Search

Background: Eliminating health disparities among different segments of the US population is an overarching goal of the US Healthy People 2020 objectives. Objective: Examine changes in educational, rural-urban, and racial disparities in premature mortality during the past 10 years. Design and Participants: Descriptive analysis of US mortality data from 2007 to 2017. Main Measures: Relative and absolute rural-urban, educational attainment, and Black-White disparities in premature mortality for all-cause and top 10 causes of death among persons ages 25–74 years, estimated as rate ratios and rate differences between ≤12 and ≥16 years of education, rural versus urban, and non-Hispanic Black (Black) versus non-Hispanic White (White), respectively, in 2007 and 2017. Key Results: During 2007–2017, mortality rates in persons aged 25–74 years in the USA increased for several leading causes of death, especially in persons with <16 years of education, rural residents, and White people. As a result, disparity in mortality between 2007 and 2017 widened on both relative and absolute scales for all-cause and for 6 of the top 10 causes of death by education and for all-cause and for 9 of the top 10 causes by rural/urban residence. In contrast, Black-White disparities narrowed for all-cause and for all 7 causes that Black people had a higher rate than White people. For all-cause mortality for example, absolute disparities in the number of deaths per 100,000 person-years between 2007 and 2017 increased from 454.0 (95%CI, 446.0–462.1) to 542.7 (535.6–549.7) for educational attainment and from 85.8 (82.8–88.8) to 140.5 (137.6–143.4) for rural versus urban; in contrast, absolute Black-White disparity decreased from 315.3 (311.0–319.7) to 221.7 (218.1–225.3). Conclusions: Educational and rural-urban disparities in premature mortality widened, whereas Black-White disparities narrowed in the USA between 2007 and 2017, though overall rates remained considerably higher in Black people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High patient out-of-pocket (OOP) spending for medical care is associated with medical debt, distress about household finances, and forgoing medical care because of cost in the USA.Objective: To examine the national prevalence of medical financial hardship domains: (1) material conditions from increased OOP expenses (e.g., medical debt), (2) psychological responses (e.g., distress), and (3) coping behaviors (e.g., forgoing care); and factors associated with financial hardship.Design and Participants: We identified adults aged 18-64 years (N = 68,828) and ≥ 65 years (N = 24,614) from the 2015-2017 National Health Interview Survey. Multivariable analyses of nationally representative cross-sectional survey data were stratified by age group, 18-64 years and ≥ 65 years.Main Measures: Prevalence of material, psychological, and behavioral hardship and hardship intensity.Key Results: Approximately 137.1 million (95% CI 132.7-141.5) adults reported any medical financial hardship in the past year. Hardship is more common for material, psychological and behavioral domains in adults aged 18-64 years (28.9%, 46.9%, and 21.2%, respectively) than in adults aged ≥ 65 years (15.3%, 28.4%, and 12.7%, respectively; all p < .001). Lower educational attainment and more health conditions were strongly associated with hardship intensity in multivariable analyses in both age groups (p < .001). In the younger group, the uninsured were more likely to report multiple domains of hardship (52.8%), compared to those with some public (26.5%) or private insurance (23.2%) (p < .001). In the older group, individuals with Medicare only were more likely to report hardship in multiple domains (17.1%) compared to those with Medicare and public (12.1%) or Medicare and private coverage (10.1%) (p < .001).Conclusions: Medical financial hardship is common in the USA, especially in adults aged 18-64 years and those without health insurance coverage. With trends towards higher patient cost-sharing and increasing health care costs, risks of hardship may increase in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are approximately 25.6 million individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) in the USA, and this number is increasing. Objective: Investigate associations between LEP and access to care in adults. Design: Cross-sectional nationally representative survey. Participants: Adults with (n = 18,908) and without (n = 98,060) LEP aged ≥ 18 years identified from the 2014–2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Main Measures: Associations between LEP and access to healthcare and preventive services were evaluated with multivariable logistic regression models, stratified by age group (18–64 and ≥ 65 years). The official government definition of LEP (answers "not at all/not well/well" to the question "How well do you speak English?") was used. Access to care included having a usual source of care (and if so, distance from usual source of care, difficulty contacting usual source of care, and provision of extended hours), visiting a medical provider in the past 12 months, having to forego or delay care, and having trouble paying for medical bills. Preventive services included blood pressure and cholesterol check, flu vaccination, and cancer screening. Key Results: Adults aged 18–64 years with LEP were significantly more likely to lack a usual source of care (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] = 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.27–2.70), not have visited a medical provider (aOR = 2.02; CI = 1.89–2.16), and to be overdue for receipt of preventive services, including blood pressure check (aOR = 2.00; CI = 1.79–2.23), cholesterol check (aOR = 1.22; CI = 1.03–1.44), and colorectal cancer screening (aOR = 1.58; CI = 1.37–1.83) than adults without LEP. Results were similar among adults aged ≥ 65 years. Conclusions: Adults with LEP had consistently worse access to care than adults without LEP. System-level interventions, such as expanding access to health insurance coverage, providing language services, improving provider training in cultural competence, and increasing diversity in the medical workforce may minimize barriers and improve equity in access to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many older adults in the U.S. do not receive appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although primary care physicians' recommendations to their patients are central to the screening process, little information is available about their recommendations in relation to guidelines for the menu of CRC screening modalities, including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema (DCBE). The objective of this study was to explore potentially modifiable physician and practice factors associated with guideline-consistent recommendations for the menu of CRC screening modalities.Methods: We examined data from a nationally representative sample of 1266 physicians in the U.S. surveyed in 2007. The survey included questions about physician and practice characteristics, perceptions about screening, and recommendations for age of initiation and screening interval for FOBT, FS, colonoscopy and DCBE in average risk adults. Physicians' screening recommendations were classified as guideline consistent for all, some, or none of the CRC screening modalities recommended. Analyses used descriptive statistics and polytomous logit regression models.Results: Few (19.1%; 95% CI:16.9%, 21.5%) physicians made guideline-consistent recommendations across all CRC screening modalities that they recommended. In multivariate analysis, younger physician age, board certification, north central geographic region, single specialty or multi-specialty practice type, fewer patients per week, higher number of recommended modalities, use of electronic medical records, greater influence of patient preferences for screening, and published clinical evidence were associated with guideline-consistent screening recommendations (p < 0.05).Conclusions: Physicians' CRC screening recommendations reflect both overuse and underuse, and few made guideline-consistent CRC screening recommendations across all modalities they recommended. Interventions that focus on potentially modifiable physician and practice factors that influence overuse and underuse and address the menu of recommended screening modalities will be important for improving screening practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health insurance coverage is important for enabling access to medical care, but obtaining quality care depends also on maintaining stable patient-provider relationships [[1]]. At five in-person interviews, the MEPS collects information on health insurance coverage, utilization, expenditures, and experiences with care covering a 2-year period. [Extracted from the article]

Context: Optimal ages of breast cancer screening cessation remain uncertain.Objective: To evaluate screening policies based on age and quartiles of life expectancy (LE).Design and Population: We used a stochastic model with proxies of age-dependent biology to evaluate the incremental U.S. societal costs and benefits of biennial screening from age 50 until age 70, 79, or lifetime.Main Outcome Measures: Discounted incremental costs per life years saved (LYS).Results: Lifetime screening is expensive (151,434 dollars per LYS) if women have treatment and survival comparable to clinical trials (idealized); stopping at age 79 costs 82,063 dollars per LYS. This latter result corresponds to costs associated with an LE of 9.5 years at age 79, a value expected for 75% of 79-year-olds, about 50% of 80-year-olds, and 25% of 85-year-olds. Using actual treatment and survival patterns, screening benefits are greater, and lifetime screening of all women might be considered (114,905 dollars per LYS), especially for women in the top 25% of LE for their age (50,643 dollars per LYS, life expectancy of approximately 7 years at age 90).Conclusions: If all women receive idealized treatment, the benefits of mammography beyond age 79 are too low relative to their costs to justify continued screening. However, if treatment is not ideal, extending screening beyond age 79 could be considered, especially for women in the top 25% of life expectancy for their age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The disruption to patient and family well-being introduced by the rising costs of cancer care is a growing clinical problem. In addition to logistical questions, there is a compelling, existential one: "How should healthcare teams address patient and caregiver distress and uncertainty from financial toxicity?" We argue that the principles and practice of palliative care can help alleviate this element and often unaddressed component of human suffering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Financial toxicity related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is a common issue in developed countries. We seek to systematically summarize the extent of the issue in very high development index countries with publicly funded healthcare. Methods: We identified articles published Jan 1, 2005, to March 7, 2019, describing financial burden/toxicity experienced by cancer patients and/or informal caregivers using OVID Medline Embase and PsychInfo, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, and EconLit databases. Only English language peer-reviewed full papers describing studies conducted in very high development index countries with predominantly publicly funded healthcare were eligible (excluded the USA). All stages of the review were evaluated in teams of two researchers excepting the final data extraction (CJL only). Results: The searches identified 7117 unique articles, 32 of which were eligible. Studies were undertaken in Canada, Australia, Ireland, UK, Germany, Denmark, Malaysia, Finland, France, South Korea, and the Netherlands. Eighteen studies reported patient/caregiver out-of-pocket costs (range US$17–US$506/month), 18 studies reported patient/caregiver lost income (range 17.6–67.3%), 14 studies reported patient/caregiver travel and accommodation costs (range US$8–US$393/month), and 6 studies reported financial stress (range 41–48%), strain (range 7–39%), or financial burden/distress/toxicity among patients/caregivers (range 22–27%). The majority of studies focused on patients, with some including caregivers. Financial toxicity was greater in those with early disease and/or more severe cancers. Conclusions: Despite government-funded universal public healthcare, financial toxicity is an issue for cancer patients and their families. Although levels of toxicity vary between countries, the findings suggest financial protection appears to be inadequate in many countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Poor health of one spouse can adversely influence the partner's health outcomes ("spillover"). This study aimed to estimate quality of life spillover among spouses and to determine how presence of cancer influenced these effects.Methods: We examined data on husband-wife dyads with cancer-related health problems, medical events, or disabilities (n = 910) and matched comparison dyads from the 2004-2012 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, a population-based survey of the USA. Mental and physical health-related quality of life and depressed mood were reported at two time points (T1 and T2, 11 months apart on average). Dyadic multilevel models evaluated the cross-lagged impact of HRQoL and depressed mood at T1 on spouses' HRQoL at T2, controlling for sociodemographics and health conditions.Results: Small but statistically significant spillover was observed for mental and physical HRQoL among couples with cancer. Spillover occurred from both the spouse to the survivor and from survivor to spouse. Depressed mood, in particular, showed stronger spillover effects from the spouse to the survivor than the inverse. Similar effects were not observed in dyads without cancer.Conclusions: Screening for and treating poor HRQoL and depressed mood concurrently in both cancer survivors, and their spouses may positively influence HRQoL outcomes. Future research is needed to further elucidate these findings and determine whether a concurrent approach to psychosocial care in survivors and their spouses may improve long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]