Search

PurposeEnd-of-life (EOL) cancer care is costly, with challenges regarding intensity and place of care. We described EOL care and costs for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States and the province of Ontario, Canada, to inform better care delivery.MethodsPatients diagnosed with CRC from 2007 to 2013, who died of any cancer from 2007 to 2013 at age ≥ 66 years, were selected from the US SEER cancer registries linked to Medicare claims (n = 16,565) and the Ontario Cancer Registry linked to administrative health data (n = 6,587). We estimated total and resource-specific costs (2015 US dollars) from public payer perspectives over the last 360 days of life by 30-day periods, by stage at diagnosis (0-II, III, IV).ResultsIn all months, especially 30 days before death, higher percentages of SEER-Medicare than Ontario patients received chemotherapy (15.7% v 8.0%), and imaging tests (39.4% v 31.1%). A higher percentage of Ontario patients were hospitalized (62.5% v 51.0%), but 43.2% of hospitalized SEER-Medicare patients had intensive care unit (ICU) admissions versus 17.9% of hospitalized Ontario patients. Cost differences between cohorts were greater for patients with stage IV disease. In the last 30 days, mean total costs for patients with stage IV disease were $15,881 (SEER-Medicare) and $12,034 (Ontario) versus $19,354 and $17,312 for stage 0-II. Hospitalization costs were higher for SEER-Medicare patients ($11,180 v $9,434), with lower daily hospital costs in Ontario ($1,067 v $2,004).ConclusionThese findings suggest opportunities for reducing chemotherapy and ICU use in the United States and hospitalizations in Ontario.

PURPOSE In the 1930s, the federally sponsored Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) used racial composition in its assessment of areas worthy of receiving loans. Neighborhoods with large proportions of Black residents weremapped in red (ie, redlining) and flagged as hazardous for mortgage financing. Redlining created a platform for systemic disinvestment in these neighborhoods, leading to barriers in access to resources that persist today. We investigated the association between residing in areaswith differentHOLC ratings and receipt of quality cancer care and outcomes among individuals diagnosed with colon cancer--a leading cause of cancer deaths amenable to early detection and treatment. METHODS Individuals who resided in zip code tabulation areas in 196 cities with HOLC rating and were diagnosed with colon cancer from 2007 to 2017 were identified from the National Cancer Database and assigned a HOLC grade (A, best; B, still desirable; C, definitely declining; and D, hazardous and mapped in red). Multivariable logistic regression models investigated association of area-level HOLC grade and late stage at diagnosis and receipt of guideline-concordant care. The product-limit method evaluated differences in time to adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models investigated differences in overall survival (OS). RESULTS There were 149,917 patients newly diagnosed with colon cancer with a median age of 68 years. Compared with people living in HOLC A areas, people living in HOLC D areas were more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.12]). In addition, people living in HOLC B, C, and D areas had 8%, 16%, and 24% higher odds of not receiving guidelineconcordant care, including lower receipt of surgery, evaluation of ≥12 lymph nodes, and chemotherapy. People residing in HOLC B, C, or D areas also experienced delays in initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery. People residing in HOLC C (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.13]) and D (aHR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.18]) areas had worse OS, including 13% and 20% excess risk of death for individuals diagnosed with early- and 6% and 8% for late-stage disease for HOLC C and D, respectively. CONCLUSION Historical housing discrimination is associated with worse contemporary access to colon cancer care and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Socioeconomic differences are partially responsible for racial inequities in cancer outcomes, yet the association of area-level socioeconomic disadvantage and race with end-of-life (EOL) cancer care quality is poorly understood. METHODS This retrospective study used electronic medical records from an academic health system to identify 33,635 adults with cancer who died between 2013 and 2019. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between decedent characteristics and EOL care, including emergency department (ED) visits, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, palliative care consultation (PCC), hospice order, and in-hospital deaths. Social deprivation index was used to measure socioeconomic disadvantages. RESULTS Racially minoritized decedents had higher odds of ICU stay than the least deprived White decedents (eg, other race Q3: aOR, 2.06 [99% CI, 1.26 to 0.3.39]). White and Black decedents from more deprived areas had lower odds of ED visit (White Q3: aOR, 0.382 [99% CI, 0.263 to 0.556]; Black Q3: aOR, 0.566 [99% CI, 0.373 to 0.858]) than least deprived White decedents. Compared with White decedents living in least deprived areas, racially minoritized decedents had higher odds of receiving PCC and hospice order, whereas White decedents in most deprived areas had lower odds of PCC (aOR, 0.727 [99% CI, 0.592 to 0.893]) and hospice order (aOR, 0.845 [99% CI, 0.724 to 0.986]). Greater deprivation was associated with greater odds of hospital death relative to least deprived White decedents, but only among minoritized decedents (eg, Black Q4: aOR, 2.16 [99% CI, 1.82 to 2.56]). CONCLUSION Area-level socioeconomic disadvantage is not uniformly associated with poorer EOL cancer care, with differences among decedents of different racial groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE This study examined changes in patterns of cancer-related deaths during the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in the United States. METHODS We identified cancer-related deaths, defined as deaths attributable to cancer as the primary cause (underlying cause) or deaths with cancer documented as one of the multiple contributing factors (contributing cause) from the Multiple Cause of Death database (2015-2020). We compared age-standardized cancer-related annual and monthly mortality rates for January-December 2020 (first pandemic year) to January-December 2015-2019 (prepandemic) overall and stratified by sex, race/ethnicity, urban rural residence, and place of death. RESULTS We found that the death rate (per 100,000 person-years) with cancer as the underlying cause was lower in 2020 compared with 2019 (144.1 v 146.2), continuing the past trend observed in 2015-2019. By contrast, the death rate with cancer as a contributing cause was higher in 2020 than in 2019 (164.1 v 162.0), reversing the continuously decreasing trend from 2015 to 2019. We projected 19,703 more deaths with cancer as a contributing cause than expected on the basis of historical trends. Mirroring pandemic peaks, the monthly death rates with cancer as a contributing cause first increased in April 2020 (rate ratio [RR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.04), subsequently declined in May and June 2020, and then increased again each month from July through December 2020 compared with 2019, with the highest RR in December (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.08). CONCLUSION Death rates with cancer as the underlying cause continued to decrease in 2020 despite the increase in death rates with cancer as a contributing cause in 2020. Ongoing monitoring of long-term cancer-related mortality trends is warranted to assess effects of delays in cancer diagnosis and receipt of care during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE To examine the association between historic state Medicaid income eligibility limits and long-term survival among patients with cancer. METHODS 1,449,144 adults age 18-64 years newly diagnosed with 19 common cancers between 2010 and 2013 were identified from the National Cancer Database. States' Medicaid income eligibility limits were categorized as # 50%, 51%-137%, and $ 138% of federal poverty level (FPL). Survival time was measured from diagnosis date through December 31, 2017, for up to an 8-year follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models with age as time scale were used to assess associations of eligibility limits and stage-specific survival, adjusting for the effects of sex, metropolitan statistical area, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, facility type and volume, and state. RESULTS Among patients with newly diagnosed cancer age 18-64 years, patients living in states with lower Medicaid income eligibility limits had worse survival for most cancers in both early and late stages, compared with those living in states with Medicaid income eligibility limits $ 138% FPL. A dose-response relationship was observed for most cancers with lower income limits associated with worse survival (13 of 17 cancers evaluated for early-stage cancers, and 11 of 17 cancers evaluated for late-stage cancers, and leukemia and brain tumors with P-trend < .05). CONCLUSION Lower Medicaid income eligibility limits were associated with worse long-term survival within stage; increasing Medicaid income eligibility may improve survival after cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electronic health records (EHRs) are a significant advancement over paper records. However, the full potential of EHRs for improving care quality, patient outcomes, surveillance, and research in cancer care is yet to be realized. The organic evolution of EHRs has resulted in a number of unanticipated consequences including increased time spent by clinicians interfacing with the EHR for daily workflows. Patient access to clinicians and their records has been an important advancement in patient-centered care; however, this has brought to light additional gaps and challenges in EHRs meeting these needs. A significant challenge for EHR design and physician workflows is how best to meet the complex goals and priorities of various stakeholders including providers, researchers, patients, health systems, payors, and regulatory agencies. The National Cancer Policy Forum convened a 2022 workshop, "Innovations in Electronic Health Records for Oncology Care, Research and Surveillance," to address these challenges and to facilitate collaboration across all user groups with the goal of re-envisioning EHRs that will better support shared goals of improving patient outcomes and advancing cancer care and research without overburdening clinicians with administrative tasks. Here, we summarize the current EHR ecosystem as discussed at the workshop and highlight opportunities to improve EHR contributions to oncology evidence and care.

Purpose: Medicare's differential payments for services delivered in physician offices versus hospital outpatient settings incentivize hospital-physician integration (ie, vertical integration) across many specialties, but evidence for oncologists is mixed. We examined the association of Medicare site-based payment policy and physician practice characteristics, including service volume and diversity, with vertical integration among oncologists in 2013-2019., Methods: Using the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data and Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty in 2013-2019, we extracted nonintegrated medical/hematologic oncologists (hereafter oncologists) in 2013 and followed them through 2019. We quantified the incentives from Medicare site-based payment policy using the hospital-office ratio-total Medicare payments if all services were delivered in the hospital outpatient department (HOPD) versus physician office. Vertical integration was defined as billing >10% of services to HOPD in a year. Multivariable linear probability regressions estimated the association between hospital-office ratio and vertical integration in 2014-2019 with and without accounting for provider characteristics., Results: In 2013, the average hospital-office ratio was 1.63, which increased to 1.99 in 2018. A 25th-to-75th percentile increase in the hospital-office ratio was negatively associated with integration (-1.01 percentage points [ppts], 95% CI = -1.45 to -0.57, p < .001) not accounting for physician practice characteristics; this association was attenuated (-0.30 ppts, 95% CI = -0.67 to 0.07, p = .11) after adjusting for these characteristics. Higher baseline (ie, 2013) service volume (Quartile4 v Quartile1 = -3.00 ppts, 95% CI = -4.42 to -1.59, p < .001), more diverse services (Quartile4 v Quartile1 = -3.55 ppts, 95% CI = -4.97 to -2.13, p < .001), and urban location (-5.23 ppts, 95% CI = -6.89 to -3.57, p < .001) were more strongly associated with vertical integration., Conclusion: Compared to Medicare site-based payment policy, oncologists' practice characteristics emerged as more potent factors for integration and should be considered to ensure the intended impacts of site-based payment reform. Our finding raises questions about the effectiveness of ongoing movements toward site-neutral payment for drug administration services to deter vertical integration in oncology.