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.

In-Clinic vs. Online Recruitment of Women with a History of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Cervical Cancer to a Smoking Cessation Trial: A Post-hoc Comparison of Participant Characteristics, Study Retention, and Cessation Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Recruiting special populations to smoking cessation trials is challenging and approaches beyond in-clinic recruitment may be beneficial. This secondary analysis of data from a smoking cessation RCT for individuals with a history of cervical cancer or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) explored differences associated with in-clinic vs. online recruitment.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from clinics within a university-based NCI-designated cancer center (n=87) and online nationally via Facebook (n=115). Baseline measures included sociodemographics, smoking history, and cancer or CIN history. Study retention and smoking abstinence were assessed 12 months post-baseline. Group differences in baseline characteristics were evaluated. Retention and abstinence were evaluated while controlling for group differences and predictors.

RESULTS

Participants recruited online (vs. in-clinic) had higher educational attainment (p=.01) and health literacy (p=.003). They were more likely to have CIN vs. cancer, to be further from the time of diagnosis, and to have completed active treatment (p values<.001). While controlling for these group differences and independent predictors, retention was higher among participants recruited online (log-likelihood χ2(1)=11.41, p<.001). There were no recruitment differences in self-reported (p=.90) or biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence (p=.18).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to individuals recruited in-person, individuals recruited online were more educated, had higher health literacy, and presented with a different clinical profile (i.e., more likely to have CIN vs. cancer and to have completed active treatment). There were few differences in participant characteristics between recruitment approaches, and no differences on any smoking-related variables. Online recruitment has the potential to improve enrollment of cancer survivors to smoking cessation trials.

IMPLICATIONS

People with a history of CIN or cervical cancer recruited to a smoking cessation RCT online (vs. in-clinic) were more likely to have a diagnosis of CIN vs. cancer and were more educated and health literate. Participants recruited online were more likely to be retained in the study and there were no differences in smoking abstinence rates at 12-months. Incorporating online recruitment increased the reach of tobacco treatment efforts to a larger and more diverse sample. This could reduce the burden of tobacco-related disease, improve CIN and cancer treatment outcomes, and reduce secondary malignancies and morbidity among this underserved group.

Work Productivity Among Younger Breast Cancer Survivors: The Impact of Behavioral Interventions for Depression

OBJECTIVES

The Pathways to Wellness randomized controlled trial found that 2 behavioral interventions, mindfulness awareness practices and survivorship education, reduced depressive symptoms in younger breast cancer survivors (BCSs) compared with wait-list control. This secondary analysis examines whether the interventions led to reduced loss of work productivity among younger BCSs and whether such reductions were mediated by reductions in depressive symptoms.

METHODS

The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scale was used to measure work productivity loss at 4 assessment time points. Correlates of productivity loss at enrollment were examined using multivariable linear regression. Differences in change over time in productivity loss between each intervention group and control were assessed using linear mixed models. Reduced depressive symptoms were tested as a mediator of reduced productivity loss.

RESULTS

Of 247 trial participants, 199 were employed and included in the analyses. At enrollment, higher productivity loss was associated with chemotherapy receipt (P = .003), younger age (P = .021), more severe cognitive problems (P = .002), higher musculoskeletal pain severity (P = .002), more depressive symptoms (P = .016), and higher fatigue severity (P = .033). The mindfulness intervention led to significantly less productivity loss compared with control at all 3 postintervention assessment points (all P < .05), with about 54% of the effect mediated by reduction in depressive symptoms. Survivorship education was not associated with reduced loss of productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that addressing depressive symptoms through behavioral interventions, such as mindfulness, may mitigate impacts on work productivity in younger BCSs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Population-Based Multigene Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Prevention

Importance

The current method of BRCA testing for breast and ovarian cancer prevention, which is based on family history, often fails to identify many carriers of pathogenic variants. Population-based genetic testing offers a transformative approach in cancer prevention by allowing for proactive identification of any high-risk individuals and enabling early interventions.

Objective

To assess the lifetime incremental effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of population-based multigene testing vs family history-based testing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation used a microsimulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of multigene testing (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2) for all women aged 30 to 35 years compared with the current standard of care that is family history based. Carriers of pathogenic variants were offered interventions, such as magnetic resonance imaging with or without mammography, chemoprevention, or risk-reducing mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy, to reduce cancer risk. A total of 2000 simulations were run on 1 000 000 women, using a lifetime time horizon and payer perspective, and costs were adjusted to 2022 US dollars. This study was conducted from September 1, 2020, to December 15, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quantified as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Secondary outcomes included incremental cost, additional breast and ovarian cancer cases prevented, and excess deaths due to coronary heart disease (CHD).

Results

The study assessed 1 000 000 simulated women aged 30 to 35 years in the US. In the base case, population-based multigene testing was more cost-effective compared with family history-based testing, with an ICER of $55 548 per QALY (95% CI, $47 288-$65 850 per QALY). Population-based multigene testing would be able to prevent an additional 1338 cases of breast cancer and 663 cases of ovarian cancer, but it would also result in 69 cases of excess CHD and 10 excess CHD deaths per million women. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses show that the probability that population-based multigene testing is cost-effective was 100%. When the cost of the multigene test exceeded $825, population-based testing was no longer cost-effective (ICER, $100 005 per QALY; 95% CI, $87 601-$11 6323).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic analysis of population-based multigene testing, population-based testing was a more cost-effective strategy for the prevention of breast cancer and ovarian cancer when compared with the current family history-based testing strategy at the $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. These findings support the need for more comprehensive genetic testing strategies to identify pathogenic variant carriers and enable informed decision-making for personalized risk management.

Longitudinal varying coefficient single-index model with censored covariates

It is of interest to health policy research to estimate the population-averaged longitudinal medical cost trajectory from initial cancer diagnosis to death, and understand how the trajectory curve is affected by patient characteristics. This research question leads to a number of statistical challenges because the longitudinal cost data are often non-normally distributed with skewness, zero-inflation, and heteroscedasticity. The trajectory is nonlinear, and its length and shape depend on survival, which are subject to censoring. Modeling the association between multiple patient characteristics and nonlinear cost trajectory curves of varying lengths should take into consideration parsimony, flexibility, and interpretation. We propose a novel longitudinal varying coefficient single-index model. Multiple patient characteristics are summarized in a single-index, representing a patient's overall propensity for healthcare use. The effects of this index on various segments of the cost trajectory depend on both time and survival, which is flexibly modeled by a bivariate varying coefficient function. The model is estimated by generalized estimating equations with an extended marginal mean structure to accommodate censored survival time as a covariate. We established the pointwise confidence interval of the varying coefficient and a test for the covariate effect. The numerical performance was extensively studied in simulations. We applied the proposed methodology to medical cost data of prostate cancer patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-Linked Database.

Examining the Association between Abstinence from Smoking and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Cancer

Continuous tobacco use in cancer patients is linked to substantial healthcare costs due to increased risks and complications, whereas quitting smoking leads to improved treatment outcomes and cost reductions. Addressing the need for empirical evidence on the economic impact of smoking cessation, this study examined the association between smoking cessation and healthcare cost utilization among a sample of 930 cancer patients treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center's Tobacco Research and Treatment Program (TRTP). Applying conditional quantile regression and propensity scores to address confounding, our findings revealed that abstinence achieved through the TRTP significantly reduced the median cost during a 3-month period post-quitting by $1,095 (β=-$1,095, p=0.007, 95%CI=[-$1,886, -$304]). Sensitivity analysis corroborated these conclusions, showing a pronounced cost reduction when outlier data were excluded. The long-term accrued cost savings from smoking cessation could potentially offset the cost of participation in the TRTP program, underscoring its cost-effectiveness. An important implication of this study is that by reducing smoking rates, healthcare systems can more efficiently allocate resources, enhance patient health outcomes, and lessen the overall cancer burden.

Comparisons of Medical Cost Trajectories Between Non-Hispanic Black and Non-Hispanic White Patients With Newly Diagnosed Localized Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study applied a recently developed statistical method to compare the mean cost trajectories between non-Hispanic White (NHW) and non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients with localized prostate cancer conditioning on patients' survival.

METHODS

In this observational study, we modeled cost trajectories of NHW and NHB patients with localized prostate cancer for 3 survival durations: 24, 48, and 72 months. We also compared the cost trajectories between NHW and NHB, stratified by comorbidities scores.

RESULTS

We find that the mean cost trajectories of NHB were significantly higher than the trajectories of NHW in the last 12 months before death, regardless of the survival duration and patients' baseline comorbidity scores. For patients with comorbidity score ≥2, mean cost trajectories within the first year of diagnosis for NHB were significantly higher than those for NHW, except for the subgroup of patients with comorbidity 2-3 and whose survival length was 72 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggested that a higher proportion of NHB patients with high comorbidity scores are likely contribute to their higher end-of-life costs than those for NHW patients. To narrow the gap in healthcare-related financial burden between NHB and NHW patients with localized prostate cancer, policy makers need to explore different strategies to better manage comorbidities.

Financial Outcomes of "Bagging" Oncology Drugs Among Privately Insured Patients With Cancer

This cohort study examines the difference in per-patient per-month costs between drugs distributed under “bagging,” a drug delivery model that requires patients to obtain physician-administered medications via pharmacies, and traditional buy-and-bill practice.

Impact of state telehealth policies on telehealth use among patients with newly diagnosed cancer

BACKGROUND

Telehealth restrictions were relaxed under the COVID-19 public health emergency. We examined telehealth use before and during the pandemic among patients with newly diagnosed cancers and the association between state policies and telehealth use.

METHODS

The study cohort was constructed from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart and included patients with lymphoma, female breast cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, and lung cancer diagnosed between March 1, 2019, and March 31, 2021. We performed an interrupted time series analysis to examine the trend of cancer-related telehealth use within 1 month of diagnosis relative to the timing of the COVID-19 public health emergency and multivariable logistic regressions to examine factors-specifically, state parity laws and regulations on cross-state practice-associated with telehealth.

RESULTS

Of 110 461 patients, the rate of telehealth use peaked at 33.4% in April 2020, then decreased to 12% to 15% between September 2020 and March 2021. Among the 53 982 patients diagnosed since March 2020, telehealth use was statistically significantly lower for privately insured patients residing in states with coverage-only parity or no or unspecified parity than those in states with coverage and payment parity (adjusted rate = 20.2%, 19.1%, and 23.3%, respectively). The adjusted rate was lower for patients in states with cross-state telehealth policy limitations than for those in states without restrictions (14.9% vs 17.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth use by patients diagnosed with cancer during the pandemic was higher among those living in states with more generous parity and less restrictive rules for cross-state practice. Policy makers contemplating whether to permanently relax certain telehealth policies must consider the impact on vulnerable patient populations who can benefit from telehealth.

Impact of functional disability on health-care use and medical costs among cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors with a disability are among the most vulnerable in health status and financial hardship, but no prior research has systematically examined how disability modifies health-care use and costs. This study examined the association between functional disability among cancer survivors and their health-care utilization and medical costs.

METHODS

We generated nationally representative estimates using the 2015-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Outcomes included use of 6 service types (inpatient, outpatient, office-based physician, office-based nonphysician, emergency department, and prescription) and medical costs of aggregate services and by each of 6 service types. The primary independent variable was a categorical variable for the total number of functional disabilities. We employed multivariable generalized linear models and 2-part models, adjusting for sociodemographics and health conditions and accounting for survey design.

RESULTS

Among cancer survivors (n = 9359; weighted n = 21 046 285), 38.8% reported at least 1 disability. Compared with individuals without a disability, cancer survivors with 4 or more disabilities experienced longer hospital stays (adjusted average marginal effect = 1.14 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.55 to 1.73), more visits to an office-based physician (average marginal effect = 1.43 visits, 95% CI = 0.51 to 2.35), and a greater number of prescriptions (average marginal effect = 12.1 prescriptions, 95% CI = 9.27 to 15.0). Their total (average marginal effect = $9537, 95% CI = $5713 to $13 361) and out-of-pocket (average marginal effect = $639, 95% CI = $79 to $1199) medical costs for aggregate services were statistically significantly higher. By type, disability in independent living was most strongly associated with greater costs for aggregate services.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer survivors with a disability experienced greater health-care use and higher costs. Cancer survivorship planning for health care and financial stability should consider the patients' disability profile.

Outcomes after thymectomy in non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis

Background

Guidelines by the myasthenia gravis (MG) Foundation of America suggest patients aged 18 to 50 years with non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis (NTMG) benefit from thymectomy. Our objective was to investigate utilization of thymectomy in NTMG patients outside the confines of a clinical trial.

Methods

From the Optum de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Claims Database (2007 to 2021), we identified patients diagnosed with MG between 18-50 years old. We then selected patients who received a thymectomy within 12 months of MG diagnosis. Outcomes included use of steroids, non-steroidal immunosuppressive agents (NSIS), and rescue therapy (plasmapheresis or intravenous immunoglobulin), as well as NTMG-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions. These outcomes were compared in the 6-months before and after thymectomy.

Results

A total of 1,298 patients met our inclusion criteria, of whom 45 (3.47%) received a thymectomy, performed via minimally invasive surgery in 53.3% of cases (n=24). In comparing the pre- to post-operative period, we noted that steroid use increased (53.33% to 66.67%, P=0.034), NSIS use remained stable, and use of rescue therapy decreased (44.44% to 24.44%, P=0.007). Costs associated with steroid and NSIS use remained stable. However, the mean costs of rescue therapy decreased (from $13,243.98 to $8,486.26, P=0.035). Hospital admissions and ED visits related to NTMG remained stable. There were 2 readmissions within 90 days (4.44%) associated with thymectomy.

Conclusions

Patients with NTMG undergoing thymectomy experienced less need for rescue therapy following resection, albeit with increased rates of steroid prescriptions. Thymectomy is infrequently performed in this patient population despite acceptable postsurgical outcomes.

Efficacy of a Smoking Cessation Intervention for Survivors of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Cervical Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Women who smoke and have a history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cervical cancer represent a vulnerable subgroup at elevated risk for recurrence, poorer cancer treatment outcomes, and decreased quality of life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of Motivation And Problem Solving (MAPS), a novel treatment well-suited to meeting the smoking cessation needs of this population.

METHODS

Women who were with a history of CIN or cervical cancer, age 18 years and older, spoke English or Spanish, and reported current smoking (≥100 lifetime cigarettes plus any smoking in the past 30 days) were eligible. Participants (N = 202) were recruited in clinic in Oklahoma City and online nationally and randomly assigned to (1) standard treatment (ST) or (2) MAPS. ST consisted of repeated referrals to a tobacco cessation quitline, self-help materials, and combination nicotine replacement therapy (patch plus lozenge). MAPS comprised all ST components plus up to six proactive telephone counseling sessions over 12 months. Logistic regression and generalized estimating equations evaluated the intervention. The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence from tobacco at 18 months, with abstinence at 3, 6, and 12 months and biochemically confirmed abstinence as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no significant effect for MAPS over ST at 18 months (14.2% v 12.9%, P = .79). However, there was a significant condition × assessment interaction (P = .015). Follow-up analyses found that MAPS (v ST) abstinence rates were significantly greater at 12 months (26.4% v 11.9%, P = .017; estimated OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.19 to 5.89).

CONCLUSION

MAPS led to a greater than two-fold increase in smoking abstinence among survivors of CIN and cervical cancer at 12 months. At 18 months, abstinence in MAPS declined to match the control condition and the treatment effect was no longer significant.

Cost-Effectiveness of Medication Therapy Management Program Across Racial and Ethnic Groups Among Medicare Beneficiaries

OBJECTIVES

Equity and effectiveness of the medication therapy management (MTM) program in Medicare has been a policy focus since its inception. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Medicare MTM program in improving medication utilization quality across racial and ethnic groups.

METHODS

This study analyzed 2017 Medicare data linked to the Area Health Recourses File. A propensity score was used to match MTM enrollees and nonenrollees, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between the 2 groups was calculated. Effectiveness was measured as the proportion of appropriate medication utilization based on medication utilization measures developed by Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Net monetary benefits were compared across racial and ethnic groups at various societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. The 95% confidence intervals were obtained by nonparametric bootstrapping.

RESULTS

MTM dominated non-MTM among the total sample (N = 699 992), as MTM enrollees had lower healthcare costs ($31 135.89 vs $32 696.69) and higher proportions of appropriate medication utilization (87.47% vs 85.31%) than nonenrollees. MTM enrollees had both lower medication costs ($10 681.21 vs $11 003.08) and medical costs ($20 454.68 vs $21 693.61) compared with nonenrollees. The cost-effectiveness of MTM was higher among Black patients than White patients across the WTP thresholds. For instance, at a WTP of $3006 per percentage point increase in effectiveness, the net monetary benefit for Black patients was greater than White patients by $2334.57 (95% confidence interval $1606.53-$3028.85).

CONCLUSIONS

MTM is cost-effective in improving medication utilization quality among Medicare beneficiaries and can potentially reduce disparities between Black and White patients. Expansion of the current MTM program could maximize these benefits.

Incorporating Cost Measures Into the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: Implications for Oncologists

PURPOSE

The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is currently the only federally mandated value-based payment model for oncologists. The weight of cost measures in MIPS has increased from 0% in 2017 to 30% in 2022. Given that cost measures are specialty-agnostic, specialties with greater costs of care such as oncology may be unfairly affected. We investigated the implications of incorporating cost measures into MIPS on physician reimbursements for oncologists and other physicians.

METHODS

We evaluated physicians scored on cost and quality in the 2018 MIPS using the Doctors and Clinicians database. We used multivariable Tobit regression to identify physician-level factors associated with cost and quality scores. We simulated composite MIPS scores and payment adjustments by applying the 2022 cost-quality weights to the 2018 category scores and compared changes across specialties.

RESULTS

Of 168,098 identified MIPS-participating physicians, 5,942 (3.5%) were oncologists. Oncologists had the lowest cost scores compared with other specialties (adjusted mean score, 58.4 for oncologists v 71.0 for nononcologists; difference, -12.66 [95% CI, -13.34 to -11.99]), while quality scores were similar (82.9 v 84.2; difference, -1.31 [95% CI, -2.65 to 0.03]). After the 2022 cost-quality reweighting, oncologists would receive a 4.3-point (95% CI, 4.58 to 4.04) reduction in composite MIPS scores, corresponding to a four-fold increase in magnitude of physician penalties ($4,233.41 US dollars [USD] in 2018 v $18,531.06 USD in 2022) and greater reduction in exceptional payment bonuses compared with physicians in other specialties (-42.8% [95% CI, -44.1 to -41.5] for oncologists v -23.6% [95% CI, -23.8 to -23.4] for others).

CONCLUSION

Oncologists will likely be disproportionally penalized after the incorporation of cost measures into MIPS. Specialty-specific recalibration of cost measures is needed to ensure that policy efforts to promote value-based care do not compromise health care quality and outcomes.

Current Trends in the Utilization of Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Among Women With Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

The clinical benefit of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for early-stage breast cancer (BC) remains controversial. We examined trends and the associated factors of preoperative breast MRI use.

METHODS

This study cohort, constructed from Optum Clinformatics database, included women with early-stage BC who had a cancer surgery between March 1, 2008, and December 31, 2020. Preoperative breast MRI was performed between the date of BC diagnosis and index surgery. Multivariable logistic regressions, one for elderly (65 years and older) and the other for non-elderly patients (younger than 65 years), were performed to examine factors associated with the use of preoperative MRI.

RESULTS

Among 92,077 women with early-stage BC, the crude rate of preoperative breast MRI increased from 48% in 2008 to 60% in 2020 for nonelderly and from 27% to 34% for elderly women. For both age groups, non-Hispanic Blacks were less likely (odds ratio [OR]; 95% CI, younger than 65 years: 0.75, 0.70 to 0.81; 65 years and older: 0.77, 0.72 to 0.83) to receive preoperative MRI than non-Hispanic White patients. Across Census divisions, the highest adjusted rate was observed in Mountain division (OR compared with New England; 95% CI, younger than 65 years: 1.45, 1.27 to 1.65; 65 years and older: 2.42, 2.16 to 2.72). Other factors included younger age, fewer comorbidities, family history of BC, axillary node involvement, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for both age groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of preoperative breast MRI has steadily increased. Aside from clinical factors, age, race/ethnicity, and geographic location were associated with preoperative MRI use. This information is important for future implementation or deimplementation strategies of preoperative MRI.

Disparity in checkpoint inhibitor utilization among commercially insured adult patients with metastatic lung cancer

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence from nationwide samples on the disparity of initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) after metastatic lung cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

We identified metastatic lung cancer patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2020 from a large, nationwide commercial claims database. We analyzed the time from metastatic lung cancer diagnosis to ICI therapy using Cox proportional hazard models. Independent variables included county-level measures (quintiles of percentage of racialized population, quintiles of percentage of population below poverty, urbanity, and density of medical oncologists) and patient characteristics (age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, Medicare Advantage, and year of diagnosis). All tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

A total of 17 022 patients were included. Counties with a larger proportion of racialized population appeared to be more urban, have a greater percentage of its residents in poverty, and have a higher density of medical oncologists. In Cox analysis, the adjusted hazard ratio of the second, third, fourth, and highest quintile of percentage of racialized population were 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 0.98), 0.85 (95% CI = 0.78 to 0.93), 0.78 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.86), and 0.71 (95% CI = 0.62 to 0.81), respectively, compared with counties in the lowest quintile. The slower ICI therapy initiation was driven by counties with the highest percentage of Hispanic population and other non-Black racialized groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Commercially insured patients with metastatic lung cancer who lived in counties with greater percentage of racialized population had slower initiation of ICI therapy after lung cancer diagnosis, despite greater density of oncologists in their neighborhood.

A protocol for a cluster randomized trial of care delivery models to improve the quality of smoking cessation and shared decision making for lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Patients eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) are those at high risk of lung cancer due to their smoking histories and age. While screening for LCS is effective in lowering lung cancer mortality, primary care providers are challenged to meet beneficiary eligibility for LCS from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including a patient counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit with the use of patient decision aid(s) prior to screening.

METHODS

We will use an effectiveness-implementation type I hybrid design to: 1) identify effective, scalable smoking cessation counseling and SDM interventions that are consistent with recommendations, can be delivered on the same platform, and are implemented in real-world clinical settings; 2) examine barriers and facilitators of implementing the two approaches to delivering smoking cessation and SDM for LCS; and 3) determine the economic implications of implementation by assessing the healthcare resources required to increase smoking cessation for the two approaches by delivering smoking cessation within the context of LCS. Providers from different healthcare organizations will be randomized to usual care (providers delivering smoking cessation and SDM on site) vs. centralized care (smoking cessation and SDM delivered remotely by trained counselors). The primary trial outcomes will include smoking abstinence at 12-weeks and knowledge about LCS measured at 1-week after baseline.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide important new evidence about the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel care delivery model for addressing the leading cause of lung cancer deaths and supporting high-quality decisions about LCS.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

NCT04200534 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04200534.

Resource and Reimbursement Barriers to Comprehensive Cancer Care Delivery: An Analysis of Association of Community Cancer Centers Survey Data

PURPOSE

Comprehensive cancer care (CCC) delivery is recommended in guidelines and considered essential for high-quality cancer management. Barriers, such as insufficient reimbursement, prevent consistent access to and delivery of CCC. Association of Community Cancer Centers conducted a national survey to elucidate capacity and barriers to CCC delivery to inform policy and value-based payment reform.

METHODS

Survey methodology included item generation with expert review, iterative piloting, and cognitive validity testing. In the final instrument, 27 supportive oncology services were assessed for availability, reasons not offered, and coverage/reimbursement.

RESULTS

204 of 704 member programs completed survey questions. Despite most services being reported as offered, a minority were funded through insurance reimbursement. The services least likely to obtain reimbursement were those that address practical and family/childcare needs (0.7%), caregiver support (1.5%), advanced care directives (1.7%), spiritual services (1.8%), and navigation (2.7%). These findings did not vary by region or practice type.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of sufficient reimbursement, staffing, and budget to provide CCC across the United States. Care models and reimbursement policies must include CCC services to optimize delivery of cancer care.

Oncologist Participation and Performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

The merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) is a value-based payment model created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to promote high-value care through performance-based adjustments of Medicare reimbursements. In this cross-sectional study, we examined the participation and performance of oncologists in the 2019 MIPS. Oncologist participation was low (86%) compared to all-specialty participation (97%). After adjusting for practice characteristics, higher MIPS scores were observed among oncologists with alternative payment models (APMs) as their filing source (mean score, 91 for APMs vs. 77.6 for individuals; difference, 13.41 [95% CI, 12.21, 14.6]), indicating the importance of greater organizational resources for participants. Lower scores were associated with greater patient complexity (mean score, 83.4 for highest quintile vs. 84.9 for lowest quintile, difference, -1.43 [95% CI, -2.48, -0.37]), suggesting the need for better risk-adjustment by CMS. Our findings may guide future efforts to improve oncologist engagement in MIPS.

Prescription Drug Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act: Any Relief of Financial Hardship for Patients With Cancer?

This Viewpoint discusses the potential of provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 to mitigate cancer-related financial hardship.

Growing Financial Burden From High-Cost Targeted Oral Anticancer Medicines Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Cancer

PURPOSE

The rapidly rising costs of targeted oral anticancer medicines (TOAMs) raise concerns over their affordability. Our goal was to examine recent trends in the uptake of TOAMs among cancer patients with Medicare Part D, the share of TOAM users who reached catastrophic coverage, and the annual spending on TOAMs in the catastrophic phase.

METHODS

Using the 5% SEER-Medicare, we included patients age 65 years and older who had one primary cancer diagnosis between 2011 and 2016. We included person-years where patients were enrolled in a Part D plan for the entire year, did not receive the low-income subsidy at any time of the year, and received anticancer systemic therapies. We estimated the trends in the share of patients who used TOAMs, the percentage of TOAM users reaching catastrophic coverage, and the total and patient out-of-pocket spending on TOAMs in the catastrophic phase in a year.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2016, the uptake of TOAMs among our study population increased from 3.6% to 8.9%. The percentage of non-low-income subsidy TOAM users who reached catastrophic coverage increased from 54.6% to 60.3%. Among those who reached the catastrophic phase, mean total gross spending on TOAMs in the catastrophic phase increased from $16,074 (USD) to $64,233 (USD) and mean patient out-of-pocket spending from $596 (USD) to $2,549 (USD). The mean 30-day total spending increased from $4,011 (USD) to $8,857 (USD), and the mean 30-day out-of-pocket spending from $154 (USD) to $328 (USD).

CONCLUSION

The high and growing burden from TOAMs highlighted the need for reining in drug prices and capping out-of-pocket spending.

Assessment of Uptake Appropriateness of Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening According to Patients Meeting Eligibility Criteria of the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Currently, computed tomography (CT) is used for lung cancer screening (LCS) among populations with various levels of compliance to the eligibility criteria from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations and may represent suboptimal allocation of health care resources.

Objective

To evaluate the appropriateness of CT LCS according to the USPSTF eligibility criteria.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. Participants included individuals who responded to the LCS module administered in 20 states and had valid answers to questions regarding screening and smoking history. Data were analyzed between October 2021 and August 2022.

Exposures

Screening eligibility groups were categorized according to the USPSTF 2013 recommendations, and subgroups of individuals who underwent LCS were analyzed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Main outcomes included LCS among the screening-eligible population and the proportions of the screened populations according to compliance categories established from the USPSTF 2013 and 2021 recommendations. In addition, the association between respondents' characteristics and LCS was evaluated for the subgroup who were screened despite not meeting any of the 3 USPSTF screening criteria: age, pack-year, and years since quitting smoking.

Results

A total of 96 097 respondents were identified for the full study cohort, and 2 subgroups were constructed: (1) 3374 respondents who reported having a CT or computerized axial tomography to check for lung cancer and (2) 33 809 respondents who did not meet any screening eligibility criteria. The proportion of participants who were under 50 years old was 53.1%; between 50 and 54, 9.1%; between 55 and 79, 33.8%; and over 80, 4.0%. A total of 51 536 (50.9%) of the participants were female. According to the USPSTF 2013 recommendation, 807 (12.8%) of the screening-eligible population underwent LCS. Among those who were screened, only 807 (20.9%) met all 3 screening eligibility criteria, whereas 538 (20.1%) failed to meet any criteria. Among respondents in subgroup 2, being of older age and having a history of stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, or diabetes were associated with higher likelihood of LCS.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of the BRFSS 2019 survey, the low uptake rate among screening-eligible patients undermined the goal of LCS of early detection. Suboptimal screening patterns could increase health system costs and add financial stress, psychological burden, and physical harms to low-risk patients, while failing to provide high-quality preventive services to individuals at high risk of lung cancer.

Costs Around the First Year of Diagnosis for 4 Common Cancers Among the Privately Insured

BACKGROUND

We estimated trends in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs around the first year of diagnosis for privately insured nonelderly adult cancer patients.

METHODS

We constructed incident cohorts of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2016 using claims data from the Health Care Cost Institute. We identified cancer-related surgery, intravenous (IV) systemic therapy, and radiation and calculated associated total and OOP costs (in 2020 US dollars). We assessed trends in health-care utilization and cost by cancer site with logistic regressions and generalized linear models, respectively.

RESULTS

The cohorts included 105 255 breast, 23 571 colorectal, 11 321 lung, and 59 197 prostate cancer patients. For patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2016, total mean costs per patient increased from $109 544 to $140 732 for breast (29%), $151 751 to $168 730 for lung (11%) or $53 300 to $55 497 for prostate (4%) cancer were statistically significant. Increase for colorectal cancer (1%, $136 652 to $137 663) was not statistically significant (P = .09). OOP costs increased to more than 15% for all cancers, including colorectal, to more than $6000 by 2016. Use of IV systemic therapy and radiation statistically significantly increased, except for lung cancer. Cancer surgeries statistically significantly increased for breast and colorectal cancer but decreased for prostate cancer (P < .001). Total costs increased statistically significantly for nearly all treatment modalities, except for IV systemic therapy in colorectal and radiation in prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Rising costs of cancer treatments, compounded with greater cost sharing, increased OOP costs for privately insured, nonelderly cancer patients. Policy initiatives to mitigate financial hardship should consider cost containment as well as insurance reform.

Estimating prevalence and financial impact of “bagging” oncology drugs: Evidence from privately-insured patients with cancer

25

Background: “Bagging” is a drug delivery model that distributes physician-administered drugs through pharmacies, most specialty pharmacies. Under the traditional buy-in-bill model oncology drugs are covered in medical benefit, whereas drugs distributed through bagging practices are reimbursed under pharmacy benefit. Several professional associations have urged policymakers to limit or prohibit bagging practices, citing patient safety as the main concern. This study estimated the prevalence of bagging practice and the associated financial impact among cancer patients with private insurance. Methods: We selected 10 cancer drugs with highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B Drug Spending Dashboard. Using 2019-2020 MarketScan data, we identified these drugs from medical and/or pharmacy claims and estimated the prevalence of “bagging” practice as the proportion of patients who had their cancer drugs covered by pharmacy benefit. We compared the per patient per month (PPPM) insurance payment and out-of-pocket expense (OOPE) between medical and pharmacy claims and tested the difference in PPPM costs using non-parametric Wilcoxon test. Results: The top 10 drugs selected for this study included four immunotherapy (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab), five targeted therapy drugs (rituximab, bevacizumab, daratumumab, trastuzumab, pemetrexed), and one supportive care product (pegfilgrastim). The study cohort consisted of 39,757 cancer patients, including 10,599, 19,276, and 17,882 patients (not mutually exclusive) receiving immunotherapy, targeted therapy agents, and supportive care drug, respectively. On average, “bagging” practice was observed in 4.4% of patients, ranging from less than 1% for immunotherapy and 2.4% for targeted therapy to 6.9% for supportive care drugs. The prevalence of bagging practice was higher in comprehensive plans (11.3%) and PPO (4.3%) versus other insurance plan types (3.8%). By census region, the prevalence was highest in Northeast (7.2%) and lowest in North Central (3.4%). Insurance payment PPPM was lower for drugs distributed through bagging practices than the conventional buy-and-bill model (mean $11,075 vs. $13,622; median $9,275 vs. $10,728, P < 0.001). OOPE PPPM exhibited the opposite pattern, with mean and median OPPE $437 and $53 for bagging practices and $186 and $0 for buy-and-bill. Conclusions: We observed wide variation in bagging practices by drug classes, plan types, and geographic regions. Evidence from the privately insured suggested that although bagging oncology drugs appeared to have reduce oncology drug costs for payors, this practice was associated with higher OOP for cancer patients with private insurance. Future research should examine the impact of bagging practices on clinical outcomes, such as treatment delays or disruptions and treatment-related side effects.

Association of disability with long-term noncompliance of breast cancer screening

118

Background: Although the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends a biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years at average risk for breast cancer, 24.6% of screening-eligible women do not follow the recommendation. Very little is known regarding the association between various types of disabilities and subsequent breast cancer screening behaviors following the initiation of screening mammography. This study examines the association of disability with short-term vs. long-term noncompliance of having a mammogram. Methods: Using data from 2016, 2018, and 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System annual surveys, we constructed the study cohort of women aged 55 to 74 years who did not have a cancer history and who received a mammogram at least once in the past. Outcomes are short-term (2 years) and long-term (5 years) noncompliance of USPSTF recommendations. Key independent variables are six binary variables of standard functional disability conditions (hearing, vision, cognition, ambulation, self-care, and independent living) in the first model and a categorized total number of disabilities (0, 1, 2, ≥3) in the second model. We employed a multivariable logistic regression model, adjusting individuals’ socio-demographics, general health status, chronic conditions, health risk factors, and metropolitan statistical areas (MSA), and accounting for complex survey design. Results: Among the study cohort (n = 232,143; weighted n = 29,358,431), 18.1% and 7.1% of women reported not having mammography in the past two and five years, respectively, representing short- vs. long-term noncompliance. Of the study cohort, 32.8% had any type of disability (ambulation 22.7%, cognition 11.0%, independent living 8.8%). Notably, the long-term noncompliance rate was highest among women with a disability and residing in non-MSA (10.2%). In multivariable analysis, while only disability in independent living was associated with short-term noncompliance (odds ratio [OR] 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.42), disability in independent living (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.18-1.52), vision (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01-1.32) and ambulation (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.24) were all significantly associated with long-term noncompliance. Women with ≥3 disabilities were 1.64 times more likely to be non-compliant in the long term, and the association of disability with noncompliance was more pronounced in non-MSA. Conclusions: This study provides the first empirical evidence on the positive association between disability and screening noncompliance, especially in the long term. It suggests disability could aggravate disparities in timely access to cancer screening, particularly in non-MSA. Understanding how various types of disabilities affect screening behavior is a critical step for public health efforts in cancer prevention and control through identifying vulnerable subgroups for targeted interventions.

Comparison of health services utilization, medical costs, and activity limitations between cancer survivors with and without a disability

21

Background: Cancer survivors are one of the most vulnerable cohorts regarding health status and financial hardship. They are also more likely to have a disability than individuals without a cancer history. No prior research has systematically examined whether and how disability interacts with cancer survivorship. This study examines the association of disability with health services utilization, medical costs, and activity limitations among cancer survivors. Methods: We constructed a nationally representative cohort of cancer survivors using 2015-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component File. Outcomes included health services utilization, measured by six service types (inpatient, institutional outpatient, office-based physician, office-based non-physician, ED, and prescription), total health care expenditure for all services combined and for each service type, and activity limitations (work at job, housework, and social relationship). Primary independent variables included six binary variables of functional disability conditions (hearing, vision, cognition, ambulation, self-care, and independent living) in the first model and a categorized total number of disabilities (0, 1, 2, 3, ≥4) in the second model. We employed multivariable generalized linear models and two-part models, adjusting for socio-demographics, general health status, and chronic conditions as well as accounting for complex survey design. Results: On average, cancer survivors (n = 9,359; weighted n = 21,046,285) had 0.57 days of hospital stays, 6.07 physician visits, and 16.3 prescriptions annually. The average annual health care expenditure for all services were $10,840, and 7.1% had one or more activity limitation. Notably, 38.8% of cancer survivors had at least one disability condition (ambulation 24.5%, hearing 13.8%, independent living 12.7%, cognition 11.5%). Compared to survivors without any disability, disability in self-care and ambulation was most strongly associated with the higher utilization of inpatient care (adjusted average marginal effect [AME] 0.85 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-1.27) and physician visits (AME 1.03 visits; 95% CI 0.53-1.53), respectively. Disability in independent living (AME $5,046; 95% CI $2,638-7,455) and ambulation (AME $3,702; 95% CI $2,029-5,375) substantially increased total health care expenditure of all services. Survivors with four or more disabilities were 21.4 times more likely to have any activity limitations than those without a disability. Conclusions: Disability was associated with higher health services utilization and medical costs, and more activity limitations among cancer survivors, with the magnitude of increase varying by type of disability. Strategies to mitigate cancer disparities and financial hardship should take into account of the patients’ disability profiles.

Cancer's Lasting Financial Burden: Evidence From a Longitudinal Assessment

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to conduct a longitudinal analysis of out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) trajectories for the assessment of cancer's lasting financial impact.

METHODS

We identified newly diagnosed cancer patients and constructed matched control group of noncancer participants from the 2002-2018 Health and Retirement Study. Outcomes included monthly OOPE for prescription drugs (RX-OOPE_MONTHLY) and OOPE for medical services other than drugs in the past 2 years (non-RX-OOPE_2YR), consumer debt, and new individual retirement account (IRA) withdrawals. Generalized linear models were used to compare OOPEs between cancer and matched control groups. Logistic regressions were used to compare household-level consumer debt or early IRA withdrawal. Subgroup analysis stratified patients by age, health status, and household income, with the low-income group stratified by Medicaid coverage. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 2022 cancer patients and 10 110 participants in the matched noncancer control group. Mean non-RX-OOPE_2YR of cancer patients was similar to that of participants in the matched control group before diagnosis but statistically significantly higher at diagnosis ($1157, P < .001), 2 ($511, P < .001) years, 4 ($360, P = .006) years, and 6  ($430, P = .01) years after diagnosis. A similar pattern was observed in RX-OOPE_MONTHLY. A statistically significantly higher proportion of cancer patients incurred consumer debt at diagnosis (34.5% vs 29.9%; P < .001) and 2 years after (32.5% vs 28.2%; P = .002). There was no statistically significant difference in new IRA withdrawals. Patients experienced lasting financial consequences following cancer diagnosis that were most pronounced among patients aged 65 years and older, in good-to-excellent health at baseline, and with low income, but without Medicaid coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Policies to reduce costs and expand insurance coverage options while reducing cost-sharing are needed.

Methods and Study Design for Cancer Health Economics Research: Summary of Discussions From a Breakout Session

The legitimacy of findings from cancer health economics research depends on study design and methods. A breakout session, Methods and Study Design for Cancer Health Economics Research, was convened at the Future of Cancer Health Economics Research Conference to discuss 2 commonly used analytic tools for cancer health economics research: observational studies and decision-analytic modeling. Observational studies include analysis of data collected with the primary purpose of supporting economic evaluation or secondary use of data collected for another purpose. Modeling studies develop a parametrized structure, such as a decision tree, to estimate hypothetical impact. Whereas observational studies focus on what has happened and why, modeling studies address what may happen. We summarize the discussion at this breakout session, focusing on 3 key elements of high-quality cancer health economics research: study design, analytical methods, and addressing uncertainty.

Health Economics Research in Cancer Screening: Research Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions

Cancer screening has long been considered a worthy public health investment. Health economics offers the theoretical foundation and research methodology to understand the demand- and supply-side factors associated with screening and evaluate screening-related policies and interventions. This article provides an overview of health economic theories and methods related to cancer screening and discusses opportunities for future research. We review 2 academic disciplines most relevant to health economics research in cancer screening: applied microeconomics and decision science. We consider 3 emerging topics: cancer screening policies in national as well as local contexts, "choosing wisely" screening practices, and targeted screening efforts for vulnerable subpopulations. We also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of available data sources and opportunities for methodological research and training. Recommendations to strengthen research infrastructure include developing novel data linkage strategies, increasing access to electronic health records, establishing curriculum and training programs, promoting multidisciplinary collaborations, and enhancing research funding opportunities.

Health Care Resource Utilization for Esophageal Cancer Using Proton versus Photon Radiation Therapy

Purpose

In patients treated with chemoradiation for esophageal cancer (EC), randomized trial data demonstrate that proton beam therapy (PBT) reduces toxicities and postoperative complications (POCs) compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). However, whether radiation therapy modality affects postoperative health care resource utilization remains unknown.

Materials and Methods

We examined 287 patients with EC who received chemoradiation (prescribed 50.4 Gy/GyE) followed by esophagectomy, including a real-world observational cohort of 237 consecutive patients treated from 2007 to 2013 with PBT (n = 81) versus IMRT (n = 156); and an independent, contemporary comparison cohort of 50 patients from a randomized trial treated from 2012 to 2019 with PBT (n = 21) versus IMRT (n = 29). Postoperative complications were abstracted from medical records. Health care charges were obtained from institutional claims and adjusted for inflation (2021 dollars). Charge differences (Δ = $PBT - $IMRT) were compared by treatment using adjusted generalized linear models with the gamma distribution.

Results

Baseline PBT versus IMRT characteristics were not significantly different. In the observational cohort, during the neoadjuvant chemoradiation phase, health care charges were higher for PBT versus IMRT (Δ = +$71,959; 95% confidence interval [CI], $62,274-$82,138; P < .001). There was no difference in surgical charges (Δ = -$2234; 95% CI, -$6003 to $1695; P = .26). However, during postoperative hospitalization following esophagectomy, health care charges were lower for PBT versus IMRT (Δ = -$25,115; 95% CI, -$37,625 to -$9776; P = .003). In the comparison cohort, findings were analogous: Charges were higher for PBT versus IMRT during chemoradiation (Δ = +$61,818; 95% CI, $49,435-$75,069; P < .001), not different for surgery (Δ = -$4784; 95% CI, -$6439 to $3487; P = .25), and lower for PBT postoperatively (Δ = -$27,048; 95% CI, -$41,974 to -$5300; P = .02). Lower postoperative charges for PBT were especially seen among patients with any POCs in the contemporary comparison (Δ = -$176,448; 95% CI, -$209,782 to -$78,813; P = .02).

Conclusion

Higher up-front chemoradiation resource utilization for PBT in patients with EC was partially offset postoperatively, moderated by reduction in POC risks. Results extend existing clinical evidence of toxicity reduction with PBT.

Global Challenges in Access to and Implementation of Precision Oncology: The Health Care Manager and Health Economist Perspective

Precision medicine changes the landscape of oncology practices by offering the opportunity to optimize care through a more targeted, personalized approach of managing cancer treatments. However, precision oncology is costly and does not benefit all patients with cancer, making it critically important to consider the tradeoff between costs and health benefits. Here, we discuss the global challenges in implementing precision oncology from the perspective of health care management and health economics and emphasize the different challenges for high-income compared with low- and middle-income countries. For health care managers making resource allocation decisions, the decision to adopt, implement, and finance precision oncology must consider opportunity costs, and the allocation must be proportional to the system's capacity. The standard approach of health technology assessment is inadequate because it fails to consider the capacity to pay. From an economic perspective, global implementation of precision oncology must confront the issues of accessibility, affordability, and system readiness. Low- and middle-income countries often have no or delayed access to novel targeted-therapy agents, find these drugs cost-prohibitive, and struggle to build the infrastructure with sufficient workforce and adequate testing and computing facilities to capitalize the benefit of precision oncology. Although high-income countries are better equipped to implement precision oncology, the challenges there lie in implementing strategies to maximize the value of precision oncology through promoting appropriate use while limiting inappropriate applications. The recent rollout of COVID-19 vaccines internationally highlights the importance of information uncertainty and offers valuable insights on global access to and implementation of precision oncology.

Utilization of telemedicine among patients newly diagnosed with cancer

1595

Background: The use of telemedicine among cancer patients remains limited. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, CMS expansion of telehealth with 1135 waiver was enacted in March 2020, broadening the opportunities to provide patient care using telemedicine. This study examined the impact of the CMS expansion on the use of telemedicine among cancer patients. Methods: We identified newly diagnosed patients with 5 common cancers (breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, and lymphoma) between 3/2019 and 12/2020 from Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Patients who had 6 months of full enrollment (3 months before and 3 months after the first [index] cancer diagnosis date), had cancer claims on 3 separate dates within 3 months of the index date for the specific cancer diagnosis, and no prior history of cancer were included. We defined telemedicine use as patients who had a telemedicine procedure code within 1 month of their index diagnosis and had the cancer diagnosis on the telemedicine claim. We conducted an interrupted time series analysis to examine the impact of CMS expansion on telemedicine use. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with telemedicine use during the post-expansion period. Results: Of 96,632 patients included, the average crude rate of telemedicine use was 0.12% before and 14.2% after the expansion in March 2020 (see Table). There was a significant impact of expansion on telemedicine use (21% increase; p<0.001). The peak rate (adjusted) was 28% in April 2020, decreasing and plateauing in July/August 2020, with rates staying in the range of 10-12% between August and December 2020. During the post-expansion period, lymphoma, prostate, and lung cancer patients (adjusted rates: 14.6%, 15.7%, and 15.9%, respectively) were more likely to use telemedicine compared to patients who had breast (12.7%) or colorectal (12.3%) cancer. Patients who were older (adjusted rates: ≥65 years, 13.8%; 50-64, 14.2%; 20-49, 18.6%), Black (12.4% vs 14.4% for White, 15.5% for Hispanic and 16.6% for Asian), resided in East South Central census division (8.4% vs 23.5% in New England) and had Medicare (12.2% vs 20.3% for commercial insurance) were less likely to use telemedicine (all p<.001). Conclusions: After the CMS telehealth expansion, the use of telemedicine among newly diagnosed cancer patients increased significantly. Telemedicine use varied by patient age, geographic location, race/ethnicity, and payer. Further research is needed to understand the pattern of telemedicine use.[Table: see text]

Disparity in initiation of checkpoint inhibitors among metastatic melanoma and lung cancer

1583

Background: Checkpoint inhibitors are transforming cancer care. However, the high prices of these medicines raise concerns over their affordability and disparity in use. The objective of this study is to describe the disparity in initiating checkpoint inhibitors and examine patient- and area-level factors associated with delayed initiation. Methods: This study is a retrospective cohort study using Optum data. We identified commercially insured patients newly diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer and melanoma since the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors in these cancers (lung cancer cohort: diagnosed between January 2015 and December 2020; melanoma cohort: diagnosed between January 2011 and December 2020). Time from metastatic cancer diagnosis to initiating checkpoint inhibitors was analyzed using Cox proportional hazard models. Independent variables included county-level measures (percentage of black population, percentage of Hispanic population, percentage of other minority, percentage of population living below poverty line, rurality, number of medical oncologist per population, and having a National Cancer Institute designated cancer center) and patient-level characteristics (age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, any dual eligibility, Medicare Advantage, and year of diagnosis). We clustered standard errors at the county level. Results: The percentage of metastatic lung cancer and metastatic melanoma patients on checkpoint inhibitors increased from 23% to 52% from 2015 to 2020 and from 22% to 58% from 2011 to 2020. Counties with greater percentage of black, Hispanics, and other minorities were high urban with greater density of medical oncologists and NCI-designated cancer centers. However, greater percentage of Hispanic population in a county was associated with significantly slower initiation of checkpoint inhibitors for both the lung cancer and the melanoma cohorts (hazard ratios [HR]: 0.937 and 0.946, respectively; p-values: < 0.001 and 0.014, respectively). Percentage of other minority population in a county was associated with slower initiation for metastatic lung cancer (HR: 0.983; p-value: < 0.001). No other county-level factors had a significant coefficient from the multivariate Cox models. In terms of patient-level characteristics, older age, female, more comorbidities, any dual eligibility, and Medicare Advantage were associated with significantly slower initiation for the lung cancer cohort and older age and female were associated with significantly slower initiation for the melanoma cohort. Conclusions: Commercially insured metastatic lung cancer and melanoma patients who lived in counties with greater percentage of Hispanic population had slower initiation of checkpoint inhibitors after their cancer diagnosis, despite the fact that those counties had greater density of medical oncologists and NCI-designated cancer centers.

Growing financial burden from targeted oral anticancer medicines among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer

6504

Background: The rapidly rising costs of targeted oral anticancer medicines (TOAMs) raise concerns over their affordability. Our goal was to examine recent trends in the uptake of TOAMs among cancer patients with Medicare Part D, the share of TOAM users who reached catastrophic coverage, and the annual spending on TOAMs in the catastrophic phase. Methods: Using the 5% SEER-Medicare, we included patients aged 65 and older who had one primary cancer diagnosis between 2011 and 2016. We included person-years where patients were enrolled in a Part D plan for the entire year, did not receive the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) at any time of the year, and received anticancer systemic therapies. We estimated the trends in the share of patients who used TOAMs, the percentage of TOAM users reaching catastrophic coverage, and the total and patient out-of-pocket spending on TOAMs in the catastrophic phase in a year. Results: From 2011 to 2016, the uptake of TOAMs among our study population increased from 3.6% to 8.9%. The percentage of non-LIS TOAM users who reached catastrophic coverage increased from 54.6% to 60.3%. Among those who reached the catastrophic phase, mean total gross spending on TOAMs in the catastrophic phase increased from $16,074 to $64,233 and mean patient out-of-pocket spending from $596 to $2,549. The mean 30-day total spending increased from $4,011 to $8,857, and the mean 30-day out-of-pocket spending from $154 to $328. Conclusions: The high and growing burden from TOAMs highlighted the need for reining in drug prices and capping out-of-pocket spending.

Smoking cessation services and shared decision-making practices among lung cancer screening facilities: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how screening facilities are meeting the requirements for the reimbursement of lung cancer screening from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including 1) the collection and submission of data to the CMS-approved registry (American College of Radiology [ACR] Lung Cancer Screening Registry), 2) the verification of a counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit having occurred as part of the written order for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, and 3) the offering of smoking cessation interventions.

METHODS

The authors identified facilities in a southwestern state that were listed by either the ACR Lung Cancer Screening Registry or the GO2 Foundation Centers of Excellence. To select facilities, they used 2 purposive sampling approaches: maximum variation sampling and snowball sampling. They surveyed facilities from February to November 2019.

RESULTS

There were 87 facilities contacted, and a total of 63 facilities representing 32 counties across Texas completed the survey. Nearly all facilities used Lung-RADS to classify nodules (92%; n = 58) and submitted data to a CMS-approved registry (92%; n = 57). Most facilities verified that the counseling and SDM visit had occurred (86%; n = 54). Although slightly more than half of the facilities reported always providing self-help cessation materials (68%; n = 42), similar or higher proportions of facilities reported that they never referred smokers to onsite cessation services (68%; n = 42) or quitlines (77%; n = 47), provided cessation counseling (81%; n = 50), or recommended medications (85%; n = 52).

CONCLUSIONS

In general, screening facilities are meeting CMS requirements for screening, but they are struggling to offer smoking cessation interventions other than providing self-help materials.

Comparison of an automated smartphone-based smoking cessation intervention versus standard quitline-delivered treatment among underserved smokers: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the United States. Individuals with low socioeconomic status have disproportionately high smoking rates and greater difficulty quitting smoking. Efficiently connecting underserved smokers to effective tobacco cessation programs is crucial for disease prevention and the elimination of health disparities. Smartphone-based interventions have the potential to enhance the reach and efficacy of smoking cessation treatments targeting underserved smokers, but there is little efficacy data for these interventions. In this study, we will partner with a large, local hunger-relief organization to evaluate the efficacy and economic impact of a theoretically-based, fully-automated, and interactive smartphone-based smoking cessation intervention.

METHODS

This study will consist of a 2-group randomized controlled trial. Participants (N = 500) will be recruited from a network of food distribution centers in West Central Florida and randomized to receive either Standard Treatment (ST, n = 250) or Automated Treatment (AT, n = 250). ST participants will be connected to the Florida Quitline for telephone-based treatment and will receive a 10-week supply of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; transdermal patches and lozenges). AT participants will receive 10 weeks of NRT and a fully-automated smartphone-based intervention consisting of interactive messaging, images, and audiovisual clips. The AT intervention period will span 26 weeks, with 12 weeks of proactive content and 26 weeks of on-demand access. ST and AT participants will complete weekly 4-item assessments for 26 weeks and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up assessments. Our primary aim is to evaluate the efficacy of AT in facilitating smoking abstinence. As secondary aims, we will explore potential mediators and conduct economic evaluations to assess the cost and/or cost-effectiveness of ST vs. AT.

DISCUSSION

The overall goal of this project is to determine if AT is better at facilitating long-term smoking abstinence than ST, the more resource-intensive approach. If efficacy is established, the AT approach will be relatively easy to disseminate and for community-based organizations to scale and implement, thus helping to reduce tobacco-related health disparities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registry NCT05004662 . Registered August 13, 2021.

Procedural complications associated with invasive diagnostic procedures after lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography

INTRODUCTION

Although the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has proven low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is effective for lung cancer screening, little is known about complication rates from invasive diagnostic procedures (IDPs) after LDCT in real-world settings. In this study, we used the real-world data from a large clinical research network to estimate the complication rates associated with IDPs after LDCT.

METHODS

Using 2014-2021 electronic health records and claims data from the OneFlorida clinical research network, we identified case individuals who underwent an IDP (i.e., cytology or needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, thoracic surgery, and other surgery) within 12 months of their first LDCT. We matched each case with one control individual who underwent an LDCT but without any IDPs. We calculated 3-month incremental complication rates as the difference in the complication rate between the case and control groups by IDP and complication severity.

RESULTS

Among 7,041 individuals who underwent an LDCT, 301 (4.3%) subsequently had an IDP within 12 months following the LDCT. The overall 3-month incremental complication rate was 16.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.9% - 23.1%), higher than that reported in the NLST (9.4%). The overall incremental complication rate was 5.6% (95% CI: 1.9% - 9.6%) for major, 8.6% (95% CI: 3.1% - 14.1%) for intermediate, and 13.2% (95% CI: 8.1% - 18.5%) for minor complications.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to ensure adherence to clinical guidelines for nodule management and downstream work-up to minimize potential harms from screening.

Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Smoking Cessation Intervention for Cervical Cancer Survivors and Women With High-Grade Cervical Dysplasia: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of smoking among cervical cancer survivors is strikingly high, yet no smoking cessation interventions to date have specifically targeted this population. This paper describes the study design, methods, and data analysis plans for a randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of a theoretically and empirically based Motivation And Problem Solving (MAPS) approach for promoting and facilitating smoking cessation among cervical cancer survivors. MAPS is a comprehensive, dynamic, and holistic intervention that incorporates empirically supported cognitive behavioral and social cognitive theory-based treatment strategies within an overarching motivational framework. MAPS is designed to be appropriate for all smokers regardless of their motivation to change and views motivation as dynamically fluctuating from moment to moment throughout the behavior change process.

OBJECTIVE

This 2-group randomized controlled trial compares the efficacy of standard treatment to MAPS in facilitating smoking cessation among women with a history of high-grade cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer.

METHODS

Participants (N=202) are current smokers with a history of high-grade cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer recruited nationally and randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions: (1) standard treatment (ST) or (2) MAPS. ST consists of repeated letters referring participants to their state's tobacco cessation quitline, standard self-help materials, and free nicotine replacement therapy when ready to quit. MAPS has all ST components along with 6 proactive telephone counseling sessions delivered over 12 months. The primary outcome is abstinence from tobacco at 18 months. Secondary outcomes include abstinence over time across all assessment points, abstinence at other individual assessment time points, quit attempts, cigarettes per day, and use of state quitlines. Hypothesized treatment mechanisms and cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated.

RESULTS

This study was approved by the institutional review boards at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, and Moffitt Cancer Center. Participant enrollment concluded at Moffitt Cancer Center in January 2020, and follow-up data collection was completed in July 2021. Data analysis is ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will yield crucial information regarding the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a MAPS approach for smoking cessation tailored to the specific needs of women with a history of high-grade cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer. Findings indicating that MAPS has substantially greater efficacy than existing evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments would have tremendous public health significance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02157610; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02157610.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/34502.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Automated Smoking Treatment for People With HIV: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Smoking prevalence rates among people with HIV are nearly 3 times higher than those in the general population. Nevertheless, few smoking cessation trials targeting smokers with HIV have been reported in the literature. Efforts to develop and evaluate sustainable, low-cost, and evidence-based cessation interventions for people with HIV are needed. Given the widespread proliferation of mobile phones, the potential of using mobile health apps to improve the reach and efficacy of cessation interventions is promising, but evidence of efficacy is lacking, particularly among people with HIV.

Objective

This study will consist of a 2-group randomized controlled trial to evaluate a fully automated smartphone intervention for people with HIV seeking cessation treatment.

Methods

Participants (N=500) will be randomized to receive either standard treatment (ST; 250/500, 50%) or automated treatment (AT; 250/500, 50%). ST participants will be connected to the Florida Quitline and will receive nicotine replacement therapy in the form of transdermal patches and lozenges. This approach, referred to as Ask Advise Connect, was developed by our team and has been implemented in numerous health systems. ST will be compared with AT, a fully automated behavioral treatment approach. AT participants will receive nicotine replacement therapy and an interactive smartphone-based intervention that comprises individually tailored audiovisual and text content. The major goal is to determine whether AT performs better in terms of facilitating long-term smoking abstinence than the more resource-intensive ST approach. Our primary aim is to evaluate the efficacy of AT in facilitating smoking cessation among people with HIV. As a secondary aim, we will explore potential mediators and moderators and conduct economic evaluations to assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of AT compared with ST.

Results

The intervention content has been developed and finalized. Recruitment and enrollment will begin in the fall of 2021.

Conclusions

There is a critical need for efficacious, cost-effective, and sustainable cessation treatments for people with HIV who smoke. The AT intervention was designed to help fill this need. If efficacy is established, the AT approach will be readily adoptable by HIV clinics and community-based organizations, and it will offer an efficient way to allocate limited public health resources to tobacco control interventions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05014282; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05014282

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/33183