Search

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]

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]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic led to health care disruptions and declines in cancer diagnoses in the United States. However, the impact of the pandemic on cancer incidence rates by stage at diagnosis and race and ethnicity is unknown. This cross‐sectional study calculated delay‐ and age‐adjusted incidence rates, stratified by stage at diagnosis and race and ethnicity, and rate ratios (RRs) comparing changes in year‐over‐year incidence rates (eg, 2020 vs 2019) from 2016 to 2020 for 22 cancer types based on data obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 22‐registry database. From 2019 to 2020, the incidence of local‐stage disease statistically significantly declined for 19 of the 22 cancer types, ranging from 4% (RR = 0.96; 95%CI, 0.93‐0.98) for urinary bladder cancer to 18% for colorectal (RR = 0.82; 95%CI, 0.81‐0.84) and laryngeal (RR = 0.82; 95%CI, 0.78‐0.88) cancers, deviating from pre‐COVID stable year‐over‐year changes. Incidence during the corresponding period also declined for 16 cancer types for regional‐stage and six cancer types for distant‐stage disease. By race and ethnicity, the decline in local‐stage incidence for screening‐detectable cancers was generally greater in historically marginalized populations. The decline in cancer incidence rates during the first year of the COVID‐19 pandemic occurred mainly for local‐ and regional‐stage diseases across racial and ethnic groups. Whether these declines will lead to increases in advanced‐stage disease and mortality rates remain to be investigated with additional data years. Nevertheless, the findings reinforce the importance of strengthening the return to preventive care campaigns and outreach for detecting cancers at early and more treatable stages. [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: 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]

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]

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]