Search

Background: Costs of cancer care can result in patient financial hardship; many professional organizations recommend provider discussions about treatment costs as part of high‐quality care. In this pilot study, the authors examined patient–provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma—cancers with recently approved, high‐cost treatment options. Methods: Individuals who were newly diagnosed in 2017–2018 with stage III/IV NSCLC (n = 1767) and in 2018 with stage III/IV melanoma (n = 689) from 12 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions were randomly selected for the National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Study. Documentation of cost discussions was abstracted from the medical record. The authors examined patient, treatment, and hospital factors associated with cost discussions in multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: Cost discussions were documented in the medical records of 20.3% of patients with NSCLC and in 24.0% of those with melanoma. In adjusted analyses, privately insured (vs. publicly insured) patients were less likely to have documented cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37–0.80). Patients who did not receive systemic therapy or did not receive any cancer‐directed treatment were less likely to have documented cost discussions than those who did receive systemic therapy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19–0.81] and 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30–0.70], respectively), as were patients who were treated at hospitals without residency programs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42–0.98). Conclusions: Cost discussions were infrequently documented in the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and melanoma, which may hinder identifying patient needs and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. Efforts to increase cost‐of‐care discussions and relevant referrals, as well as their documentation, are warranted. The authors examined patient–provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma—cancers with high‐cost treatment options. Cost discussions were infrequently documented, which may hinder identifying patient cost barriers to care and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study examines patients' understanding of health insurance terms and concepts and quantifies health insurance literacy (HIL) levels by key sociodemographic factors. Methods: This study included 393 adult patients with cancer (>18 years old) receiving treatment in two ambulatory infusion centers: Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona and the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. Respondents' perceptions of their HIL were assessed using the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM), a validated 21‐item measure of a consumer's ability to select and use health insurance (HIL self‐efficacy). Respondents' knowledge of health insurance concepts (HIL knowledge) was measured using 10 items created by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The number of correct answers was categorized into three levels: 0–4 (low knowledge), 5–6 (moderate knowledge), and 7–10 (high knowledge). Multivariable logistic regressions were used to compare correct answers to HIL knowledge questions by HIL self‐efficacy. Results: Nearly three‐quarters of patients had high HIL self‐efficacy and high HIL knowledge (70.5%), understanding basic insurance terms, such as premiums and deductibles. Relatively low percentages of patients correctly answered questions about the meaning of provider networks, health insurance formularies, and calculating out‐of‐pocket spending in scenarios when insurers pay a portion of allowed charges. Lower HIL knowledge was more common among patients with less educational attainment (

ABSTRACT Background Methods Results Conclusions Health insurance coverage is critical for ensuring access to recommended health care in the United States. This study investigated the associations of health insurance coverage disruptions, also known as coverage churn, and receipt of breast and colorectal cancer screening.Adults who were age‐eligible and younger than 65 years (range, 50–64 years) for breast (n = 17,128 women) and colorectal (n = 32,562 individuals) cancer screening were identified from 5 years of the National Health Interview Survey. Adults were categorized into five groups based on insurance type at survey (private, public, none) and prior coverage disruptions within the past year. Screening outcomes included: (1) ever‐screened, (2) past‐year screening, and (3) guideline‐concordant screening. Separate multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the associations between insurance coverage disruptions and cancer screening.Among adults who had coverage at the time of the survey, 3.1% with private insurance and 6.5% with public insurance reported prior coverage disruptions. Individuals without health insurance coverage had the lowest level of screening. Among individuals who had private coverage, prior disruptions were associated with lower guideline‐concordant screening in adjusted analyses (breast cancer screening: adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–0.89; colorectal cancer screening: aPR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72–0.86); among those who had public coverage, prior disruptions were also associated with lower guideline‐concordant breast cancer screening (aPR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60–0.89) and colorectal cancer screening (aPR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72–0.99).Health insurance coverage disruptions were associated with lower past‐year and guideline‐concordant breast and colorectal cancer screening. The current findings underscore the importance of stable health insurance coverage to improve cancer screening and early detection when treatment is most effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer survivors may face challenges affording food, housing, and other living necessities, which are known as health‐related social needs (HRSNs). However, little is known about the associations of HRSNs and mortality risk among adult cancer survivors. Methods: Adult cancer survivors were identified from the 2013–2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and linked with the NHIS Mortality File with vital status through December 31, 2019. HRSNs, measured by food insecurity, and nonmedical financial worries (e.g., housing costs), was categorized as severe, moderate, and minor/none. Medical financial hardship, including material, psychological, and behavioral domains, was categorized as 2‐3, 1, or 0 domains. Using age as the time scale, the associations of HRSNs and medical financial hardship and mortality risk were assessed with weighted adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Among cancer survivors 18–64 years old (n = 5855), 25.5% and 18.3% reported moderate and severe levels of HRSNs, respectively; among survivors 65–79 years old (n = 5918), 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate and severe levels of HRSNs, respectively. Among cancer survivors 18–64 years old, severe HRSNs was associated with increased mortality risk (hazards ratio [HR], 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36–2.93, p <.001; reference = minor/none) in adjusted analyses. Among cancer survivors 65–79 years old, 2‐3 domains of medical financial hardship was associated with increased mortality risk (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.13–2.20, p =.007; reference = 0 domain). Conclusions: HSRNs and financial hardship are associated with increased mortality risk among cancer survivors; comprehensive assessment of HRSN and financial hardship connecting patients with relevant services can inform efforts to mitigate adverse consequences of cancer. Health‐related social needs (HRSNs), including food insecurity and nonmedical financial worries, are associated with higher mortality risk among younger adult cancer survivors. Standardized and comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and medical financial hardship is essential to identify and mitigate adverse economic impacts of cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Siblings of children with cancer may experience adverse household economic consequences, but their financial outcomes in adulthood are unknown. Methods: A total of 880 siblings (aged 18–64 years) of adult‐aged childhood cancer survivors were surveyed to estimate the prevalence of financial hardship by three established domains (behavioral, material, and psychological). For individual financial hardship items matching the contemporaneous National Health Interview Survey or Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, siblings were compared with the general population by calculating adjusted prevalence odds ratios (ORs) to sample‐weighted responses. Multivariable logistic regression models examined associations between sibling characteristics and each hardship domain and between sibling hardship and survivors' cancer/treatment characteristics. Results: Behavioral, material, and psychological hardship was reported by 24%, 35%, and 28%, respectively. Compared with national survey respondents, siblings were more likely to report worries about medical bills (OR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–1.22), difficulty affording nutritious foods (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.54–2.07), and forgoing needed medical care (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10–1.73), prescription medications (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.99–3.20), and dental care (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.15–1.57) because of cost. Sibling characteristics associated with reporting financial hardship in one or more domains included female sex, older age, chronic health conditions, lower income, not having health insurance, high out‐of‐pocket medical expenditures, and nonmedical/nonhome debt. No survivor cancer/treatment characteristics were associated with sibling financial hardship. Conclusions: Adult siblings of childhood cancer survivors were more likely to experience financial hardship compared with the general population. Childhood cancer may adversely affect entire households, with potentially lasting implications. Adult siblings of long‐term childhood cancer survivors may experience greater aspects of financial hardship compared with the general population. A childhood cancer diagnosis and treatment may adversely affect entire households, with potentially lasting implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer patients and survivors have high care needs, often provided by a spouse or partner. The purpose of this study was to elucidate how employment and work loss patterns differed across cancer history/treatment status and gender. Methods: Using nationally representative data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2011, 2016, and 2017), the authors linked data across married participants and categorized them by spouses' cancer treatment status (no cancer history, on treatment for cancer, off treatment for cancer). Multivariable logistic and zero‐inflated negative binomial regressions were used to assess the associations among cancer history/treatment status, gender, and employment outcomes (employment status and workdays lost to care for self or others). Results: For men, employment did not differ significantly by cancer history/treatment status (on treatment: odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33–1.02, off treatment: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.62–1.14 vs. no cancer history). For women, employment was not significantly different when the spouse was on treatment for cancer compared to no cancer history (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.33–1.86]) but was significantly increased for women whose spouse was off treatment (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.05–1.84). Among employed participants, women whose spouse was on cancer treatment were nine times more likely to take days off work to provide care (OR, 9.52; 95% CI, 3.94–23.03) and took more than three times as many days off to care for others (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 2.07–4.97) as men whose spouse had no cancer history. Conclusions: Wives of cancer survivors are at increased risk of work loss, with implications for their financial and psychological well‐being. Employers, policymakers, and clinicians have opportunities to support working caregivers. Employment and productivity loss patterns differed by cancer treatment status for men and women. Wives of cancer survivors are at increased risk of work loss with implications for employers, policymakers, and health care professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Racial and socioeconomic disparities in receipt of care for non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are well described. However, no previous studies have evaluated the association between mortgage denial rates and receipt of timely and guideline‐concordant care for NSCLC and patient outcomes. Methods: We identified individuals ≥18 years diagnosed with NSCLC between 2014 and 2019 from the National Cancer Database. Using the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act database, we calculated the proportion of denied home loans to total loans at the zip‐code level and categorized them into quintiles. Our outcomes included receipt of guideline‐concordant care based on clinical and pathologic stage at diagnosis and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, time from surgery to chemotherapy initiation, and overall survival. Results: Of the 629,288 individuals diagnosed with NSCLC (median age 69; IQR 61–76 years, 49.1% female), 47.8% did not receive guideline‐concordant care. Residing in areas with higher mortgage denial rates and lower income was associated with worse guideline‐concordant care overall (aRR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.25–1.32) and for each cancer treatment modality, worse receipt of timely chemotherapy (aHR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.11–1.17) and worse overall survival (aHR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.19–1.22), compared with residing in areas with the lowest mortgage denial rate and highest income. Conclusions: Area‐level mortgage denial rate was associated with worse receipt of timely and guideline‐concordant NSCLC care and survival. This highlights the critical need to understand and address systemic practices, such as mortgage denial, that limit access to resources and are associated with worse access to quality cancer care and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]