Search

Objective: To examine differential changes in receipt of surgery at National Cancer Institute (NCI)‐designated comprehensive cancer centers (NCI‐CCC) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited hospitals for patients with cancer more likely to be newly eligible for coverage under Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance expansions, relative to those less likely to have been impacted by the ACA. Data Sources and Study Setting: Pennsylvania Cancer Registry (PCR) for 2010–2019 linked with discharge records from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council (PHC4). Study Design: Outcomes include whether cancer surgery was performed at an NCI‐CCC or a CoC‐accredited hospital. We conducted a difference‐in‐differences analysis, estimating linear probability models for each outcome that control for residence in a county with above median county‐level pre‐ACA uninsurance and the interaction between county‐level baseline uninsurance and cancer treatment post‐ACA to capture differential changes in access between those more and less likely to become newly eligible for insurance coverage (based on area‐level proxy). All models control for age, sex, race and ethnicity, cancer site and stage, census‐tract level urban/rural residence, Area Deprivation Index, and year‐ and county‐fixed effects. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: We identified adults aged 26–64 in PCR with prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer who received cancer‐directed surgery and had a corresponding surgery discharge record in PHC4. Principal Findings: We observe a differential increase in receiving care at an NCI‐CCC of 6.2 percentage points (95% CI: 2.6–9.8; baseline mean = 9.8%) among patients in high baseline uninsurance areas (p = 0.001). Our estimate of the differential change in care at the larger set of CoC hospitals is positive (3.9 percentage points [95% CI: −0.5‐8.2; baseline mean = 73.7%]) but not statistically significant (p = 0.079). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that insurance expansions under the ACA were associated with increased access to NCI‐CCCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine sponsored a workshop on July 24 and 25, 2017 on Long-Term Survivorship after Cancer Treatment. The workshop brought together diverse stakeholders (patients, advocates, academicians, clinicians, research funders, and policymakers) to review progress and ongoing challenges since the Institute of Medicine (IOM)'s seminal report on the subject of adult cancer survivors published in 2006. This commentary profiles the content of the meeting sessions and concludes with recommendations that stem from the workshop discussions. Although there has been progress over the past decade, many of the recommendations from the 2006 report have not been fully implemented. Obstacles related to the routine delivery of standardized physical and psychosocial care services to cancer survivors are substantial, with important gaps in care for patients and caregivers. Innovative care models for cancer survivors have emerged, and changes in accreditation requirements such as the Commission on Cancer's (CoC) requirement for survivorship care planning have put cancer survivorship on the radar. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation's Oncology Care Model (OCM), which requires psychosocial services and the creation of survivorship care plans for its beneficiary participants, has placed increased emphasis on this service. The OCM, in conjunction with the CoC requirement, is encouraging electronic health record vendors to incorporate survivorship care planning functionality into updated versions of their products. As new models of care emerge, coordination and communication among survivors and their clinicians will be required to implement patient- and community-centered strategies.

With the release of the American Association of Cancer Research Cancer Progress Report 2024, we address two aspects of cancer and its treatment in younger age groups addressed in the progress report: first, the chronicity of financial hardship and second, inequities that burden the totality of society and hinder progress of scientific advances in cancer control and treatment. Financial hardship for younger age groups diagnosed with cancer causes lasting financial damage to both the patients and their families. Advancements in new technologies and treatments that improve survival may not be as effective if they are unaffordable or will cause lasting financial distress. As the incidence of early-onset cancer increases, the burden of cancer and its economic toll are expected to increase. Research to study economic and social aspects of cancer to inform the development of effective and sustainable policy solutions is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the short- and long-term disabilities associated with breast cancer and its treatment, the authors investigate the influence of workplace accommodations on the employment and hours worked of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Accommodations that allow women to work fewer hours or that ease the burden of work could also generate health benefits by reducing workplace demands and allowing women more time to tend to treatment needs and recovery. In prior research, the authors found modest labor supply impacts on employment for this group of women. Evidence from this study suggests that some accommodations are associated with fewer hours worked, while some are associated with higher employment or hours. In addition, some of the accommodations that may affect hours of work-sometimes positively and sometimes negatively-are associated with positive health benefits.

Employment-contingent health insurance may create incentives for ill workers to remain employed at a sufficient level (usually full-time) to maintain access to health insurance coverage. We study employed married women, comparing the labor supply responses to new breast cancer diagnoses of women dependent on their own employment for health insurance with the responses of women who are less dependent on their own employment for health insurance, because of actual or potential access to health insurance through their spouse's employer. We find evidence that women who depend on their own job for health insurance reduce their labor supply by less after a diagnosis of breast cancer. In the estimates that best control for unobservables associated with health insurance status, the hours reduction for women who continue to work is 8 to 11% smaller. Women's subjective responses to questions about working more to maintain health insurance are consistent with the conclusions from observed behavior.

Implementation science (IS) has great potential to enhance the frequency, speed, and quality of the translation of evidence-based programs, policies, products, and guidelines into practice. Progress has been made, but with some notable exceptions, this promise has not been achieved for cancer prevention and control. We discuss five interrelated but conceptually distinct, crosscutting issues important to accelerate IS for cancer prevention and control and how our Colorado Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control (COISC3) addressed these issues. These needs and opportunities include more fully addressing changing, multi-level context; guiding rapid, iterative adaptations; evaluating innovative approaches to engagement and health equity; greater attention to costs and economic issues; and sustainability. We summarize conceptual issues; evaluation needs and capacity building activities and then provide examples of how our IS center addressed these five needs for cancer prevention and control. We discuss changes made to address priorities of (i) guiding adaptations of implementation strategies to address changing context and (ii) working on issues identified and prioritized by our primary care partners rather than the research team. We conclude with discussion of lessons learned, limitations, and directions for future research and practice in IS to enhance cancer prevention and control as well as translational behavioral medicine more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Work ability is a critical economic and well-being indicator in cancer care. Yet, work ability is understudied in clinical trials and observational research and is often undocumented in medical records. Despite agreement on the importance of work from well-being, health insurance, and financial perspectives, standardized approaches for collecting, measuring, and analyzing work outcomes are lacking in the health-care setting. The necessary components for closing the gap in patient and caregiver employment research in health-care settings involve a common set of measures, including those that replace or translate generic measures of mental and physical functioning into work outcomes in observational and clinical trial research, standardized approaches to data collection and documentation, and the use of longitudinal data to understand the consequences of reduced work ability over time. We present a conceptual framework for the inclusion of work ability in outcomes research. We cover constructs for employment and work ability measurement that can be adopted in research, recorded as patient-level data, and used to guide treatment decisions. The inclusion of return to work and hours worked, productivity, and ability to perform in a similar job can support conversations that guide treatment decisions and minimize economic consequences. Our hope is that by considering impact on work ability, improved treatments will be developed, health inequities reduced, and resources directed toward aiding patients and their caregivers in balancing work and health demands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]