Search

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, US unemployment rates rose to historic highs, and they remain nearly double those of prepandemic levels. Employers are the most common source of health insurance among nonelderly adults. Thus, job loss may lead to a loss of health insurance and reduce access to cancer screening. This study examined associations between unemployment, health insurance, and cancer screening to inform the pandemic's potential impacts on early cancer detection., Methods: Up-to-date and past-year breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening prevalences were computed for nonelderly respondents (aged <65 years) with 2000-2018 National Health Interview Survey data. Multivariable logistic regression models with marginal probabilities were used to estimate unemployed-versus-employed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios., Results: Unemployed adults (2000-2018) were 4 times more likely to lack insurance than employed adults (41.4% vs 10.0%; P < .001). Unemployed adults had a significantly lower up-to-date prevalence of screening for cervical cancer (78.5% vs 86.2%; P < .001), breast cancer (67.8% vs 77.5%; P < .001), colorectal cancer (41.9 vs 48.5%; P < .001), and prostate cancer (25.4% vs 36.4%; P < .001). These differences were eliminated after accounting for health insurance coverage., Conclusions: Unemployment was adversely associated with up-to-date cancer screening, and this was fully explained by a lack of health insurance. Ensuring the continuation of health insurance coverage after job loss may mitigate the pandemic's economic distress and future economic downturns' impact on cancer screening., (© 2021 American Cancer Society.)

Lack of health insurance coverage is strongly associated with poor cancer outcomes in the United States. The uninsured are less likely to have access to timely and effective cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care than their counterparts with health insurance coverage. On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law, representing the largest change to health care delivery in the United States since the introduction of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965. The primary goals of the ACA are to improve health insurance coverage, the quality of care, and patient outcomes, and to maintain or lower costs by catalyzing changes in the health care delivery system. In this review, we describe the main components of the ACA, including health insurance expansions, coverage reforms, and delivery system reforms, provisions within these components, and their relevance to cancer screening and early detection, care, and outcomes. We then highlight selected, well-designed studies examining the effects of the ACA provisions on coverage, access to cancer care, and disparities throughout the cancer control continuum. Finally, we identify research gaps to inform evaluation of current and emerging health policies related to cancer outcomes., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Introduction: Medicaid expansions following the Affordable Care Act have improved insurance coverage in low-income adults, but little is known about its impact on cancer screening. This study examined associations between Medicaid expansion timing and colorectal cancer (CRC) and breast cancer (BC) screening., Methods: Up-to-date and past 2-year CRC (n=95,400) and BC (women, n=43,279) screening prevalence were computed among low-income respondents aged 50-64 years in 2012, 2014, and 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. Respondents were grouped according to Medicaid expansion timing as: very early ([VE] six states expanding March 1, 2010-April 14, 2011), early (21 states expanding January 1, 2014-August 15, 2014), late (five states expanding January 1, 2015-July 1, 2016), and non-expansion states (19 states). Absolute adjusted difference-in-differences (aDDs) were computed in 2018-2019 (ref, non-expansion states)., Results: Between 2012 and 2016, absolute up-to-date CRC screening increased by 8.8%, 2.9%, 2.4%, and 3.8% among low-income adults in VE, early, late, and non-expansion states, respectively. Past 2-year CRC screening increased by 8.0% in VE and 2.8% in non-expansion states, with an aDD of 4.9% (p=0.041). In 2012-2016, up-to-date BC screening increased by 5.1%, 4.9%, and 3.7% among low-income women in VE, early, and non-expansion states, respectively, but aDDs were not statistically significant., Conclusions: Prevalence of CRC and BC screening among low-income adults rose in Medicaid expansion states, though increases were significantly higher than those in non-expansion states only for recent CRC screening in VE expansion states. Large-scale improvements in cancer screening may take several years following expansion in access to care., (Copyright © 2019 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported substantial reduction in lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals screened annually with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT). As a result, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued a B recommendation for annual LDCT in high-risk individuals, which requires private insurers to cover it without cost-sharing. The Medicare program also covers LDCT for high-risk beneficiaries without cost-sharing. However, the NLST findings may not be generalizable to the community setting because of differences in patients, providers, and practices participating in the NLST. Thus, examining uptake of LDCT screening in community practice is critical, as is evaluating the immediate and downstream outcomes of screening, including false-positive scans, follow-up examinations and adverse events, costs, stage of disease at diagnosis, and survival. This commentary presents an overview of the landscape of the data resources currently available to evaluate the uptake, outcomes, and costs of LDCT screening in the United States. We describe the strengths and limitations of existing data sources, including administrative databases, surveys, and registries. Thereafter, we provide recommendations for improving the data infrastructure pertaining to three overarching research areas: receipt of guideline-consistent screening and follow-up, weighing benefits and harms of screening, and costs of screening., (Published by Oxford University Press 2019.)

Background: For more than two decades, integration of team-based approaches in primary care, including physicians, advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants (APRN/PA), have been recommended for improving healthcare delivery, yet little is known about their roles in cancer screening and prevention. This study aims to review the current literature on the participation and roles of APRN/PAs in providing cancer screening and prevention recommendations in primary care settings in the United States., Methods: We searched MEDLINE and CINAHL to identify studies published in 1990-2011 reporting on cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening and smoking cessation, diet, and physical activity recommendations by APRN/PAs in the United States. A total of 15 studies met all of our eligibility criteria. Key study, provider, and patient characteristics were abstracted as were findings about APRN/PA recommendations for screening and prevention., Results: Most studies were cross-sectional, showed results from within a single city or state, had relatively small sample sizes, reported non-standardized outcome measures. Few studies reported any patient characteristics. APRN/PAs are involved in recommending cancer screening and prevention, although we found variation across screening tests and health behavior recommendations., Conclusions: Additional research on the cancer prevention and screening practices of APRN/PAs in primary care settings using standardized outcome measures in relation to evidence-based guidelines may help strengthen primary care delivery in the United States.

Background: Many guidelines recommend considering health status and life expectancy when making cancer screening decisions for elderly persons., Objective: To estimate life expectancy for elderly persons without a history of cancer, taking into account comorbid conditions., Design: Population-based cohort study., Setting: A 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries in selected geographic areas, including their claims and vital status information., Participants: Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years or older between 1992 and 2005 without a history of cancer (n = 407 749)., Measurements: Medicare claims were used to identify comorbid conditions included in the Charlson index. Survival probabilities were estimated by comorbidity group (no, low/medium, and high) and for the 3 most prevalent conditions (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure) by using the Cox proportional hazards model. Comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy was calculated based on comparisons of survival models with U.S. life tables. Survival probabilities from the U.S. life tables providing the most similar survival experience to the cohort of interest were used., Results: Persons with higher levels of comorbidity had shorter life expectancies, whereas those with no comorbid conditions, including very elderly persons, had favorable life expectancies relative to an average person of the same chronological age. The estimated life expectancy at age 75 years was approximately 3 years longer for persons with no comorbid conditions and approximately 3 years shorter for those with high comorbidity relative to the average U.S. population., Limitations: The cohort was limited to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 66 years or older living in selected geographic areas. Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry and Medicare claims lack information on functional status and severity of comorbidity, which might influence life expectancy in elderly persons., Conclusion: Life expectancy varies considerably by comorbidity status in elderly persons. Comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy may help physicians tailor recommendations for stopping or continuing cancer screening for individual patients.

Objectives: Guidelines recommend against the use of Papanicolaou (Pap) or human papillomavirus (HPV) testing when determining eligibility for the HPV vaccine. Optimally, the HPV vaccine should be administered before sexual initiation. Guidelines recommend that age-eligible women with past exposure to HPV should still be vaccinated. Little is known about how primary care providers (PCPs) use sexual history and HPV and Pap tests in their HPV vaccine recommendations., Methods: Data from the 2007 Cervical Cancer Screening Supplement (CCSS) administered with the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) were used to assess HPV vaccination recommendations. The CCSS investigates cervical cancer screening practices, HPV testing and HPV vaccine recommendations among PCPs. A summary measure of compliance with guidelines was defined as rarely or never using the number of sexual partners and HPV tests and Pap tests to determine vaccine receipt. A total of 421 PCPs completed the CCSS in 2007., Results: Among NAMCS and NHAMCS providers who recommend the HPV vaccine, only 53% (95% CI 42% to 63%) reported making guideline-consistent recommendations. The majority reported sometimes to always recommending the HPV vaccine to women with a history of an abnormal Pap result (85%; 95% CI 75% to 91%) and a positive HPV test (79%; 95% CI 70% to 86%)., Conclusions: A large proportion of providers report practices that are inconsistent with guidelines. Providers may also be recommending the vaccine to women who may receive little benefit from the vaccine. Provider and system-level efforts to improve guideline-consistent practices are needed.

Background: Although systems strategies are effective in improving health care delivery, little is known about their use for cancer screening in U.S. primary care practice., Methods: We assessed primary care physicians' (N = 2,475) use of systems strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national survey conducted in 2007. Systems strategies included patient and physician screening reminders, performance reports of screening rates, electronic medical records, implementation of in-practice guidelines, and use of nurse practitioners/physician assistants. We evaluated use of both patient and physician screening reminders with other strategies in separate models by screening type, adjusted for the effects of physician and practice characteristics with multivariate logistic regression., Results: Fewer than 10% of physicians used a comprehensive set of systems strategies to support cancer screening; use was greater for mammography and Pap testing than for CRC screening. In adjusted analyses, performance reports of cancer screening rates, medical record type, and in-practice guidelines were associated with use of both patient and physician screening reminders for mammography, Pap testing, and CRC screening (P < 0.05)., Conclusion: Despite evidence supporting use of systems strategies in primary care, few physicians report using a comprehensive set of strategies to support cancer screening., Impact: Current health policy initiatives underscore the importance of increased implementation of systems strategies in primary care to improve the use and quality of cancer screening in the United States.

Background: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides low-income, uninsured women with screening and diagnostic services for breast and cervical cancer. Our study was conducted to describe the demographic and practice characteristics of participating and nonparticipating physicians, as well as their beliefs, adoption of new screening technologies, and recommendations for breast and cervical cancer screening., Methods: From a 2006-2007 nationally representative survey, we identified 1,111 practicing primary care physicians who provide breast and cervical cancer screenings and assessed their recommendations using clinical vignettes related to screening initiation, frequency, and cessation. Responses of physicians participating in the NBCCEDP were compared with those from nonparticipating physicians., Results: Of the physicians surveyed, 15% reported participation in the NBCCEDP, 65% were not participants, and 20% were not sure or did not respond to this question. Program physicians were significantly more likely to practice in multispecialty settings, in a rural location, and in a hospital or clinic setting and had more patients who were female and insured by Medicaid or uninsured compared with nonprogram physicians. Beliefs about the effectiveness of screening tools or procedures in reducing breast or cervical cancer mortality were similar by program participation. Adoption of new technologies, including digital mammography and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, and making guideline-consistent recommendations for screening initiation, frequency, and cessation did not differ significantly by program participation., Conclusions: Although there may be differences in physician characteristics and practice settings, the beliefs and screening practices for both breast and cervical cancer are similar between program and nonprogram providers.

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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2021, the American Cancer Society published its first biennial report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States. In this second report, the authors provide updated data on racial, ethnic, socioeconomic (educational attainment as a marker), and geographic (metropolitan status) disparities in cancer occurrence and outcomes and contributing factors to these disparities in the country. The authors also review programs that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. There are substantial variations in risk factors, stage at diagnosis, receipt of care, survival, and mortality for many cancers by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and metropolitan status. During 2016 through 2020, Black and American Indian/Alaska Native people continued to bear a disproportionately higher burden of cancer deaths, both overall and from major cancers. By educational attainment, overall cancer mortality rates were about 1.6-2.8 times higher in individuals with ≤12 years of education than in those with ≥16 years of education among Black and White men and women. These disparities by educational attainment within each race were considerably larger than the Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality within each educational attainment, ranging from 1.03 to 1.5 times higher among Black people, suggesting a major role for socioeconomic status disparities in racial disparities in cancer mortality given the disproportionally larger representation of Black people in lower socioeconomic status groups. Of note, the largest Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality were among those who had ≥16 years of education. By area of residence, mortality from all cancer and from leading causes of cancer death were substantially higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in large metropolitan areas. For colorectal cancer, for example, mortality rates in nonmetropolitan areas versus large metropolitan areas were 23% higher among males and 21% higher among females. By age group, the racial and geographic disparities in cancer mortality were greater among individuals younger than 65 years than among those aged 65 years and older. Many of the observed racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in cancer mortality align with disparities in exposure to risk factors and access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, which are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health. Equitable policies at all levels of government, broad interdisciplinary engagement to address these inequities, and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage, are needed to reduce cancer disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lack of health insurance coverage is associated with poor access and receipt of cancer care and survival in the United States. Disruptions in coverage are common among low-income populations, but little is known about associations of disruptions with cancer care, including prevention, screening, and treatment, as well as outcomes of stage at diagnosis and survival.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies of health insurance coverage disruptions and cancer care and outcomes published between 1980 and 2019. We used the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL databases and identified 29 observational studies. Study characteristics and key findings were abstracted and synthesized qualitatively.Results: Studies evaluated associations between coverage disruptions and prevention or screening (31.0%), treatment (13.8%), end-of-life care (10.3%), stage at diagnosis (44.8%), and survival (20.7%). Coverage disruptions ranged from 4.3% to 32.8% of patients age-eligible for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening. Between 22.1% and 59.5% of patients with Medicaid gained coverage only at or after cancer diagnosis. Coverage disruptions were consistently statistically significantly associated with lower receipt of prevention, screening, and treatment. Among patients with cancer, those with Medicaid disruptions were statistically significantly more likely to have advanced stage (odds ratios = 1.2-3.8) and worse survival (hazard ratios = 1.28-2.43) than patients without disruptions.Conclusions: Health insurance coverage disruptions are common and adversely associated with receipt of cancer care and survival. Improved data infrastructure and quasi-experimental study designs will be important for evaluating the associations of federal and state policies on coverage disruptions and care and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of economic analysis methods used in estimating the costs and benefits of public health programs and systematically review the application of these methods to the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP).Methods: Published literature on economic analyses of the NBCCEDP was systematically reviewed. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist was used to assess methodological quality of the included studies.Results: Methods available for economic analysis of public health programs include program cost, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit analysis, and budget impact analysis. Of these, program cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-utility analysis have been applied to the NBCCEDP in previously published literature.Conclusion: While there have been multiple program cost analyses, there are relatively fewer cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies and no cost-benefit and budget impact analysis studies to evaluate the NBCCEDP. Addressing these gaps will inform implementation of effective public health programs with equitable resource allocation to all population subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported substantial reduction in lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals screened annually with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT). As a result, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued a B recommendation for annual LDCT in high-risk individuals, which requires private insurers to cover it without cost-sharing. The Medicare program also covers LDCT for high-risk beneficiaries without cost-sharing. However, the NLST findings may not be generalizable to the community setting because of differences in patients, providers, and practices participating in the NLST. Thus, examining uptake of LDCT screening in community practice is critical, as is evaluating the immediate and downstream outcomes of screening, including false-positive scans, follow-up examinations and adverse events, costs, stage of disease at diagnosis, and survival. This commentary presents an overview of the landscape of the data resources currently available to evaluate the uptake, outcomes, and costs of LDCT screening in the United States. We describe the strengths and limitations of existing data sources, including administrative databases, surveys, and registries. Thereafter, we provide recommendations for improving the data infrastructure pertaining to three overarching research areas: receipt of guideline-consistent screening and follow-up, weighing benefits and harms of screening, and costs of screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is increasing concern regarding the financial burden of cancer on patients and their families. This study presents nationally representative estimates of annual out-of-pocket (OOP) burden among non-elderly cancer survivors and assesses the association between high OOP burden and access to care and preventive service utilization.Methods: Using the 2008-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 4,271 cancer survivors and 96,780 individuals without a history of cancer were identified, all aged 18-64 years. High annual OOP burden was defined as spending >20% of annual family income on OOP healthcare costs. Associations between high OOP burden and access to care were evaluated with multivariable logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2015.Results: Compared with individuals without a cancer history, cancer survivors were more likely to report a high OOP burden (4.3% vs 3.4%, p=0.009) in adjusted analyses. High OOP burden was more common among cancer survivors who were poor (18.4%), with either public insurance (7.9%) or uninsured (5.7%), and not working (10.2%). Among cancer survivors, high OOP burden was associated with being unable to obtain necessary medical care (19.2% vs 12.5%, p=0.002), delaying necessary medical care (21.6% vs 13.8%, p=0.002), and lower breast cancer screening rates among age-appropriate women (63.2% vs 75.9%, p=0.02).Conclusions: High OOP burden is more common among adults with a cancer history than those without a cancer history. High OOP burden was associated with being unable to obtain necessary medical care, delaying necessary medical care, and lower breast cancer screening rates among women. [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]