Cancer diagnosis and treatment in working-age adults: Implications for employment, health insurance coverage, and financial hardship in the United States

The rising costs of cancer care and subsequent medical financial hardship for cancer survivors and families are well documented in the United States. Less attention has been paid to employment disruptions and loss of household income after a cancer diagnosis and during treatment, potentially resulting in lasting financial hardship, particularly for working-age adults not yet age-eligible for Medicare coverage and their families. In this article, the authors use a composite patient case to illustrate the adverse consequences of cancer diagnosis and treatment for employment, health insurance coverage, household income, and other aspects of financial hardship. They summarize existing research and provide nationally representative estimates of multiple aspects of financial hardship and health insurance coverage, benefit design, and employee benefits, such as paid sick leave, among working-age adults with a history of cancer and compare them with estimates among working-age adults without a history of cancer from the most recently available years of the National Health Interview Survey (2019-2021). Then, the authors identify opportunities for addressing employment and health insurance coverage challenges at multiple levels, including federal, state, and local policies; employers; cancer care delivery organizations; and nonprofit organizations. These efforts, when informed by research to identify best practices, can potentially help mitigate the financial hardship associated with cancer.

Associations of Medical Debt With Health Status, Premature Death, and Mortality in the US

Importance

Medical debt is increasingly common in the US. Little is known regarding its association with population health.

Objective

To examine the associations of medical debt with health status, premature death, and mortality at the county level in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study was conducted at the US county level using 2018 medical debt data from the Urban Institute Debt in America project linked with 2018 data on self-reported health status and premature death from the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps and with 2015 to 2019 mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Data analysis was performed from August 2022 to May 2023.

Exposure

Share of population with any medical debt in collections and median amount of medical debt.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Health status was measured as (1) the mean number of physically and mentally unhealthy days in the past 30 days per 1000 people, (2) the mean number of premature deaths measured as years of life lost before age 75 years per 1000 people, and (3) age-adjusted all-cause and 18 cause-specific mortality rates (eg, malignant cancers, heart disease, and suicide) per 100 000 person-years. Multivariable linear models were fitted to estimate the associations between medical debt and health outcomes.

Results

A total of 2943 counties were included in this analysis. The median percentage of the county population aged 65 years or older was 18.3% (IQR, 15.8%-20.9%). Across counties, a median 3.0% (IQR, 1.2%-11.9%) of the population were Black residents, 4.3% (IQR, 2.3%-9.7%) were Hispanic residents, and 84.5% (IQR, 65.7%-93.3%) were White residents. On average, 19.8% (range, 0%-53.6%) of the population had medical debt. After adjusting for county-level sociodemographic characteristics, a 1-percentage point increase in the population with medical debt was associated with 18.3 (95% CI, 16.3-20.2) more physically unhealthy days and 17.9 (95% CI, 16.1-19.8) more mentally unhealthy days per 1000 people during the past month, 1.12 (95% CI, 1.03-1.21) years of life lost per 1000 people, and an increase of 7.51 (95% CI, 6.99-8.04) per 100 000 person-years in age-adjusted all-cause mortality rate. Associations of medical debt and elevated mortality rates were consistent for all leading causes of death, including cancer (1.12 [95% CI, 1.02-1.22]), heart disease (1.39 [95% CI, 1.21-1.57]), and suicide (0.09 [95% CI, 0.06-0.11]) per 100 000 person-years. Similar patterns were observed for associations between the median amount of medical debt and the aforementioned health outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that medical debt is associated with worse health status, more premature deaths, and higher mortality rates at the county level in the US. Therefore, policies increasing access to affordable health care, such as expanding health insurance coverage, may improve population health.

American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2023

In 2021, the American Cancer Society published its first biennial report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States. In this second report, the authors provide updated data on racial, ethnic, socioeconomic (educational attainment as a marker), and geographic (metropolitan status) disparities in cancer occurrence and outcomes and contributing factors to these disparities in the country. The authors also review programs that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. There are substantial variations in risk factors, stage at diagnosis, receipt of care, survival, and mortality for many cancers by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and metropolitan status. During 2016 through 2020, Black and American Indian/Alaska Native people continued to bear a disproportionately higher burden of cancer deaths, both overall and from major cancers. By educational attainment, overall cancer mortality rates were about 1.6-2.8 times higher in individuals with ≤12 years of education than in those with ≥16 years of education among Black and White men and women. These disparities by educational attainment within each race were considerably larger than the Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality within each educational attainment, ranging from 1.03 to 1.5 times higher among Black people, suggesting a major role for socioeconomic status disparities in racial disparities in cancer mortality given the disproportionally larger representation of Black people in lower socioeconomic status groups. Of note, the largest Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality were among those who had ≥16 years of education. By area of residence, mortality from all cancer and from leading causes of cancer death were substantially higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in large metropolitan areas. For colorectal cancer, for example, mortality rates in nonmetropolitan areas versus large metropolitan areas were 23% higher among males and 21% higher among females. By age group, the racial and geographic disparities in cancer mortality were greater among individuals younger than 65 years than among those aged 65 years and older. Many of the observed racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in cancer mortality align with disparities in exposure to risk factors and access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, which are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health. Equitable policies at all levels of government, broad interdisciplinary engagement to address these inequities, and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage, are needed to reduce cancer disparities.

Out-of-Pocket Costs and Outpatient Visits Among Patients With Cancer in High-Deductible Health Plans

Importance

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have grown rapidly and may adversely affect access to comprehensive cancer care.

Objective

To evaluate the association of HDHPs with out-of-pocket medical costs and outpatient physician visits among patients with cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using 2003 to 2017 data from the deidentified Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database from individuals with employer-sponsored health coverage, adults aged 18 to 64 years with cancer who were enrolled in low-deductible (≤$500 annually) health plans during a baseline year were identified. Patients whose employers then mandated a switch to an HDHP (≥$1000 annual deductible) were assigned to the HDHP group, while contemporaneous individuals with cancer at baseline who had no option but to continue enrollment in low-deductible plans were assigned to the control group. The 2 groups were matched on demographic variables (age, sex, race and ethnicity, US Census region, rural vs urban, and neighborhood poverty level), cancer type, morbidity score, number of baseline physician visits by specialty type, baseline out-of-pocket costs, and employer characteristics. These cohorts were followed up for up to 3 years after the baseline year. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to December 2022.

Exposures

Employer-mandated HDHP enrollment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Out-of-pocket medical expenditures and outpatient visits to primary care physicians, cancer specialists, and noncancer specialists.

Results

After matching, the sample included 45 708 patients with cancer (2703 patients in the HDHP group and 43 005 matched individuals in the control group); mean (SD) age in the HDHP and control groups was 52.9 (9.3) years and 52.9 (2.3) years, respectively, with 58.5% females in both groups. The matching procedure yielded variable weights for each individual in the control group, resulting in a weighted control group sample of 2703 patients. Patients with cancer who were switched to HDHPs experienced an increase in annual out-of-pocket medical expenditures of 68.1% (95% CI, 51.0%-85.3%; absolute increase, $1349.80 [95% CI, $1060.30-$1639.20]) after the switch compared with those who remained in traditional health plans. At follow-up, the number of oncology visits did not differ between the 2 groups (relative difference, 0.1%; 95% CI, -8.4% to 9.4%); however, the HDHP group had 10.8% (95% CI, -15.5% to -5.9%) fewer visits to primary care physicians and 5.9% (95% CI, -11.2% to -0.3%) fewer visits to noncancer specialists.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cohort study suggest that after enrollment in HDHPs, patients with cancer experienced substantial increases in out-of-pocket medical costs. The number of visits to oncologists was unchanged during follow-up, but the number of visits to noncancer physicians was lower. These findings suggest that HDHPs are unlikely to unfavorably affect key oncology services but might lead to less comprehensive care of cancer survivors.

Factors Associated with Delaying and Forgoing Care Due to Cost among Long-term, Appalachian Cancer Survivors in Rural North Carolina

Background

Little research exists on delayed and forgone health and mental health care due to cost among rural cancer survivors.

Methods

We surveyed survivors in 7 primarily rural, Appalachian counties February to May 2020. Univariable analyses examined the distribution and prevalence of delayed/forgone care due to cost in the past year by independent variables. Chi-square or Fisher's tests examined bivariable differences. Logistic regressions assessed the odds of delayed/forgone care due to cost.

Results

Respondents (n=428), aged 68.6 years on average (SD: 12.0), were 96.3% non-Hispanic white and 49.8% female; 25.0% reported delayed/forgone care due to cost. The response rate was 18.5%. The proportion of delayed/forgone care for those aged 18-64 years was 46.7% and 15.0% for those aged 65+ years (P<0.0001). Females aged 65+ years (OR: 2.00; CI: 1.02-3.93) had double the odds of delayed/forgone care due to cost compared to males aged 65+ years.

Conclusion

About one in four rural cancer survivors reported delayed/forgone care due to cost, with rates approaching 50% in survivors aged <65 years.

Impact

Clinical implications indicate the need to: 1) ask about the impact of care costs, and 2) provide supportive services to mitigate effects of treatment costs, particularly for younger and female survivors.

The Effects of High Deductible Health Plans on Breast Cancer Treatment and Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

High-deductible health plans (HDHP) have expanded rapidly creating the potential for substantially increased out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The associated financial strain has been associated with the decision to forego care, but the impact on patients undergoing breast cancer reconstruction is not known. We examined the impact of HDHPs vs. LDHPs and OOP maximums on breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and 2020, patients who had breast reconstruction by the 2 senior authors were retrospectively evaluated. Information on patient's insurance contract was collected. Criteria for HDHP and LDHP were defined following section 223(c)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. All aspects of cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, and surgical procedures were reviewed.

RESULTS

About 507 patients (262 in LDHPs and 245 in HDHPs) were reviewed. Patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to be enrolled in HDHPs (25.7% vs. 36.8%, P < .01). There was no significant difference in total operations, number of revisions, or length of reconstruction in days or calendar years. Additionally, no difference existed in the choice of autologous implant reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

The cost-sharing burden of HDHPs creates the potential for patients to forego care, and thus, effort should be directed toward increasing patient education concerning health plan benefits. Utilization of postdeductible spending, as well as resources of health savings accounts, may limit the adverse effects of HDHPs. This study also emphasizes the importance for providers to increase cost transparency.

Alleviating Financial Hardships Associated with High-Deductible Health Plans for Adults with Chronic Conditions Through Health Savings Accounts

BACKGROUND

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are becoming increasingly common, but their financial implications for enrollees with and without chronic conditions and the mitigating effects of health savings accounts (HSAs) are relatively unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to compare financial hardship between non-HDHPs and HDHPs with and without HSAs, stratified by enrollees' number of chronic conditions.

DESIGN

We used data from 2015 to 2018 Medical Expenditure Panels Surveys (MEPS) to compare rates of financial hardship across individuals with HDHPs and non-HDHPs using linear and logistic regression models.

PARTICIPANTS

A nationally representative sample of 30,981 adults aged 18-64 enrolled in HDHPs and non-HDHPs.

MAIN MEASURES

We examined several measures of financial hardship, including total yearly out-of-pocket medical spending as well as rates of delaying medical care or prescriptions in the past year due to cost, forgoing medical care or prescriptions in the past year due to cost, paying medical bills over time, or having problems paying medical bills. We compared rates using the non-HDHP as the control.

KEY RESULTS

On most measures, HDHPs are associated with greater financial hardship compared to non-HDHPs, including average annual out-of-pocket spending of $637 for non-HDHPs, $939 for HDHPs with HSAs, and $825 for HDHPs without HSAs (p < 0.01). However, for HDHP enrollees with multiple chronic conditions, having an HSA was associated with less financial hardship (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that HSAs may be most beneficial for those with chronic conditions, in part due to the tax benefits they offer as well as the fact that those with chronic conditions are more likely to take advantage of their HSAs than their younger, healthier counterparts. However, as HDHPs are more likely to be correlated with worse financial outcomes regardless of health status, recent trends of increasing participation may be a reason for concern.

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.

Association of Medical Financial Hardship and Mortality Among Cancer Survivors in the United States

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors frequently experience medical financial hardship in the United States. Little is known, however, about long-term health consequences. This study examines the associations of financial hardship and mortality in a large nationally representative sample of cancer survivors.

METHODS

We identified cancer survivors aged 18-64 years (n = 14 917) and 65-79 years (n = 10 391) from the 1997-2014 National Health Interview Survey and its linked mortality files with vital status through December 31, 2015. Medical financial hardship was measured as problems affording care or delaying or forgoing any care because of cost in the past 12 months. Risk of mortality was estimated with separate weighted Cox proportional hazards models by age group with age as the timescale, controlling for the effects of sociodemographic characteristics. Health insurance coverage was added sequentially to multivariable models.

RESULTS

Among cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 65-79 years, 29.6% and 11.0%, respectively, reported financial hardship in the past 12 months. Survivors with hardship had higher adjusted mortality risk than their counterparts in both age groups: 18-64 years (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 1.30) and 65-79 years (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.28). Further adjustment for health insurance reduced the magnitude of association of hardship and mortality among survivors aged 18-64 years (HR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.97 to 1.24). Adjustment for supplemental Medicare coverage had little effect among survivors aged 65-79 years (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.29).

CONCLUSION

Medical financial hardship was associated with mortality risk among cancer survivors in the United States.

Association of High-Deductible Health Plan Enrollment With Spending on and Use of Lenalidomide Therapy Among Commercially Insured Patients With Multiple Myeloma

IMPORTANCE

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) require high upfront cost-sharing, which has been associated with suboptimal anticancer medication uptake and adherence. Whether HDHP enrollment has limited the affordability and use of lenalidomide therapy among commercially insured patients with multiple myeloma is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of HDHP enrollment with out-of-pocket spending on and adherence to lenalidomide therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, data were obtained from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database for adults aged 18 to 64 years with multiple myeloma who newly initiated lenalidomide therapy between April 1, 2013, and June 30, 2017. Quantile regression and modified Poisson regression evaluated out-of-pocket spending, and group-based trajectory models and multinomial logistic regression examined patterns of and factors associated with adherence. Analyses were conducted from April to August 2020.

EXPOSURES

High-deductible health plan enrollment in the 3 months before and 6 months after initiation of lenalidomide therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Distribution of out-of-pocket spending, the probability of paying more than $100 for the first and any lenalidomide prescription fill, and monthly lenalidomide therapy adherence using the proportion of days covered (≥80%).

RESULTS

Of the 3163 commercially insured patients who initiated lenalidomide therapy (median age, 57 years [IQR, 53-60 years for HDHP enrollees and 52-61 years for non-HDHP enrollees]), 328 (10.4%) were enrolled in HDHPs and 1769 (55.9%) were women. Among the highest spenders (95th percentile), HDHP enrollees paid $376 (95% CI, -$28 to $780) and $217 (95% CI, $106-$323) more for their first and any lenalidomide prescription fill, respectively, compared with non-HDHP enrollees in the 6 months after initiation. High-deductible health plan enrollment was also associated with an increased risk of paying more than $100 for the initial (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.13-1.50]) and any (aRR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.12-1.42]) lenalidomide prescription fill. Three adherence trajectory groups were identified: those with high adherence (n = 1273), late nonadherence (n = 1084), and early nonadherence (n = 805). High-deductible health plan enrollment was not associated with adherence group assignment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, HDHP enrollment was associated with higher out-of-pocket spending per lenalidomide prescription fill; however, no statistically significant differences in adherence patterns between HDHP and non-HDHP enrollees were observed. Patient (eg, perceptions of treatment benefits), payer (eg, out-of-pocket maximums), and clinician (eg, counseling patients on disease severity) factors may have limited the potential for nonadherence among commercially insured patients who initiated lenalidomide therapy.

Divergent Patterns in Care Utilization and Financial Distress between Patients with Blood Cancers and Solid Tumors: A National Health Interview Survey Study, 2014-2020

Introduction: Important differences exist between the presentation, treatment, and survivorship of patients and survivors with blood cancers. Furthermore, existing research in financial toxicity has not fully addressed the relationship between medical care utilization and patient-reported outcomes of financial barriers and distress. We answered these questions by using a nationally representative survey. Methods: Respondents with blood cancers and solid tumors from the National Health Interview Survey were identified (2014−2020). We identified 23 survey questions as study outcomes and grouped them into three domains of medical care utilization, financial barriers to care, and financial distress. Associations between the three domains and associations of study outcomes between cancer types were examined using weighted univariate analyses and multivariable linear and logistic regressions. Results: The final study group consisted of 6248 respondents with solid tumors and 398 with blood cancers (diagnosed ≤ 5 years). Across all respondents with cancer, higher medical care utilization is generally associated with increased financial barriers to care. Compared to respondents with solid tumors, respondents with blood cancers had a higher level of medical care utilization (β = 0.36, p = 0.02), a lower level of financial barriers to care (β = −0.19, p < 0.0001), and a higher level of financial distress in affording care (β = 0.64, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Patients and survivors with blood cancers and solid tumors demonstrate divergent patterns in care utilization, financial barriers, and financial distress. Future research and interventions on financial toxicity should be tailored for individual cancer groups, recognizing the differences in medical care utilization, which affect the experienced financial barriers.

Health Insurance Literacy and Medical Debt in Middle-Age Americans

BACKGROUND

Health insurance literacy (HIL) may influence medical financial burden among people who are sick and the most vulnerable.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the relationships between HIL, health insurance factors, and medical debt among middle-age Americans, a population with an increasing prevalence of illnesses.

METHODS

Linear and generalized linear regression analyses were conducted on data drawn from the 2015-2016 waves of the Health Reform Monitoring Survey, a national, internet-based sample of Americans age 18 to 64 years. The analytical sample included 8,042 people age 50 to 64 years.

KEY RESULTS

Adjusted mean HIL scores did not differ by private versus public insurance or by out-of-pocket costs. Mean HIL scores were lower with higher deductibles; however, differences in mean scores were small. Higher HIL was associated with lower medical debt (odds ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [0.96, 0.98]), but at the highest HIL score, the risk of having medical debt was still 13.8%. Public coverage, higher annual deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs were associated with higher risks of having medical debt.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that HIL plays an important role in medical debt burden. However, with the shift toward high cost-sharing insurance plans, addressing health care affordability issues along with HIL are critical to eliminate medical debt problems. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2021;5(4):e319-e332.] Plain Language Summary: Understanding and using health insurance (also defined as health insurance literacy) may influence the ability to pay medical bills among people who are sick and vulnerable. This study examined the relationships among health insurance literacy, health insurance factors, and difficulty paying medical bills (i.e., medical debt) in Americans age 50 to 64 years using data from the Health Reform Monitoring Survey. People with higher health insurance literacy reported lower medical debt. Type of insurance coverage did not influence medical debt. Those with annual deductibles and out-of-pocket health care costs were more likely to report having medical debt.

Nonelderly Adult Cancer Survivors in High Deductible Health Plan: Healthcare Expenditure, Utilization and Access

Background: To compare healthcare expenditure, utilization and access between nonelderly adult cancer survivors enrolled in a high deductible health plan with a health savings account ("HDHP+HSA"), HDHP without HSA ("HDHP alone") and low deductible health plan ("LDHP"). Methods: 1735 cancer survivors, aged 18-64 years, with continuous private coverage identified from the 2012-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: HDHP alone (n = 353), HDHP+HSA (n = 242) and LDHP (n = 1140). Healthcare expenditures, utilization and inability/delay obtaining medical care were analyzed using generalized linear regressions with inverse propensity score weighting and doubly robust estimation. Results: HDHP alone group (23,255 USD) had significantly higher total healthcare expenditure compared to HDHP+HSA (15,580 USD, p = 0.012) and LDHP (16,261 USD, p = 0.016). HDHP alone (6089 USD; p = 0.002) and HDHP+HSA (5743 USD; p = 0.012) groups had significantly higher out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure compared to LDHP (4853 USD). HDHP alone (17,128 USD, p = 0.010) and LDHP (12,645 USD, p = 0.045) had significantly higher private insurer payments compared to HDHP+HSA (9216 USD). No differences were found in utilization or inability/delay obtaining medical care across groups. Conclusions: Non-elderly adult cancer survivors with continuous coverage and comparable sociodemographic characteristics enrolled in HDHP with HSA displayed the lowest healthcare costs compared to HDHP without HSA and LDHP. HDHP+HSA had a significantly higher OOP expenditure than LDHP. No significant differences were observed in utilization or access among groups.

Gender, socioeconomic status and emergency department visits among cancer survivors in the USA: a population-based study

Aim: To assess patterns of emergency department visits and subsequent hospitalization in relation to gender and socioeconomic status among a cohort of cancer survivors in the USA. Materials & methods: National Health Interview Survey datasets (2011-2017) were reviewed and participants with a history of cancer and complete information about emergency department visits in the past 12 months were included. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess factors associated with emergency department visits and subsequent hospitalization after the most recent emergency department visit. Results: A total of 22,240 cancer survivors were included in the current analysis; of which 16,133 participants (72.5%) who have not visited an emergency department in the past 12 months and 6107 participants (27.5%) who have visited an emergency department in the past 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression analysis suggested the following factors are associated with emergency department visits; younger age (odds ratio [OR] with increasing age: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.98-0.99), female gender (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.00-1.15), African American race (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.13-1.40), unmarried status (OR for married vs unmarried: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.74-0.84), lower yearly earnings (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.20-1.54), poor health status (OR: 7.02; 95% CI: 6.02-8.18) and incomplete health insurance coverage (OR for complete coverage vs incomplete coverage: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.54-0.80). On the other hand, the following factors were associated with subsequent hospitalization: older age (OR: 1.004; 95% CI: 1.000-1.008), male gender (OR for female vs male: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78-0.94), unmarried status (OR for married vs unmarried status: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73-0.88), not working (OR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.23-1.68), lower yearly earnings (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.07-1.60), poor health status (OR: 8.43; 95% CI: 6.76-10.51) and lack of health insurance coverage (OR for complete coverage vs incomplete coverage: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.55-0.93). Conclusion: Female cancer survivors were more likely to visit the emergency department, whereas they were less likely to be subsequently hospitalized. Cancer survivors with lower socioeconomic status were more likely to visit emergency departments and to be subsequently hospitalized.

Use of Health Savings Accounts Among US Adults Enrolled in High-Deductible Health Plans

Importance

Health savings accounts (HSAs) can be used by enrollees in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) to save for health care expenses before taxes. Expansion of and encouraging contributions to HSAs have been centerpieces of recent federal legislation. Little is known about how US residents who may be eligible for HSAs are using them to save for health care.

Objective

To determine which patients who may be eligible for an HSA do not have one and what decisions patients with HSAs make about contributing to them.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional national survey assessed an online survey panel representative of the US adult population. Adults aged 18 to 64 years and enrolled in an HDHP for at least 12 months were eligible to participate. Data were collected from August 26 to September 19, 2016, and analyzed from November 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prevalence of not having an HSA or not making HSA contributions in the last 12 months and reasons for not making the HSA contributions.

Results

Based on data from 1637 individuals (American Association of Public Opinion Research response rate 4, 54.8%), half (50.6% [95% CI, 47.7%-53.6%]) of US adults in HDHPs were female, and most were aged 36 to 51 (35.7% [95% CI, 32.8%-38.6%]) or 52 to 64 (36.8% [95% CI, 34.1%-39.5%]) years. Approximately 1 in 3 (32.5% [95% CI, 29.8%-35.3%]) did not have an HSA. Those who obtained their health insurance through an exchange were more likely to lack an HSA (70.3% [95% CI, 61.9%-78.6%]) than those who worked for an employer that offered only 1 health insurance plan (36.5% [95% CI, 30.9%-42.1%]; P < .001). More than half of individuals with an HSA (55.0% [95% CI, 51.1%-58.8%]) had not contributed money into it in the last 12 months. Among HDHP enrollees with an HSA, those with at least a master's degree (46.1% [95% CI, 38.3%-53.9%]; P = .02) or a high level of health insurance literacy (47.3% [95% CI, 40.7%-54.0%]; P = .03) were less likely to have made no HAS contributions. Common reasons for not contributing to an HSA included not considering it (36.8% [95% CI, 30.8%-42.8%]) and being unable to afford saving for health care (31.9% [95% CI, 26.2%-37.6%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that many US adults enrolled in an HDHP lack an HSA, and few with an HSA saved for health care in the last year. Targeted interventions should be explored by employers, health plans, and health systems to encourage HSA uptake and contributions among individuals who could benefit from their use.

The Changing Health Insurance Coverage Landscape in the United States

Changes in the health insurance coverage landscape in the United States during the past decade have important implications for receipt and affordability of cancer care. In this paper, we summarize evidence for the association between health insurance coverage and cancer prevention and treatment. We then discuss ongoing changes in health care coverage, including implementation of provisions of the Affordable Care Act, increasing prevalence of high-deductible health insurance plans, and factors that affect health care delivery, with a focus on vertical integration of hospitals and providers. We summarize the evidence for the effects of the changes in health coverage on care and discuss areas for future research with the goal of informing efforts to improve cancer care delivery and outcomes in the United States.

The Affordable Care Act and access to care across the cancer control continuum: A review at 10 years

Lack of health insurance coverage is strongly associated with poor cancer outcomes in the United States. The uninsured are less likely to have access to timely and effective cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care than their counterparts with health insurance coverage. On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law, representing the largest change to health care delivery in the United States since the introduction of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965. The primary goals of the ACA are to improve health insurance coverage, the quality of care, and patient outcomes, and to maintain or lower costs by catalyzing changes in the health care delivery system. In this review, we describe the main components of the ACA, including health insurance expansions, coverage reforms, and delivery system reforms, provisions within these components, and their relevance to cancer screening and early detection, care, and outcomes. We then highlight selected, well-designed studies examining the effects of the ACA provisions on coverage, access to cancer care, and disparities throughout the cancer control continuum. Finally, we identify research gaps to inform evaluation of current and emerging health policies related to cancer outcomes.

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.

Medical Financial Hardship Intensity and Financial Sacrifice Associated with Cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

With rising costs of cancer care, this study aims to estimate the prevalence of, and factors associated with, medical financial hardship intensity and financial sacrifices due to cancer in the United States.

METHODS

We identified 963 cancer survivors from the 2016 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey - Experiences with Cancer. Medical financial hardship due to cancer was measured in material (e.g., filed for bankruptcy), psychological (e.g., worry about paying bills and finances), and behavioral (e.g., delaying or forgoing care due to cost) domains. Nonmedical financial sacrifices included changes in spending and use of savings. Multivariable logistic models were used to identify characteristics associated with hardship intensity and sacrifices stratified by age group (18-64 or 65+ years).

RESULTS

Among cancer survivors ages 18 to 64 years, 53.6%, 28.4%, and 11.4% reported at least one, two, or all three domains of hardship, respectively. Among survivors ages 65+ years, corresponding percentages were 42.0%, 12.7%, and 4.0%, respectively. Moreover, financial sacrifices due to cancer were more common in survivors ages 18 to 64 years (54.2%) than in survivors 65+ years (38.4%; P < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with hardship intensity in multivariable analyses included low income and educational attainment, racial/ethnic minority, comorbidity, lack of private insurance coverage, extended employment change, and recent cancer treatment. Most were also significantly associated with financial sacrifices.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical financial hardship and financial sacrifices are substantial among cancer survivors in the United States, particularly for younger survivors.

IMPACT

Efforts to mitigate financial hardship for cancer survivors are warranted, especially for those at high risk.

Mortality-to-incidence ratios by US Congressional District: Implications for epidemiologic, dissemination and implementation research, and public health policy

The mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) can be computed from readily accessible, public-use data on cancer incidence and mortality, and a high MIR value is an indicator of poor survival relative to incidence. Newly available data on congressional district-specific cancer incidence and mortality from the U.S. Cancer Statistics (USCS) database from 2011 to 2015 were used to compute MIR values for overall (all types combined), breast, cervix, colorectal, esophagus, lung, oral, pancreas, and prostate cancer. Congressional districts in the South and Midwest, including MS, AL, and KY, had higher (worse) MIR values for all cancer types combined than for the U.S. as a whole. For all cancers combined, there was a positive correlation between each district's percent of rural residents and the MIR (r = 0.47; p < .001). The MIR for all cancer types combined was lower in districts within states that expanded Medicaid vs. those states that did not expand Medicaid (0.36 vs. 0.38; p < .001). A positive correlation was seen between the proportion of non-Hispanic Black residents and MIR (r = 0.15; p < .01 for all cancers). Lower MIRs were observed in districts in New England and in states that expanded Medicaid. However, there also were some interesting departures from this rule (e.g., Wyoming, South Dakota, parts of Wisconsin and Florida). Rural congressional districts have generally higher MIRs than more urban districts. There is some concern that poorer, more rural states that did not expand Medicaid may experience greater disparities in MIRs relative to Medicaid expansion states in the future.