Search

The American Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 contains climate-related provisions that may have noteworthy implications for cancer control and prevention. This commentary assesses the potential co-benefits of the IRA for cancer control efforts, specifically policies and programs to reduce carcinogen exposure via air quality monitoring and air pollution reduction. Allocations through the IRA for air quality improvement, paired with its environmental justice provisions, hold promise for advancing cancer prevention by targeting resources to communities most susceptible to environmental hazards. Moreover, climate resilience measures dictated by the IRA are crucial for oncology professionals grappling with the dual challenges of climate change and cancer care. Climate-driven extreme weather events can exacerbate carcinogen exposure and disrupt access to cancer care, underscoring the need for resilient health-care infrastructure. The IRA's provisions for clean energy incentives and infrastructure upgrades offer oncology care institutions opportunities to mitigate emissions and bolster resilience against climate-related disruptions, ultimately improving cancer outcomes. Climate-related initiatives funded by the IRA present a unique and timely avenue to advance equitable cancer control efforts. This commentary underscores the critical intersection between climate resilience policy and oncology care, highlighting the potential to promote a healthier and more resilient future for all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Lack of stable, affordable housing is an important social determinant of health. Federal housing assistance may buffer against housing vulnerabilities among low-income households, but research examining the association of housing assistance and cancer care has been limited. We introduce a new linkage of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program-Medicare and US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administrative data. Methods Individuals enrolled in HUD public and assisted housing programs between 2006 and 2021 were linked with cancer diagnoses between 2006 and 2019 identified in the SEER-Medicare data from 16 states using Match*Pro (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) probabilistic linkage software. HUD administrative data include timing and type of housing assistance as well as verified household income. Medicare administrative data are available through 2020. Results A total of 335 490 unique individuals who received housing assistance at any time point, including 156 794 who received housing assistance around the time of their diagnosis (at least 6 months before diagnosis until 6 months after diagnosis or death), were matched to SEER-Medicare data. A total of 63 251 individuals receiving housing assistance at the time of their diagnosis were aged 66 years and older and continuously enrolled in Medicare parts A and B fee for service; 12 035 had a diagnosis of lung cancer, 8866 of breast cancer, 7261 of colorectal cancer, and 4703 of prostate cancer. Conclusions This novel data linkage will be available through the National Cancer Institute and can be used to explore the ways in which housing assistance is associated with cancer diagnosis, care, and outcomes, including the role of housing assistance status in potentially reducing or contributing to inequities across racialized and ethnic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The experiences of cancer survivors with the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States during 2021 and 2022, when vaccinations became widely available, are largely undocumented. Using nationally representative survey data in 2021 and 2022, we found that compared with adults without a cancer history, cancer survivors were more likely to have at least 2 COVID-19 vaccines (2021: 66.6% vs 62.3%, P  =  .003; 2022: 77.0% vs 72.4%, P  <  .001) and as likely to have a COVID-19 infection history (2021: 14.1% vs 14.2%, P  =  .93; 2022: 39.9% vs 39.3%, P  =  .55) but, once infected, were more likely to develop moderate to severe symptoms (2021: 62.5% vs 54.2%, P  =  .02; 54.5% vs 61.3%; P =.13). Among cancer survivors, younger age, lower educational attainment, lack of health insurance, and more comorbidities were statistically significantly associated with lower vaccination rates (P  <  .001). Among infected cancer survivors, being female and younger were associated with higher likelihood of developing moderate to severe symptoms (P  <  .001). Our findings suggest tailored efforts to prevent and control COVID-19 infections for cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the use of value frameworks in cost communications in the field of oncology. Value frameworks are tools that synthesize the benefits and harms of different treatment options to help compare and identify high-value treatments. The article focuses on three commonly used value frameworks: the Net Health Benefit (NHB) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the Evidence Block from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). The study also examines the application of the NHB framework to targeted oral anticancer medications (TOAMs) and their associated costs. The findings suggest that low-value TOAMs are prescribed less frequently, and the uptake of these medications is driven by those with medium and high NHB scores. However, there are concerns about the scoring criteria of the NHB framework and its ability to accurately represent "high value." The article also highlights the importance of incorporating patient out-of-pocket expenses and other financial burdens into value frameworks to facilitate cost communication between clinicians and patients. The study reveals that the median total spending for the first 28-day supply of TOAMs is over $10,000, with some patients spending more than $1,000 out-of-pocket. The article emphasizes the need to consider insurance benefit design and patient characteristics when analyzing the financial burden of TOAMs. It also discusses the differences in cost-sharing requirements between Medicare Part D and private [Extracted from the article]

Despite advances in cancer control—prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship—racial disparities in cancer incidence and survival persist and, in some cases, are widening in the United States. Since 2020, there's been growing recognition of the role of structural racism, including structurally racist policies and practices, as the main factor contributing to historical and contemporary disparities. Structurally racist policies and practices have been present since the genesis of the United States and are also at the root of environmental injustices, which result in disproportionately high exposure to environmental hazards among communities targeted for marginalization, increased cancer risk, disruptions in access to care, and worsening health outcomes. In addition to widening cancer disparities, environmental injustices enable the development of polluting infrastructure, which contribute to detrimental health outcomes in the entire population, and to climate change, the most pressing public health challenge of our time. In this commentary, we describe the connections between climate change and cancer through an Environmental Justice perspective (defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all racialized groups, nationalities, or income, in all aspects, including development, implementation, and enforcement, of policies and practices that affect the environment and public health), highlighting how the expertise developed in communities targeted for marginalization is crucial for addressing health disparities, tackling climate change, and advancing cancer control efforts for the entire population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Medicaid expansion is associated with improved survival following cancer diagnosis. However, little research has assessed how changes in cancer stage may mediate improved cancer mortality or how expansion may have decreased population-level cancer mortality rates. Methods Nationwide state-level cancer data from 2001 to 2019 for individuals ages 20-64 years were obtained from the combined Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results National Program of Cancer Registries (incidence) and the National Center for Health Statistics (mortality) databases. We estimated changes in distant stage cancer incidence and cancer mortality rates from pre- to post-2014 in expansion vs nonexpansion states using generalized estimating equations with robust standard errors. Mediation analyses were used to assess whether distant stage cancer incidence mediated changes in cancer mortality. Results There were 17 370 state-level observations. For all cancers combined, there were Medicaid expansion–associated decreases in distant stage cancer incidence (adjusted odds ratio = 0.967, 95% confidence interval  = 0.943 to 0.992; P  = .01) and cancer mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 0.965, 95% confidence interval = 0.936 to 0.995; P  = .022). This translates to 2591 averted distant stage cancer diagnoses and 1616 averted cancer deaths in the Medicaid expansion states. Distant stage cancer incidence mediated 58.4% of expansion-associated changes in cancer mortality overall (P  = .008). By cancer site subgroups, there were expansion-associated decreases in breast, cervix, and liver cancer mortality. Conclusions Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased distant stage cancer incidence and cancer mortality. Approximately 60% of the expansion-associated changes in cancer mortality overall were mediated by distant stage diagnoses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer, and other underlying medical conditions including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart diseases, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and obesity, are associated with increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness. We identified 6411 cancer survivors and 77 748 adults without a cancer history from the 2016-2018 National Health Interview Survey and examined the prevalence and sociodemographic factors associated with these conditions in the United States. Most survivors reported having 1 or more of the conditions (56.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 54.8% to 57.9%, vs 41.6%, 95% CI = 40.9% to 42.2%, in adults without a cancer history), and nearly one-quarter (22.9%, 95% CI = 21.6% to 24.3%) reported 2 or more, representing 8.7 million and 3.5 million cancer survivors, respectively. These conditions were more prevalent in survivors of kidney, liver, and uterine cancers as well as Black survivors and those with low socioeconomic status and public insurance. Findings highlight the need to protect survivors against COVID-19 transmission in health-care facilities and to prioritize cancer patients, survivors, caregivers, and their health-care providers in vaccine allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The national prevalence of employment changes after a cancer diagnosis has not been fully documented. Cancer survivors who worked for pay at or since diagnosis (n = 1490) were identified from the 2011, 2016, and 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and Experiences with Cancer supplement. Analyses characterized employment changes due to cancer and identified correlates of those employment changes. Employment changes were made by 41.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 38.0% to 44.6%) of cancer survivors, representing more than 3.5 million adults in the United States. Of these, 75.4% (95% CI = 71.3% to 79.2%) took extended paid time off and 46.1% (95% CI = 41.6% to 50.7%) made other changes, including switching to part-time or to a less demanding job. Cancer survivors who were younger, female, non-White, or multiple races and ethnicities, and younger than age 20 years since last cancer treatment were more likely to make employment changes. Findings highlight the need for patient-provider communication about the effects of cancer and its treatment on employment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to delayed medical care in the United States. We examined changes in patterns of cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment between January 1 and December 31 in 2020 and 2019 with real-time electronic pathology report data from population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries from Georgia and Louisiana. During 2020, there were 29 905 fewer pathology reports than in 2019, representing a 10.2% decline. Declines were observed in all age groups, including children and adolescents younger than 18 years. The nadir was early April 2020, with 42.8% fewer reports than in April 2019. Numbers of reports through December 2020 never consistently exceeded those in 2019 after first declines. Patterns were similar by age group and cancer site. Findings suggest substantial delays in diagnosis and treatment services for cancers during the pandemic. Ongoing evaluation can inform public health efforts to minimize any lasting adverse effects of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis, stage, treatment, and survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effect of the Dependent Coverage Expansion (DCE) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on receipt of colorectal cancer treatment has yet to be determined. We identified newly diagnosed DCE-eligible (aged 19-25 years, n = 1924) and DCE-ineligible (aged 27-34 years, n = 8313) colorectal cancer patients from the National Cancer Database from 2007 to 2013. All statistical tests were two-sided. Post-ACA, there was a statistically significant increase in early-stage diagnosis among DCE-eligible (15 percentage point increase, confidence interval = 9.8, 20.2; P < .001), but not DCE-ineligible (P = .09), patients. DCE-eligible patients resected for IIB-IIIC colorectal cancer were more likely to receive timely adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio = 1.34, 95% confidence interval = 1.05 to 1.71; 7.0 days' decrease in restricted mean time from surgery to chemotherapy, P = .01), with no differences in DCE-ineligible patients (hazard ratio = 1.10, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.24; 2.1 days' decrease, P = .41) post-ACA. Our findings highlight the role of the ACA in improving access to potentially lifesaving cancer care, including a shift to early-stage diagnosis and more timely receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about changes in socioeconomic disparities in noninsurance and care unaffordability among nonelderly cancer survivors following the Affordable Care Act (ACA).Methods: Cancer survivors aged 18-64 years nationwide were identified from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Trend and difference-in-differences analyses were conducted to examine changes in percent uninsured and percent reporting care unaffordability pre-(2011 to 2013) and post-(2014 to 2017) ACA Medicaid expansion, by sociodemographic factors.Results: A total of 118 631 cancer survivors were identified from Medicaid expansion (n = 72 124) and nonexpansion (n = 46 507) states. Following the ACA, percent uninsured and percent reporting care unaffordability decreased nationwide. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.1 to 3.5) percentage points (ppt) net decrease in noninsurance and a 2.9 (95% CI = 0.7 to 5.1) ppt net decrease in care unaffordability. In stratified analyses by sociodemographic factors, substantial decreases were observed in female survivors, those with low or medium household incomes, the unemployed, and survivors with multiple comorbidities. However, we observed slightly increased percentages in reporting noninsurance (ppt = 1.7; 95% CI = -1.2 to 4.5) and care unaffordability (ppt = 3.1, 95% CI = -0.4 to 6.5) in nonexpansion states between 2016 and 2017, translating to 67 163 and 124 160 survivors, respectively.Conclusion: We observed reductions in disparities by sociodemographic factors in noninsurance and care unaffordability among nonelderly cancer survivors following the ACA, with largest decreases in women, those with low or medium income, multiple comorbid conditions, the unemployed, and those residing in Medicaid expansion states. However, the uptick of 82 750 uninsured survivors in 2017, mainly from nonexpansion states, is concerning. Ongoing monitoring of the effects of the ACA is warranted, especially in evaluating health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of genomic testing is increasing in the United States. Testing can be expensive, and not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance. Little is known about how often oncologists discuss costs of testing and treatment or about the factors associated with those discussions.Methods: We identified 1220 oncologists who reported discussing genomic testing with their cancer patients from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Multivariable polytomous logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between oncologist and practice characteristics and the frequency of cost discussions. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: Among oncologists who discussed genomic testing with patients, 50.0% reported often discussing the likely costs of testing and related treatments, 26.3% reported sometimes discussing costs, and 23.7% reported never or rarely discussing costs. In adjusted analyses, oncologists with training in genomic testing or working in practices with electronic medical record alerts for genomic tests were more likely to have cost discussions sometimes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19 to 3.69) or often (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.30 to 3.79), respectively, compared to rarely or never. Other factors statistically significantly associated with more frequent cost discussions included treating solid tumors (rather than only hematological cancers), using next-generation sequencing gene panel tests, having higher patient volume, and working in practices with higher percentages of patients insured by Medicaid, or self-paid or uninsured.Conclusions: Interventions targeting modifiable oncologist and practice factors, such as training in genomic testing and use of electronic medical record alerts, may help improve cost discussions about genomic testing and related treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]