% CI: -0.5-8.2; baseline mean = 73.7%]) but not statistically significant (p = 0.079).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that insurance expansions under the ACA were associated with increased access to NCI-CCCs.

Accreditation Standards-An Untapped Lever for Cancer Equity

This Viewpoint describes how the Commission on Cancer and the National Cancer Institute can incorporate health equity benchmarks into existing standards to improve care and outcomes for all patients with cancer.

Understanding the financial cost of cancer clinical trial participation

BACKGROUND

Though financial hardship is a well-documented adverse effect of standard-of-care cancer treatment, little is known about out-of-pocket costs and their impact on patients participating in cancer clinical trials. This study explored the financial effects of cancer clinical trial participation.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis used survey data collected in December 2022 and May 2023 from individuals with cancer previously served by Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonprofit organization providing social needs navigation and financial assistance to US adults with a chronic illness. Surveys included questions on cancer clinical trial participation, trial-related financial hardship, and sociodemographic data. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted using Cramer's V to estimate the in-sample magnitude of association. Associations between trial-related financial hardship and sociodemographics were estimated using adjusted relative risks (aRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) from modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors.

RESULTS

Of 650 survey respondents, 18% (N = 118) reported ever participating in a cancer clinical trial. Of those, 47% (n = 55) reported financial hardship as a result of their trial participation. Respondents reporting trial-related financial hardship were more often unemployed or disabled (58% vs. 43%; V = 0.15), Medicare enrolled (53% vs. 40%; V = 0.15), and traveled >1 h to their cancer provider (45% vs. 17%; V = 0.33) compared to respondents reporting no hardship. Respondents who experienced trial-related financial hardship most often reported expenses from travel (reported by 71% of respondents), medical bills (58%), dining out (40%), or housing needs (40%). Modeling results indicated that respondents traveling >1 h vs. ≤30 min to their cancer provider had a 2.2× higher risk of financial hardship, even after adjusting for respondent race, income, employment, and insurance status (aRR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.8). Most respondents (53%) reported needing $200-$1000 per month to compensate for trial-related expenses. Over half (51%) of respondents reported less willingness to participate in future clinical trials due to incurred financial hardship. Notably, of patients who did not participate in a cancer clinical trial (n = 532), 13% declined participation due to cost.

CONCLUSION

Cancer clinical trial-related financial hardship, most often stemming from travel expenses, affected almost half of trial-enrolled patients. Interventions are needed to reduce adverse financial participation effects and potentially improve cancer clinical trial participation.

Financial Toxicity in the Post-Health Reform Era

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted in March 2010, was comprehensive health care reform legislation aimed to improve health care access and quality of care and curb health care-related costs. This review focuses on key provisions of the ACA and their impact on financial toxicity. We will focus our review on cancer care, because this is the most commonly studied disease process in respect to financial toxicity. Patients with cancer face rising expenditures and financial burden, which in turn impact quality of life, compliance to treatment, and survival outcomes. Health insurance expansion include dependent-coverage expansion, Medicaid expansion, and establishment of the Marketplace. Coverage reform focused on reducing financial barriers by limiting cost sharing. Payment reforms included new innovative payment and delivery systems to focus on improving outcomes and reducing costs. Challenges remain as efforts to reduce costs have led to the expansion of insurance plans, such as high-deductible health plans, that may ultimately worsen financial toxicity in cancer and high out-of-pocket costs for further diagnostic testing and procedures. Further research is necessary to evaluate the long-term impacts of the ACA provisions-and threats to the ACA-on outcomes and the costs accrued by patients.

Influence of Cost-Related Considerations on Clinical Trial Participation: Results from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS)

BACKGROUND

People experiencing financial burden are underrepresented in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the prevalence of cost-related considerations influential to trial participation and their associations with person-level characteristics.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study used and assessed how three cost-related considerations would influence the decision to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 3682 US adult respondents to the Health Information National Trends Survey MAIN MEASURES: Survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between respondent characteristics and odds of reporting cost-related considerations as very influential to participation.

KEY RESULTS

Among 3682 respondents, median age was 48 (IQR 33-61). Most were non-Hispanic White (60%), living comfortably or getting by on their income (74%), with ≥ 1 medical condition (61%). Over half (55%) of respondents reported at least one cost-related consideration as very influential to trial participation, including if usual care was not covered by insurance (reported by 42%), payment for participation (24%), or support for participation (24%). Respondents who were younger (18-34 vs. ≥ 75, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.3, 95% CI 2.3-8.1), more educated (high school vs. <high school, aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.1), or with lower perceived income (having difficulty vs. living comfortably, aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.8) had higher odds of reporting any cost-related consideration as very influential to trial participation. Non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White respondents had 29% lower odds (95% CI 0.5-0.9) of reporting any cost-related consideration as very influential to trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-related considerations would influence many individuals' decisions to participate in a clinical trial, though prevalence of these concerns differed by respondent characteristics. Reducing financial barriers to trial participation may promote equitable trial access and greater trial enrollment diversity.

Health insurance literacy among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study

Objective

Health insurance literacy interventions may reduce financial burden and its effects on cancer patients and their caregivers. However, little is known about the health insurance literacy levels of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and their caregivers. We assessed the feasibility of screening for health insurance literacy in a pilot study and described the health insurance literacy levels of HNC patients and their caregivers.

Methods

We administered a survey that assessed demographics and subjective and objective health insurance literacy to HNC patients and their caregivers. Subjective health insurance literacy was measured through the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (score range: 0-84). Objective health insurance literacy was measured through correct answers to a previously developed 10-question knowledge test. Due to a small sample size, inferential statistics were not used; we instead descriptively reported findings.

Results

The pilot included 48 HNC patients and 13 caregivers. About 44.4% of patients and 30.8% of caregivers demonstrated low health insurance literacy (HILM ≤60). On the 10-item knowledge test, patients had an average of 6.8 (SD: 2.3) correct responses and caregivers had 7.8 (SD: 1.1) correct responses. Calculating out-of-pocket costs for out-of-network services was challenging; only 9.5% of patients and 0% of caregivers answered correctly.

Conclusion

Additional outreach strategies may be needed to supplement screening for health insurance literacy. Areas of focus for interventions include improving understanding of how to calculate financial responsibility for health care services and filing an appeal for health insurance claim denial.

Level of Evidence

IV.

Navigating financial toxicity in patients with cancer: A multidisciplinary management approach

Approximately one-half of individuals with cancer face personal economic burdens associated with the disease and its treatment, a problem known as financial toxicity (FT). FT more frequently affects socioeconomically vulnerable individuals and leads to subsequent adverse economic and health outcomes. Whereas multilevel systemic factors at the policy, payer, and provider levels drive FT, there are also accompanying intervenable patient-level factors that exacerbate FT in the setting of clinical care delivery. The primary strategy to intervene on FT at the patient level is financial navigation. Financial navigation uses comprehensive assessment of patients' risk factors for FT, guidance toward support resources, and referrals to assist patient financial needs during cancer care. Social workers or nurse navigators most frequently lead financial navigation. Oncologists and clinical provider teams are multidisciplinary partners who can support optimal FT management in the context of their clinical roles. Oncologists and clinical provider teams can proactively assess patient concerns about the financial hardship and employment effects of disease and treatment. They can respond by streamlining clinical treatment and care delivery planning and incorporating FT concerns into comprehensive goals of care discussions and coordinated symptom and psychosocial care. By understanding how age and life stage, socioeconomic, and cultural factors modify FT trajectory, oncologists and multidisciplinary health care teams can be engaged and informative in patient-centered, tailored FT management. The case presentations in this report provide a practical context to summarize authors' recommendations for patient-level FT management, supported by a review of key supporting evidence and a discussion of challenges to mitigating FT in oncology care. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:437-453.

Insurance-Mediated Disparities in Gynecologic Oncology Care

Insurance coverage has lagged behind improvements in gynecologic cancer care, with one third of women never seeing a gynecologic oncologist and half experiencing financial toxicity during cancer treatment.

With 102,000 new cases of gynecologic cancer, 30,000 associated deaths annually, and increasing rates of endometrial cancer, gynecologic cancer is a growing problem. Although gynecologic cancer care has advanced significantly in the past decade owing to new therapeutics and specialized training in radical surgery, even insured women face major barriers to accessing and affording quality gynecologic cancer care. This commentary reviews current literature on insurance-mediated disparities in gynecologic cancer and provides education to clinicians on barriers to care. One third of women with a gynecologic cancer never see a gynecologic oncologist. Up to 40% of Medicare Advantage plans lack an in-network gynecologic oncologist, and 33% of private insurance plans do not include an in-network National Cancer Institute-accredited cancer center, limiting access to surgical advances and clinical trials. Women with Medicaid insurance and gynecologic cancer are 25% less likely to receive guideline-concordant care. Among insured women, 50% experience financial toxicity during gynecologic cancer treatment, and costs may be even higher for certain Medicare enrollees. Addressing these insurance-mediated disparities will be important to help our patients fully benefit from the scientific advances in our field and thrive after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis.

The Impact of Health Delivery Integration on Cancer Outcomes

Although integrated health care has largely been associated with increases in prices and static or decreased quality across many disease states, it has shown some successes in improving cancer care. However, its impact is largely equivocal, making consensus statements difficult. Critically, integration does not necessarily translate to clinical coordination, which might be the true driver behind the success of integrated health care delivery. Moving forward, it is important to establish payment models that support clinical care coordination. Shifting from a fragmented health system to a coordinated one may improve evidence-based cancer care, outcomes, and value for patients.

Evaluating Medicaid expansion benefits for patients with cancer: National Cancer Database analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Insurance status modifies healthcare access and inequities. The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid coverage for people with low incomes in the United States. This study assessed the consequences of this policy change for cancer care after expansion in 2014.

METHODS

National Cancer Database (NCDB) public benchmark reports were queried for each malignancy in 2013 and 2016. Furthermore, a systematic search [PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane] was performed. Data on insurance status, access to cancer screening and treatment, and socioeconomic disparities in these metrics was collected.

RESULTS

Two-tailed analysis of the NCDB revealed that 14 out of 18 eligible states had a statistically significant increase in Medicaid-insured patients with cancer after expansion. The average percentage increase was 51 % (13.2-204 %). From the systematic review, 229 studies were identified, 26 met inclusion. All 21 relevant articles reported lower uninsured rates. The average increase of Medicaid-insured patients was 77 % (9.5-230 %) and the average decrease of uninsured rates was 55 % (13.4-73 %). 15 out of 21 articles reported increased access to care. 16 out of 17 articles reported reductions in inequities.

CONCLUSION

Medicaid expansion in 2014 increased the number of insured patients with cancer. Expansion also improved access to screening and treatment in most oncologic care, and reduced socioeconomic disparities. Further studies evaluating correlative survival outcomes are needed.

POLICY SUMMARY

This study informs debates on expansion of Medicaid in state governments and electorates in the United States, and on health insurance reform broadly, by providing insight into how health insurance can benefit people with cancer while revealing how less insurance coverage could harm patients with cancer before and after their diagnosis. This study also contributes to discussions of health insurance mandates, subsidized coverage for people with low incomes, and covered healthcare services determinations by public and private health insurance providers in other countries.

Effect of Clinical Trial Participation on Costs to Payers in Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

The costs associated with clinical trial enrollment remain uncertain. We hypothesized that trial participation is associated with decreased total direct medical costs to health care payers in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we linked clinical data from electronic medical records to sociodemographic data from a cancer registry and claims data from Medicare and two private insurance plans. We used a difference-in-difference analysis to estimate mean per patient per month total direct medical costs for patients enrolled on a second-line (2L) trial versus patients receiving standard-of-care 2L systemic therapy.

RESULTS

Among 70 eligible patients, the difference-in-difference of mean per patient per month total direct medical costs between 2L trial participants and nonparticipants was -$6,663 (P = .01), for a mean savings of $45,308 per patient for the duration of 2L trial therapy. In a secondary analysis by primary insurance payer, this difference-in-difference was -$5,526 (P = .26) for patients with commercial insurance and -$7,432 (P = .01) for patients with Medicare.

CONCLUSION

Participation in a 2L trial was associated with a $6,663 per month cost savings to health care payers for the duration of trial participation. Further studies are necessary to elucidate differences in cost savings from trial participation for Medicare and commercial payers. If confirmed, these results support health care payer investment in programs to improve clinical trial access and enrollment.

State Standards for Insurance Access to Oncologists

As the market for health insurance plans expands, each state is responsible for setting standards to ensure that plans contain adequate coverage for cancer care. Little is currently known about what criteria states use for network adequacy of insurance plans. We contacted representatives of the Department of Insurance (or equivalent) for 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as searched official state websites to compile data on network adequacy standards for cancer care nationwide. The standards of 16 (31.4%) states contained only qualitative elements for access to an oncologist (eg, "reasonable access"), 7 (13.7%) states included only quantitative elements (eg, travel distance and time restrictions), and 24 (47.1%) states included standards with both qualitative and quantitative elements. Standards from 4 states were not available. States should make certain that robust, transparent protections exist to ensure that patients are able to access high-quality cancer care without experiencing the financial toxicity associated with out-of-network billing.

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

INTRODUCTION

The relationship and trends of geography and travel distance to access surgical cancer care has been poorly characterized. The objective of the study was to define the geographic distribution of access to hospital-based operative cancer care across the USA.

METHODS

A cohort analysis was performed using the 2005 and 2015 American Hospital Association Annual Survey, Census Bureau Data for 2010, and the American Community Survey 5-year estimates for 2011 to 2016.

RESULTS

The number of hospitals that provided surgical services with an approved American College of Surgeons (ACS) cancer program slightly increased over the time periods examined (2005, n = 1203 vs. 2015, n = 1284; p = 0.7210). Based on geospatial analysis, 18,214,994 (5.9%) people lived more than 60 min from a hospital with a cancer program in 2005 compared with 34,630,516 (11.2%) by 2015. Communities within a 60-min drive time were more likely to be composed of individuals who completed high school (85.9% vs. 84.2%), were employed (62.7% vs. 57.1%), had a higher median household income ($67.4 k vs. $53.2 k), and lived within states that had expanded Medicaid (62.5% vs. 48.9%) (all p < 0.0001). In contrast, communities outside of a 60-min drive time had a greater proportion of individuals below the federal poverty level (18.3% vs. 16.5%; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

While the number of hospitals with ACS approved cancer program designation increased over the last decade, the number of people living greater than 60 min from an approved cancer programs nearly doubled. These data highlight worrisome geospatial trends that may make access to cancer care for certain patient populations increasingly challenging.

Association of the Affordable Care Act With Ovarian Cancer Care

OBJECTIVE

To estimate how implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) might be associated with stage at diagnosis and time to treatment for women with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using difference-in-differences analysis comparing stage at diagnosis and time to treatment before and after implementation of the ACA among women with ovarian cancer aged 21-64 years (exposure group) compared with women aged 65 years or older (control group). Using 2004-2015 data from the National Cancer Database, outcomes were analyzed overall and by insurance type and race, adjusting for urban-rural, income and education level, comorbidities, distance traveled for care, region, and care at an academic center.

RESULTS

A total of 39,999 ovarian cancer cases prereform and 36,564 postreform were identified for women aged 21-64 years compared with 31,290 cases prereform and 29,807 postreform for women aged 65 years or older. The ACA was associated with increased early-stage diagnosis detection for women aged 21-64 years compared with women 65 and older (difference-in-differences 1.4%, 95% CI 0.4-2.4). The ACA was associated with more women receiving treatment within 30 days of ovarian cancer diagnosis (2.3%, 95% CI 1.7-3.0). Among women with public insurance, the ACA was associated with a significant improvement in early-stage diagnosis and receipt of treatment within 30 days of diagnosis (difference-in-differences 2.7%, 95% CI 1.0-4.5, difference-in-differences 2.5%, 95% CI 1.2-3.8). Improvements in time to treatment were seen across race and income groups.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the ACA was associated with earlier ovarian cancer stage at detection and treatment within 30 days of diagnosis.

Breast cancer survivorship care beyond local and systemic therapy

Despite persistent inequities in access to care and treatments, advances in combined modality care have led to a steady improvement in outcomes for breast cancer patients across the globe. When estimating the magnitude of clinical benefit of therapies, providers and patients must contend with a multitude of factors that impact treatment decisions and can have long-term effects on quality of life and survival. These include commonly described early toxicities, like aromatase inhibitor-associated musculoskeletal syndrome and neuropathy. But longer-term comorbidities often observed among cancer survivors including weight gain, obesity, infertility, psychological distress, sexual dysfunction, second cancers, bone loss, and body image issues can have lasting effects on quality of life. Equally important, system-level factors such as access to care and resource allocation can have a systemic impact on survival and on the quality of survivorship. Financial toxicity including underemployment can have a lasting impact on patients and caregivers. The resulting disparities in access to treatment can help explain much of the observed variability in outcomes, even within high-income countries like the US. This article revisits some of secondary effects from therapies discussed in a prior 2015 review article, along with other impediments to the optimal delivery of breast cancer care that can affect patients anywhere.

Improving Cancer Patients' Insurance Choices (I Can PIC): A Randomized Trial of a Personalized Health Insurance Decision Aid

BACKGROUND

Many cancer survivors struggle to choose a health insurance plan that meets their needs because of high costs, limited health insurance literacy, and lack of decision support. We developed a web-based decision aid, Improving Cancer Patients' Insurance Choices (I Can PIC), and evaluated it in a randomized trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible individuals (18-64 years, diagnosed with cancer for ≤5 years, English-speaking, not Medicaid or Medicare eligible) were randomized to I Can PIC or an attention control health insurance worksheet. Primary outcomes included health insurance knowledge, decisional conflict, and decision self-efficacy after completing I Can PIC or the control. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, health insurance literacy, financial toxicity, and delayed care at a 3-6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 263 of 335 eligible participants (79%) consented and were randomized; 206 (73%) completed the initial survey (106 in I Can PIC; 100 in the control), and 180 (87%) completed a 3-6 month follow-up. After viewing I Can PIC or the control, health insurance knowledge and a health insurance literacy item assessing confidence understanding health insurance were higher in the I Can PIC group. At follow-up, the I Can PIC group retained higher knowledge than the control; confidence understanding health insurance was not reassessed. There were no significant differences between groups in other outcomes. Results did not change when controlling for health literacy and employment. Both groups reported having limited health insurance options.

CONCLUSION

I Can PIC can improve cancer survivors' health insurance knowledge and confidence using health insurance. System-level interventions are needed to lower financial toxicity and help patients manage care costs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Inadequate health insurance compromises cancer treatment and impacts overall and cancer-specific mortality. Uninsured or underinsured survivors report fewer recommended cancer screenings and may delay or avoid needed follow-up cancer care because of costs. Even those with adequate insurance report difficulty managing care costs. Health insurance decision support and resources to help manage care costs are thus paramount to cancer survivors' health and care management. We developed a web-based decision aid, Improving Cancer Patients' Insurance Choices (I Can PIC), and evaluated it in a randomized trial. I Can PIC provides health insurance information, supports patients through managing care costs, offers a list of financial and emotional support resources, and provides a personalized cost estimate of annual health care expenses across plan types.

Demographic and Tumor Characteristic Impact on Laryngeal Cancer Outcomes in a Minority Underserved Patient Population

OBJECTIVE

Advanced laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma remains associated with approximately 50% mortality at 5 years. Delivery of multimodality treatment remains critical to maximizing survival for this disease, but achieving this at a national level remains a difficult undertaking, particularly in under- and uninsured patients as well as minority patients. We sought to evaluate laryngeal cancer treatment delivery and clinical outcomes in a predominantly minority and underserved cohort of largely under- and uninsured patients in a county hospital.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary care county hospital in Houston, Texas.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients (N = 210) with a new diagnosis of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated between 2005 and 2015 were included in a retrospective analysis of patient demographics, tumor and treatment characteristics, and oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

The majority of patients presented with advanced disease (T4 = 43%, N>0 = 45%). Treatment selection was compliant with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in 81% of cases, but 76% of patients who required adjuvant radiotherapy were unable to start it within 6 weeks postsurgery. Overall survival and disease-free survival were 52% and 63% for the entire cohort, respectively. Supraglottic subsite and nodal metastases were significantly associated with decreased overall survival and disease-free survival. Race/ethnicity and insurance status were not associated with worse oncologic outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Under- and uninsured patients often present with advanced laryngeal cancer. Oncologic outcomes in this cohort of patients is similar to that of other published series. Moreover, tumor characteristics rather than demographic variables drive oncologic outcomes for the predominantly minority and underserved patients seeking care in our tertiary care county hospital.

General Health Care Utilization Among Nonelderly Cancer Survivors Before and After Affordable Care Act Implementation: Early Results

PURPOSE

The number of nonelderly cancer survivors is expected to grow and so are their health care costs. Many cancer survivors worry about medical bills. This study examined the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the rate of insurance, average annual health care expenditure, and patient care experience among cancer survivors and investigated the patient characteristics that were associated with highly rated care experiences before and after ACA implementation.

METHODS

The study is a cross-sectional analysis of adult, nonelderly cancer survivors in the 2011 and 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey who completed health care experience questionnaires. Percent covered by insurance both before and after the ACA was calculated, including total out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses as a percentage of overall health care expenditure per patient. Regression was performed to determine characteristics associated with patient experience ratings.

RESULTS

Health insurance coverage for cancer survivors was higher in 2016 than in 2011 (98.4% v 94.4%; P = .006). OOP spending as a percentage of health care expenditure among those with expenses decreased and was most striking in those with no insurance. Privately insured individuals were 3 times as likely to rate their care experience high compared with those with no insurance (odds ratio, 3.31; P < .0001). Those with above-average ratings of self-health and with few comorbidities rated their care experiences highly.

CONCLUSION

After the ACA, OOP costs have decreased for all types of insurance coverage. The association between patient experience and health status warrants additional study to better manage and coordinate the care of such patients.

Financial Toxicity and Equitable Access to Clinical Trials

Financial barriers to clinical trial enrollment are an area of active investigation. Financial toxicity as a concept describes how high costs and financial burden can lead to compromised care and outcomes. Despite the potential to yield large survival benefits and improved access to cutting-edge therapies, less than 5% of adult patients with cancer are enrolled in a clinical trial. Disparities in trial enrollment exist along age, ethnic, and sociodemographic lines, with younger, poorer, nonwhite patients with private insurance-the exact population who may be at highest risk for financial toxicity-less likely to participate. Cost and insurance concerns remain an obstacle for clinical trial enrollment for certain patient populations. Changing the clinical trial paradigm with a focus on addressing structural and clinical barriers to clinical trial enrollment is paramount. This includes expanding access to clinical trials within community populations, advocating for health policy changes to guarantee insurance coverage of clinical trial standard-of-care health care, and considering noncoercive financial assistance (particularly for indirect costs like travel and lodging) for participants to defray their additional costs of participation. Additional steps toward education, cost transparency, and expansion of foundation assistance may also improve equitable access to clinical trials for all.

A contemporary framework of health equity applied to gynecologic cancer care: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology evidenced-based review

Health disparities are defined as the preventable difference in the burden of disease, injury, and violence, or opportunity to achieve optimal health that socially disadvantaged populations experience compared to the population as a whole. Disparities in incidence and cancer outcomes for women with gynecologic malignancies have been well described particularly for American women of Black race. The etiology of these disparities has been tied to socio-economics, cultural, educational and genetic factors. While access to high quality treatment has been primarily linked to survival from cervical and ovarian cancer, innate biologic distinctions have been principally cited as reasons for differences in incidence and mortality in cancers of the uterine corpus. This article will update the framework of disparities to incorporate a broader understanding of the social determinants of health and how they affect health equity by addressing the root causes of disparities within the health care system. Special populations are identified who are at risk for health inequities which include but are not limited to Black race, underserved racial and ethnic minorities (e.g. indigenous peoples, low English fluency), trans/gender nonconforming people and rural populations. Each of these populations at risk have unique structural barriers within the healthcare system impacting gynecologic cancer outcomes. The authors provide practical recommendations for practitioners aimed at eliminating cancer related outcome disparities.

The Affordable Care Act and Cancer Care Delivery

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has reformed US health care delivery through insurance coverage expansion, experiments in payment design, and funding for patient-centered clinical and health care delivery research. The impact on cancer care specifically has been far reaching, with new ACA-related programs that encourage coordinated, patient-centered, cost-effective care. Insurance expansions through private exchanges and Medicaid, along with preexisting condition clauses, have helped more than 20 million Americans gain health care coverage. Accountable care organizations, oncology patient-centered medical homes, and the Oncology Care Model-all implemented through the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation-have initiated an accelerating shift toward value-based cancer care. Concurrently, evidence for better cancer outcomes and improved quality of cancer care is starting to accrue in the wake of ACA implementation.

End-of-Life Intensity for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: A Californian Population-Based Study That Shows Disparities

PURPOSE

Cancer is the leading cause of nonaccidental death among adolescents and young adults (AYAs). High-intensity end-of-life care is expensive and may not be consistent with patient goals. However, the intensity of end-of-life care for AYA decedents with cancer-especially the effect of care received at specialty versus nonspecialty centers-remains understudied.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, population-based analysis with the California administrative discharge database that is linked to death certificates. The cohort included Californians age 15 to 39 years who died between 2000 and 2011 with cancer. Intense end-of-life interventions included readmission, admission to an intensive care unit, intubation in the last month of life, and in-hospital death. Specialty centers were defined as Children's Oncology Group centers and National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers.

RESULTS

Of the 12,938 AYA cancer decedents, 59% received at least one intense end-of-life care intervention, and 30% received two or more. Patients treated at nonspecialty centers were more likely than those at specialty-care centers to receive two or more intense interventions (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.62). Sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with two or more intense interventions included minority race/ethnicity (Black [OR, 1.35, 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.56]; Hispanic [OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.36]; non-Hispanic white: reference), younger age (15 to 21 years [OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.56; 22 to 29 years [OR,1.26; 95% CI,1.14 to 1.39]; ≥ 30 years: reference), and hematologic malignancies (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.41 to 1.66; solid tumors: reference).

CONCLUSION

Thirty percent of AYA cancer decedents received two or more high-intensity end-of-life interventions. In addition to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, hospitalization in a nonspecialty center was associated with high-intensity end-of-life care. Additional research is needed to determine if these disparities are consistent with patient preference.

Insurance Clearance for Early-Phase Oncology Clinical Trials Following the Affordable Care Act

Purpose: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) required that private insurance plans allow clinical trial participation and cover standard-of-care costs, but the impact of this provision has not been well-characterized. We assessed rates of insurance clearance for trial participation within our large early-phase clinical trials program, before and after implementation of the requirement.Experimental Design: We analyzed the departmental database for the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy (CCTT) at MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX). Among patients referred for sponsored trials, we described rates of insurance clearance and prolonged time to clearance (at least 14 days) from July 2012 to June 2013 (baseline), July 2013-December 2013 (following CCTT staffing changes in July 2103), and January 2014-June 2015 (following implementation of the ACA). We used multivariable logistic regression models to compare rates across these time periods.Results: We identified 2,404 referrals for insurance clearance. Among privately insured patients, insurance clearance rates were higher for those referred from January 2014 to June 2015 than for those referred from July 2012 to June 2013 (OR, 4.72; 95% CI, 2.96-7.51). There was no association between referral period and clearance rates for Medicare/Medicaid patients (P = 0.25). Referral from January 2014 to June 2015 was associated with lower rates of prolonged clearance among both privately insured (OR 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) and Medicare/Medicaid patients (OR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.83).Conclusions: Within our large early-phase clinical trials program, insurance clearance rates among privately insured patients improved following implementation of the ACA's requirement for coverage of standard-of-care costs. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4155-62. ©2017 AACR.

Breast Cancer Disparities at Home and Abroad: A Review of the Challenges and Opportunities for System-Level Change

Sizeable disparities exist in breast cancer outcomes, both between Black and White patients in the United States, and between patients in the United States and other high-income countries compared with low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). In both settings, health system factors are key drivers of disparities. In the United States, Black women are more likely to die of breast cancer than Whites and have poorer outcomes, even among patients with similar stage and tumor subtype. Over-representation of higher risk "triple-negative" breast cancers contributes to breast cancer mortality in Black women; however, the greatest survival disparities occur within the good-prognosis hormone receptor-positive (HR+) subtypes. Disparities in access to treatment within the complex U.S. health system may be responsible for a substantial portion of these differences in survival. In LMICs, breast cancer mortality rates are substantially higher than in the United States, whereas incidence continues to rise. This mortality burden is largely attributable to health system factors, including late-stage presentation at diagnosis and lack of availability of systemic therapy. This article will review the existing evidence for how health system factors in the United States contribute to breast cancer disparities, discuss methods for studying the relationship of health system factors to racial disparities, and provide examples of health system interventions that show promise for mitigating breast cancer disparities. We will then review evidence of global breast cancer disparities in LMICs, the treatment factors that contribute to these disparities, and actions being taken to combat breast cancer disparities around the world. Clin Cancer Res; 23(11); 2655-64. ©2017 AACRSee all articles in this CCR Focus section, "Breast Cancer Research: From Base Pairs to Populations."