Search

Background Methods Results Conclusions Costs of cancer care can result in patient financial hardship; many professional organizations recommend provider discussions about treatment costs as part of high‐quality care. In this pilot study, the authors examined patient–provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma—cancers with recently approved, high‐cost treatment options.Individuals who were newly diagnosed in 2017–2018 with stage III/IV NSCLC (n = 1767) and in 2018 with stage III/IV melanoma (n = 689) from 12 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions were randomly selected for the National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Study. Documentation of cost discussions was abstracted from the medical record. The authors examined patient, treatment, and hospital factors associated with cost discussions in multivariable logistic regression analyses.Cost discussions were documented in the medical records of 20.3% of patients with NSCLC and in 24.0% of those with melanoma. In adjusted analyses, privately insured (vs. publicly insured) patients were less likely to have documented cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37–0.80). Patients who did not receive systemic therapy or did not receive any cancer‐directed treatment were less likely to have documented cost discussions than those who did receive systemic therapy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19–0.81] and 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30–0.70], respectively), as were patients who were treated at hospitals without residency programs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42–0.98).Cost discussions were infrequently documented in the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and melanoma, which may hinder identifying patient needs and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. Efforts to increase cost‐of‐care discussions and relevant referrals, as well as their documentation, are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute examines the impact of clinic-based interventions on reducing treatment inequities between Black and White women diagnosed with breast cancer. The interventions, including patient navigation, provider bias training, and real-time tracking dashboards, aim to improve equitable treatment. While the interventions successfully addressed treatment inequities, they did not eliminate survival differences between the two groups. The study suggests that additional efforts are needed to eliminate racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes, including addressing factors such as screening, social determinants of health, and systemic racism. [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: Recent advancements in the clinical management of metastatic prostate cancer include several costly therapies and diagnostic tests. The objective of this study was to provide updated information on the cost to payers attributable to metastatic prostate cancer among men aged 18 to 64 years with employer‐sponsored health plans and men aged 18 years or older covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement insurance. Methods: By using Merative MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental data for 2009–2019, the authors calculated differences in spending between men with metastatic prostate cancer and their matched, prostate cancer‐free controls, adjusting for age, enrollment length, comorbidities, and inflation to 2019 US dollars. Results: The authors compared 9011 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by commercial insurance plans with a group of 44,934 matched controls and also compared 17,899 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement plans with a group of 87,884 matched controls. The mean age of patients with metastatic prostate cancer was 58.5 years in the commercial samples and 77.8 years in the Medicare supplement samples. Annual spending attributable to metastatic prostate cancer was $55,949 per person‐year (95% confidence interval [CI], $54,074–$57,825 per person‐year) in the commercial population and $43,682 per person‐year (95% CI, $42,022–$45,342 per person‐year) in the population covered by Medicare supplement plans, both in 2019 US dollars. Conclusions: The cost burden attributable to metastatic prostate cancer exceeds $55,000 per person‐year among men with employer‐sponsored health insurance and $43,000 among those covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement plans. These estimates can improve the precision of value assessments of clinical and policy approaches to the prevention, screening, and treatment of prostate cancer in the United States. Annual spending attributable to metastatic prostate cancer was $55,949 per person‐year in the population covered by commercial insurance and $43,682 in the population covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement plans, both in 2019 US dollars. These estimates can improve the precision of value assessments of clinical and policy approaches to the prevention, screening, and treatment of prostate cancer in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer research has led to remarkable advances in our understanding of cancer biology and strategies for prevention, screening and early detection, treatment, and survivorship care, resulting in declines in cancer mortality rates ([1]). Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 65 Richman I, Tessier-Sherman B, Galusha D, Oladele CR, Wang K. Breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: moving from disparities to health equity. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 32 Haghighat S, Jiang C, El-Rifai W, Zaika A, Goldberg DS, Kumar S. Urgent need to mitigate disparities in federal funding for cancer research. [Extracted from the article]

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis among men in the United States and the prevalence of prostate cancer survivors is growing. Cancer treatment and lasting or late effects of disease and treatment can adversely affect financial health, psychosocial well-being, and health-related quality of life for prostate cancer survivors, even many years after cancer diagnosis and treatment. These outcomes are important, especially because most men live for many years following a prostate cancer diagnosis. In this essay, we describe health care spending associated with prostate cancer, including patient out-of-pocket costs, and summarize research examining medical financial hardship and associations of financial hardship and psychosocial well-being and health-related quality of life among cancer survivors. We then discuss implications for health care delivery and opportunities to mitigate financial hardship for patients with prostate cancer and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A cancer diagnosis during adolescence or young adulthood can have a negative impact on long-term physical and mental health. However, little is known about the financial outcomes for survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancers. A recent study in the Netherlands found that AYA cancer survivors experienced an average decrease of 8.5% in their annual earnings and a decrease in employment levels after diagnosis compared to a control group. The study also highlighted the potential economic consequences for family members who provide informal care and the broader impact on household financial security. While these findings may not be directly applicable to countries like the United States, where access to healthcare and worker protections are different, it is likely that young adult cancer survivors in the US face greater economic challenges. The oncology community is working to identify interventions to reduce the financial burden on AYA cancer survivors, including assessing financial hardship throughout the cancer journey, implementing screening tools, providing financial navigators, and advocating for improved access to affordable cancer care and social safety nets. [Extracted from the article]

Background Lack of safe, reliable, and affordable transportation is a barrier to medical care, but little is known about its association with clinical outcomes. Methods We identified 28 640 adults with and 470 024 adults without a cancer history from a nationally representative cohort (2000-2018 US National Health Interview Survey) and its linked mortality files with vital status through December 31, 2019. Transportation barriers were defined as delays in care because of lack of transportation. Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards models estimated the associations of transportation barriers with emergency room (ER) use and mortality risk, respectively, adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, health insurance, comorbidities, functional limitations, and region. Results Of the adults, 2.8% (n = 988) and 1.7% (n = 9685) with and without a cancer history, respectively, reported transportation barriers; 7324 and 40 793 deaths occurred in adults with and without cancer history, respectively. Adults with a cancer history and transportation barriers, as compared with adults without a cancer history or transportation barriers, had the highest likelihood of ER use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.34 to 3.27) and all-cause mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.94 to 2.68), followed by adults without a cancer history with transportation barriers (ER use aOR = 1.98, 95% CI =1.87 to 2.10; all-cause mortality aHR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.46 to 1.70) and adults with a cancer history but without transportation barriers (ER use aOR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.44; all-cause mortality aHR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.54 to 1.65). Conclusion Delayed care because of lack of transportation was associated with increased ER use and mortality risk among adults with and without cancer history. Cancer survivors with transportation barriers had the highest risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 Cancer survivors frequently experience medical financial hardship in the United States. Little is known, however, about long-term health consequences. This study examines the associations of financial hardship and mortality in a large nationally representative sample of cancer survivors. Methods We identified cancer survivors aged 18-64 years (n = 14 917) and 65-79 years (n = 10 391) from the 1997-2014 National Health Interview Survey and its linked mortality files with vital status through December 31, 2015. Medical financial hardship was measured as problems affording care or delaying or forgoing any care because of cost in the past 12 months. Risk of mortality was estimated with separate weighted Cox proportional hazards models by age group with age as the timescale, controlling for the effects of sociodemographic characteristics. Health insurance coverage was added sequentially to multivariable models. Results Among cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 65-79 years, 29.6% and 11.0%, respectively, reported financial hardship in the past 12 months. Survivors with hardship had higher adjusted mortality risk than their counterparts in both age groups: 18-64 years (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 1.30) and 65-79 years (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.28). Further adjustment for health insurance reduced the magnitude of association of hardship and mortality among survivors aged 18-64 years (HR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.97 to 1.24). Adjustment for supplemental Medicare coverage had little effect among survivors aged 65-79 years (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.29). Conclusion Medical financial hardship was associated with mortality risk among cancer survivors in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is a response to a commentary on a study titled "Transportation barriers, emergency room use, and mortality risk among U.S. adults by cancer history." The study used data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and found that transportation barriers were associated with emergency room use and mortality risk among adults with and without a history of cancer, with cancer survivors facing the highest risk. The authors agree with the suggestions made in the commentary regarding the importance of considering rural-urban classifications and walking and bicycling environments in future studies. They also acknowledge the relevance of telehealth in addressing transportation barriers, especially for rural populations. The authors express their commitment to incorporating these considerations into their future research to improve access to care for cancer patients and survivors. [Extracted from the article]

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. Unemployment is adversely associated with up‐to‐date cancer screening, and this is fully explained by a lack of health insurance. [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]

Background: The American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries provide annual information about cancer occurrence and trends in the United States. Part 1 of this annual report focuses on national cancer statistics. This study is part 2, which quantifies patient economic burden associated with cancer care.Methods: We used complementary data sources, linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to develop comprehensive estimates of patient economic burden, including out-of-pocket and patient time costs, associated with cancer care. The 2000-2013 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data were used to estimate net patient out-of-pocket costs among adults aged 65 years and older for the initial, continuing, and end-of-life phases of care for all cancer sites combined and separately for the 21 most common cancer sites. The 2008-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data were used to calculate out-of-pocket costs and time costs associated with cancer among adults aged 18-64 years and 65 years and older.Results: Across all cancer sites, annualized net out-of-pocket costs for medical services and prescriptions drugs covered through a pharmacy benefit among adults aged 65 years and older were highest in the initial ($2200 and $243, respectively) and end-of-life phases ($3823 and $448, respectively) and lowest in the continuing phase ($466 and $127, respectively), with substantial variation by cancer site. Out-of-pocket costs were generally higher for patients diagnosed with later-stage disease. Net annual time costs associated with cancer were $304.3 (95% confidence interval = $257.9 to $350.9) and $279.1 (95% confidence interval = $215.1 to $343.3) for adults aged 18-64 years and ≥65 years, respectively, with higher time costs among more recently diagnosed survivors. National patient economic burden, including out-of-pocket and time costs, associated with cancer care was projected to be $21.1 billion in 2019.Conclusions: This comprehensive study found that the patient economic burden associated with cancer care is substantial in the United States at the national and patient levels. [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]

Introduction: Health insurance is associated with better care in the U.S., but little is known about the associations of coverage disruptions (i.e., periods without insurance) with care access, receipt, and affordability.Methods: Adults aged 18-64 years with current private (n=124,746), public (n=30,932), or no (n=31,802) insurance coverage were identified from the 2011-2018 National Health Interview Survey. Data were analyzed in 2020. Separate multivariable logistic regressions evaluated the associations of having coverage disruptions or being uninsured with care access, receipt, and affordability.Results: Overall, 5.0% of currently insured adults with private and 10.7% with public insurance reported a coverage disruption in the previous year, representing nearly 9.1 million adults in 2018. Among currently uninsured, 24.9% reported coverage loss within the previous year, representing nearly 8.1 million adults in 2018. Among adults with current private or current public coverage, disruptions were associated with lower receipt of all preventive services (AOR=0.42, 95% CI=0.37, 0.46 and AOR=0.48, 95% CI=0.40, 0.58, respectively), with forgoing any needed care because of cost (AOR=4.79, 95% CI=4.44, 5.17 and AOR=4.28, 95% CI=3.86, 4.75), and with medication nonadherence because of cost (AOR=3.55, 95% CI=3.13, 4.03 and AOR=4.09, 95% CI=3.43, 4.88) compared with that among adults with continuous coverage (p<0.05). Longer disruptions among currently insured adults were significantly associated with worse care access, receipt, and affordability, with dose-response patterns. Currently uninsured adults, especially those with longer uninsured periods, reported significantly worse care access, receipt, and affordability than currently insured adults with coverage disruptions or continuous coverage.Conclusions: Findings highlight the importance of continuous insurance coverage; disruptions owing to the COVID-19 pandemic will likely have adverse consequences for care access and affordability. [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]

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]

Introduction: In the U.S., rural residents have poorer health than urban residents and this disadvantage is growing. Therefore, it is important to understand rural-urban differences in access to medical care. This study compared the percentage of individuals with a usual source of care and characteristics of usual source of care providers across 3 urban-rural categories.Methods: This study identified 51,920 adults from the 2014-2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and estimated the percentage with a usual source of care across the rural-urban categories. Then, differences in a variety of provider characteristics were examined. Estimates were weighted to be representative of the U.S. non-institutionalized population and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, self-rated health, and presence of chronic conditions. Analysis was conducted in 2018 and 2019.Results: Compared with metropolitan county residents, residents of the most rural counties were 7 percentage points more likely to have a usual source of care (81% vs 74%), but their providers were 13 percentage points less likely to be physicians (22% vs 35%). Despite having to travel longer to reach their usual source of care providers, residents of the most rural counties were 18 percentage points less likely than metropolitan residents to have usual source of care providers with office hours on nights and weekends (27% vs 39%).Conclusions: Rural-urban differences in access to care are complex; there is a rural disadvantage on some dimensions of access but not others. To understand rural-urban disparities in healthcare access, research should move beyond the usual source of care provider as an overall indicator and instead investigate disparities using multiple indicators of access based on theoretically distinct domains. [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]

Comprehensive population‐based data are critical for evaluating the effectiveness of new cancer treatment options. Current gaps in health data infrastructure present challenges for monitoring uptake, selecting comparison groups, and investigating meaningful outcomes in the general population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Serious psychological distress (SPD) can adversely impact health and quality of life after cancer. The purpose of this study is to examine the association between SPD and the receipt of preventive care services and cancer screening among survivors and adults without a cancer history. A total of 12,564 cancer survivors and 160,023 adults without a cancer history as comparison group were identified from the population-based Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2008-2015). SPD was assessed using the 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. We examined use of preventive care and cancer screening services in cancer survivors and comparison adults with/without SPD. Multivariable logistic regression models were conducted for each outcome: preventive service (i.e. blood pressure, cholesterol, influenza vaccination, routine and dental check-up) or cancer screening (i.e. mammography, Papanicolau test, colorectal cancer screening) adjusting for demographic, comorbidity, usual source of care covariates. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Prevalence of SPD was 9.8% in cancer survivors compared to 4.6% in comparison adults. Survivors with SPD were more frequent utilizers of medical care, reporting 10 or more visits to the doctor's office in the past 12 months (29.3% vs. 14.1% without SPD). Having SPD was associated with lower odds of being up-to-date with preventive service use and cancer screening among age- and gender-eligible individuals. The magnitude of the effect was greater in adults' age ≥65 years. Better coordination of care and patient-physician discussions are likely needed to improve delivery of recommended preventive services for persons with SPD. [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]

Cancer recurrence and disease-free survival are key outcomes for measuring the burden of illness, assessing the quality of cancer care, and informing decisions about increasingly costly cancer therapies. Yet information about recurrence is not collected in cancer registries or other population-based data sources. To address the lack of population-based recurrence information, researchers are increasingly using algorithms applied to health claims to infer recurrence. However, the validity of these approaches has not been comprehensively evaluated. In this commentary, we review existing studies and discuss options for improving the availability of recurrence data. We found that the validity of claims-based approaches appears promising in small, single institution studies, but larger population-based studies have identified substantial limitations with using claims to identify recurrence. With the increasing availability of health data, there are potential options that can be implemented to enhance information about recurrence. These options include design of software for the electronic medical record that enables rapid and standardized reporting of recurrence, use of electronic pathology reports to facilitate streamlined collection of recurrence by cancer registries, and mandates by insurers to require reporting of recurrence on health claims submitted by physicians. All of these options will require that governmental agencies, health insurers, professional societies, and other groups recognize the importance of population-based recurrence data and determine that this information is a priority for assessing cancer outcomes and costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This information can then be used to test hypotheses to explain the pathway from income inequality and health, such as absolute income, relative income, deprivation, or relative position hypothesis ([13]). Ecological fallacy, defined by Robinson in 1950 as incorrect inferences about individuals based on characteristics and associations observed among groups ([1]), is a well-recognized concept in epidemiology and statistics. The income variable, quantified as neighborhood or individual income, can be used to construct income inequality measures, such as Gini index ([10]), decile ratios ([11]), or Robin Hood index ([12]). Figure 1 uses income-related measures to exemplify 3 plausible pathways that explain the relationship between income and health, highlighting the importance of understanding the implications of adopting measures at various levels. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose Researchers are using diagnosis codes from health claims to identify metastatic disease in cancer patients. The validity of this approach has not been established. Methods We used the linked 2005-2007 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data to assess the validity of metastasis codes at diagnosis from claims compared with stage reported by SEER cancer registries. The cohort included 80,052 incident breast, lung, and colorectal cancer patients aged 65 years and older. Using gold-standard SEER data, we evaluated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of claims-based stage, survival by stage classification, and patient factors associated with stage misclassification using multivariable regression. Results For patients with a registry report of distant metastatic cancer, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of claims never simultaneously exceeded 80% for any cancer: lung (42.7%, 94.8%, and 88.1%), breast (51.0%, 98.3%, and 65.8%), and colorectal (72.8%, 93.8%, and 68.5%). Misclassification of stage from Medicare claims was significantly associated with inaccurate estimates of stage-specific survival (P < .001). In adjusted analysis, patients who were older, black, or living in low-income areas were more likely to have their stage misclassified in claims. Conclusions Diagnosis codes in Medicare claims have limited validity for inferring cancer stage and metastatic disease. [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]

The article presents a study which examined the annual medical costs and productivity losses incurred by cancer survivors in the U.S. in 2008-2011. In the study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other groups studied data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) that was sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Based on the study, private health insurance was the biggest source of payment, followed by Medicare.

Adolescent and young adult cancer survivors—those who were ages 15–39 at their first cancer diagnosis—have important health limitations. These survivors are at risk for higher health care expenditures and lost productivity, compared to adults without a history of cancer. Using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data, we present nationally representative estimates of the economic burden among people who were diagnosed with cancer in adolescence or young adulthood. Our findings demonstrate that surviving cancer at this age is associated with a substantial economic burden. Compared to adults without a history of cancer, adolescent and young adult cancer survivors had excess annual medical expenditures of $3,170 per person and excess annual productivity losses of $2,250 per person. Multifaceted prevention strategies, including education and sustained intervention programs to ensure access to lifelong risk-based follow-up care, may be effective ways to improve the economic outcomes associated with cancer survivorship in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Access to stable and affordable housing is an important social determinant of health in the United States. However, research addressing housing and cancer care, diagnosis, and outcomes has not been synthesized. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies examining associations of housing and cancer care and outcomes using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL. Included studies were conducted in the United States and published in English between 1980 and 2021. Study characteristics and key findings were abstracted and qualitatively synthesized. Results A total of 31 studies were identified. Housing-related measures were reported at the individual level in 20 studies (65%) and area level in 11 studies (35%). Study populations and housing measures were heterogeneous. The most common housing measures were area-level housing discrimination (8 studies, 26%), individual-level housing status (8 studies, 26%), and individual-level housing concerns (7 studies, 23%). The most common cancer outcomes were screening (12 studies, 39%) and mortality (9 studies, 29%). Few studies assessed multiple dimensions of housing. Most studies found that exposure to housing insecurity was statistically significantly associated with worse cancer care (11 studies) or outcomes (10 studies). Conclusions Housing insecurity is adversely associated with cancer care and outcomes, underscoring the importance of screening for housing needs and supporting systemic changes to advance equitable access to care. Additional research is needed to develop and test provider- and policy-level housing interventions that can effectively address the needs of individuals throughout the cancer care continuum. [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]

Background Current estimates of the costs of cancer care in the United States are based on data from 2003 and earlier. However, incidence, survival, and practice patterns have been changing for the majority of cancers. Methods Cancer prevalence was estimated and projected by phase of care (initial year following diagnosis, continuing, and last year of life) and tumor site for 13 cancers in men and 16 cancers in women through 2020. Cancer prevalence was calculated from cancer incidence and survival models estimated from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data. Annualized net costs were estimated from recent SEER–Medicare linkage data, which included claims through 2006 among beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with a cancer diagnosis. Control subjects without cancer were identified from a 5% random sample of all Medicare beneficiaries residing in the SEER areas to adjust for expenditures not related to cancer. All cost estimates were adjusted to 2010 dollars. Different scenarios for assumptions about future trends in incidence, survival, and cost were assessed with sensitivity analysis. Results Assuming constant incidence, survival, and cost, we projected 13.8 and 18.1 million cancer survivors in 2010 and 2020, respectively, with associated costs of cancer care of 124.57 and 157.77 billion 2010 US dollars. This 27% increase in medical costs reflects US population changes only. The largest increases were in the continuing phase of care for prostate cancer (42%) and female breast cancer (32%). Projections of current trends in incidence (declining) and survival (increasing) had small effects on 2020 estimates. However, if costs of care increase annually by 2% in the initial and last year of life phases of care, the total cost in 2020 is projected to be $173 billion, which represents a 39% increase from 2010. Conclusions The national cost of cancer care is substantial and expected to increase because of population changes alone. Our findings have implications for policy makers in planning and allocation of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background Using observational data to assess the relative effectiveness of alternative cancer treatments is limited by patient selection into treatment, which often biases interpretation of outcomes. We evaluated methods for addressing confounding in treatment and survival of patients with early-stage prostate cancer in observational data and compared findings with those from a benchmark randomized clinical trial. Methods We selected 14 302 early-stage prostate cancer patients who were aged 66–74 years and had been treated with radical prostatectomy or conservative management from linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare data from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2003. Eligibility criteria were similar to those from a clinical trial used to benchmark our analyses. Survival was measured through December 31, 2007, by use of Cox proportional hazards models. We compared results from the benchmark trial with results from models with observational data by use of traditional multivariable survival analysis, propensity score adjustment, and instrumental variable analysis. Results Prostate cancer patients receiving conservative management were more likely to be older, nonwhite, and single and to have more advanced disease than patients receiving radical prostatectomy. In a multivariable survival analysis, conservative management was associated with greater risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27 to 2.00) and all-cause mortality (HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.35 to 1.59) than radical prostatectomy. Propensity score adjustments resulted in similar patient characteristics across treatment groups, although survival results were similar to traditional multivariable survival analyses. Results for the same comparison from the instrumental variable approach, which theoretically equalizes both observed and unobserved patient characteristics across treatment groups, differed from the traditional multivariable and propensity score results but were consistent with findings from the subset of elderly patient with early-stage disease in the trial (ie, conservative management vs radical prostatectomy: for prostate cancer–specific mortality, HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.08 to 6.73; for all-cause mortality, HR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.46 to 2.59). Conclusion Instrumental variable analysis may be a useful technique in comparative effectiveness studies of cancer treatments if an acceptable instrument can be identified. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses a study on the burden of illness in cancer survivors through the use of a multiple years of data from a nationally representative survey. The study used samples from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) during the period of 1997 to 2006. The study concluded that adult survivors of childhood cancers had poorer health outcomes as compared with individuals without cancer and suggested that physicians should be aware of the risks for adult survivors long after the diagnosis.

Background: Cervical cancer screening guidelines were substantially revised in 2002 and 2003. Little information is available about primary care physicians' current Papanicolaou (Pap) test screening practices, including initiation, frequency, and stopping. Objective: To assess current Pap test screening practices in the United States. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Nationally representative sample of physicians during 2006 to 2007. Participants: 1212 primary care physicians. Measurements: The survey included questions about physician and practice characteristics and recommendations for Pap screening presented as clinical vignettes describing women by age and by sexual and screening histories. A composite measure-guideline-consistent recommendations-was created by using responses to vignettes in which major guidelines were uniform. Results: Most physicians reported providing Pap tests to their eligible patients (91.0% [95% CI, 89.0% to 92.6%]). Among Pap test providers (n = 1114), screening practices, including number of tests ordered or performed, use of patient reminder systems, and cytology method used, varied by physician specialty (P < 0.001). Although most Pap test providers reported that screening guidelines were very influential in their clinical practice, few had guidelineconsistent recommendations for starting and stopping Pap screening across multiple vignettes (22.3% [CI, 19.9% to 25.0%]). Guideline-consistent recommendations varied by specialty (obstetrics/ gynecology, 16.4%; internal medicine, 27.5%; and family or general practice, 21.1%). Compared with obstetricians/gynecologists, internal medicine specialists and family or general practice specialists were more likely to have guideline-consistent screening recommendations (odds ratio, 1.98 [CI, 1.22 to 3.23] and 1.45 [CI, 0.99 to 2.13], respectively) in multivariate analysis. Limitation: Physician self-report may reflect idealized rather than actual practice. Conclusion: Primary care physicians' recommendations for Pap test screening are not consistent with screening guidelines, reflecting overuse of screening. Implementation of effective interventions that focus on potentially modifiable physician and practice factors is needed to improve screening practice. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on time costs that go with informal caregiving for cancer survivors in the U.S. The study used data from a national survey of caregivers to calculate the time spent in informal caregiving after patient diagnosis with cancer such as breast, kidney or lung. The study found that caregivers have provided care for an average of 8.3 hours daily for 13.7 months. Formal caregivers gave not only medical support but emotional support as well.

Purpose. This study investigates the relationship between patterns of health behaviors and the use of cancer-screening tests while controlling for sociodemographic and health system factors. Design. Cross-sectional analysis of the 2000 National Health Interview (NHIS). Setting. Nationally representative sample. Subjects. Adults 50 years and older. Measures. Use of cancer-screening tests, health behaviors, sociodemographic factors, and health system factors from self-reported responses from the NHIS. Sixteen health behavior patterns were identified based on lifestyle recommendations for physical activity, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, and fruit and vegetable consumption. Results. Health behavior patterns, age, educational attainment, usual source of care, and health insurance were significantly associated with the use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening (p < .05). Approximate R² for the four models ranged from .067 for colorectal cancer screening in women to .122 for cervical cancer screening Having a usual source of care was the strongest correlate of screening the magnitude of associations for health behavior patterns and demographic variables and screening was similar and much smaller than those for usual source of care. Conclusion. These findings demonstrate relationships between patterns of multiple health behaviors and use of recommended cancer-screening tests, even when accounting for factors known to influence test use. This suggests potential for addressing cancer screening in the context of multiple behavior change interventions once barriers to health care access are removed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. A model that predicts the economic benefit of reduced cancer mortality provides critical information for allocating scarce resources to the interventions with the greatest benefits. Method.s We developed models using the human capital approach, which relies on earnings as a measure of productivity, to estimate the value of productivity lost as a result of cancer mortality. The base model aggregated age and sex-specific data from four primary sources: 1) the US Bureau of the Census, 2) US death certificate data for 1999-2003, 3) cohort life tables from the Berkeley Mortality Database for 1900-2000, and 4) the Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey. In a model that included costs of caregiving and household work, data from the National Human Activity Pattern Survey and the Caregiving in the U.S. study were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed using six types of cancer assuming a 1% decline in cancer mortality rates. The values of forgone earnings for employed individuals and imputed forgone earnings for informal caregiving were then estimated for the years 2000-2020. Results. The annual productivity cost from cancer mortality in the base model was approximately $115.8 billion in 2000; the projected value was $147.6 billion for 2020. Death from lung cancer accounted for more than 27% of productivity costs. A 1% annual reduction in lung, colorectal, breast, leukemia, pancreatic, and brain cancer mortality lowered productivity costs by $814 million per year. Including imputed earnings lost due to caregiving and household activity increased the base model total productivity cost to $232.4 billion in 2000 and to $308 billion in 2020. Conclusions. Investments in programs that target the cancers with high incidence and/or cancers that occur in younger, working-age individuals are likely to yield the greatest reductions in productivity losses to society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background.Value-of-life methods are increasingly used in policy analyses of the economic burden of disease. The purpose of this study was to estimate and project the value of life lost from cancer deaths in the United States. Methods.We estimated and projected US age-specific mortality rates for all cancers and for 16 types of cancer in men and 18 cancers in women in the years 2000-2020 and applied them to US population projections to estimate the number of deaths in each year. Cohort life tables were used to calculate the remaining life expectancy in the absence of cancer deaths-the person-years of life lost (PYLL). We used a willingnessto-pay approach in which the value of life lost due to cancer death was calculated by multiplying PYLL by an estimate of the value of 1 year of life ($150000). We performed sensitivity analyses for female breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers using varying assumptions about future cancer mortality rates through the year 2020. Results.The value of life lost from all cancer deaths in the year 2000 was $960.6 billion; lung cancer alone represented more than 25% of this value. Projections for the year 2020 with current cancer mortality rates showed a 53% increase in the total value of life lost ($1472.5 billion). Projected annual decreases of cancer mortality rates of 2% reduced the expected value of life lost in the year 2020 from $121.0 billion to $80.7 billion for breast cancer, $140.1 billion to $93.5 billion for colorectal cancer, from $433.4 billion to $289.4 billion for lung cancer, and from $58.4 billion to $39.0 billion for prostate cancer. Conclusions.Estimated value of life lost due to cancer deaths in the United States is substantial and expected to increase dramatically, even if mortality rates remain constant, because of expected population changes. These estimates and projections may help target investments in cancer control strategies to tumor sites that are likely to result in the greatest burden of disease and to interventions that are the most cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known regarding the prevalence of outpatient cancer treatment in the U.S. We analyzed nationally-representative data from the 2000-2004 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to estimate the number of U.S. cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy annually. Each year, over 1.1 million individuals are estimated to receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy for cancer. Cancer patients younger than 65 receiving treatment who were uninsured were less likely to receive chemotherapy or combined chemotherapy/radiation therapy than were those with public or private insurance. These estimates may be useful for understanding the burden of cancer care and development of programs for cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Despite reports of increases in the cost of cancer treatment, little is known about how costs of cancer treatment have changed over time and what services have contributed to the increases. Methods We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database for 306709 persons aged 65 and older and diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer between 1991 and 2002 to assess the number of patients assigned to initial cancer care, from 2 months before diagnosis to 12 months after diagnosis, and mean annual Medicare payments for this care according to cancer type and type of treatment. Mutually exclusive treatment categories were cancer-related surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and other hospitalizations during the period of initial cancer care. Linear regression models were used to assess temporal trends in the percentage of patients receiving treatment and costs for those treated. We extrapolated our results based on the SEER data to the US Medicare population to estimate national Medicare payments by cancer site and treatment category. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results For patients diagnosed in 2002, Medicare paid an average of $39891 for initial care for each lung cancer patient, $41 134 for each colorectal cancer patient, and $20964 for each breast cancer patient, corresponding to inflation-adjusted increases from 1991 of $7139, $5345, and $4189, respectively. During the same interval, the mean Medicare payment for initial care for prostate cancer declined by $196 to $18261 in 2002. Costs for any hospitalization accounted for the largest portion of payments for all cancers. Chemotherapy use increased markedly for all cancers between 1991 and 2002, as did radiation therapy use (except for colorectal cancers). Total 2002 Medicare payments for initial care for these four cancers exceeded $6.7 billion, with colorectal and lung cancers being the most costly overall. Conclusions The statistically significant increase in costs of initial cancer treatment reflects more patients receiving surgery and adjuvant therapy and rising prices for these treatments. These trends are likely to continue in the near future, although more efficient targeting of costly therapies could mitigate the overall economic impact of this trend. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Timely estimates of the costs of care for cancer patients are an important element in the formulation of national cancer programs and policies. We estimated net costs of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States for the 18 most prevalent cancers and for all other tumor sites combined. Methods We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare files to identify 718907 cancer patients and 1623651 noncancer control subjects. Within each tumor site, noncancer control subjects were matched to patients by sex, age group, geographic location, and phase of care (ie, initial, continuing, and last year of life). Costs of care were estimated for each phase by use of Medicare claims data from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2003. Per-patient net costs of care were applied to the 5-year survival of cancer patients by phase of care to estimate 5-year costs of care and extrapolated to the elderly US Medicare population diagnosed with cancer in 2004. Results Across tumor sites, mean net costs of care were highest in the initial and last year of life phases of care and lowest in the continuing phase. Mean 5-year net costs varied widely, from less than $20000 for patients with breast cancer or melanoma of the skin to more than $40000 for patients with brain or other nervous system, esophageal, gastric, or ovarian cancers or lymphoma. For elderly cancer patients diagnosed in 2004, aggregate 5-year net costs of care to Medicare were estimated to be approximately $21.1 billion. Costs to Medicare were highest for lung, colorectal, and prostate cancers, reflecting underlying incidence, stage distribution at diagnosis, survival, and phase-specific costs for these tumor sites. Conclusions The costs of cancer care to Medicare are substantial and vary by tumor site, phase of care, stage at diagnosis, and survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which explored whether detection by mammography was associated with greater use of guideline-consistent breast cancer treatment among patients with diagnosed breast cancer in the U.S. The study found that patients who were diagnosed by mammography were more to have lower stage disease and to be treated in larger hospitals than patients who were diagnosed by other methods. It concluded that survival among patients with diagnosed breast cancer may inform understanding of factors associated with breast cancer prognosis.

Background: Although recent trends in the use of recommended breast and cervical cancer screening have been well documented in the USA, little is known about trends in the prevalence of abnormal screening results. Methods: Trends in abnormal screening results for mammography and Papanicolaou (Pap) smear were assessed descriptively using data from the 1987 and 2000 National Health Interview Surveys. Estimates were stratified by sociodemographic characteristics of the populations who reported ever receiving screening. All comparisons were evaluated with two-sided tests of statistical significance. Results: The age-standardized prevalence of abnormal Pap smears increased from 12.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.1–13.8%) of women ever screened in 1987 to 20.3% (95% CI 19.5–21.0%) in 2000, and the age-standardized prevalence of abnormal mammogram results increased from 18.8% (95% CI 17.0–20.7%) to 21.6% (95% CI 20.5–22.7%) of women ever screened over the same period. Among women aged 40 years and older who reported ever receiving both a Pap smear and a mammogram, 29.6% (95% CI: 27.3–32.2%) in 1987 and 35% (95% CI: 33.8–36.2%) in 2000 reported either an abnormal Pap smear or an abnormal mammogram. In 2000, abnormal screening results were positively associated with reported frequency of recent screening (P<0.001). Conclusions: A substantial portion of women in the USA reporting cancer screening also report having had abnormal results, although the magnitude of trends between 1987 and 2000 vary by screening test. Additional research is needed to assess the relative contributions of changes in classification of test results, test characteristics and changes in underlying screening histories to increases in abnormal screening results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: None of the recent national studies has ascertained how women''s breast cancer was detected in the United States. To rectify this gap, questions were added to the leading national health survey. Mammography was of special interest because it is widely used in the US and has evidence of a mortality benefit. Methods: We used the 2003 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), to ascertain the self-reported modalities used to detect breast cancer in the non-institutionalized US population. The study included 345 women 40–84 years of age who, in 2003, reported a personal history of breast cancer. We examined the frequency of self-reported characteristics and tested for association with mammography-detected breast cancer using logistic regression. Results: Among the survivors in 2003, the percentage of breast cancers detected by mammography was much higher after 2001 (59%) than before 1993 (29%). Breast cancer survivors with less than high school education or less than US$ 20,000 household income were less likely to report detection by mammography. Conclusions: Women reported mammography-detected breast cancer at a slightly higher rate than published studies of mammography sensitivity and use would suggest. Lower rates of mammography-detected breast cancers among survivors with low income or low education raise the question whether mammography is underutilized as a diagnostic tool, especially for underserved women. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background Although costs of medical care for cancer have been investigated extensively, patient time costs associated with cancer care have rarely been estimated systematically. In this study, we estimated patient time costs associated with cancer care in patients aged 65 years and older in the United States. Methods We identified 763527 patients with breast, colorectal, corpus uteri, gastric, head and neck, lung, melanoma of the skin, ovary, prostate, renal, and urinary bladder cancers from linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare files and 1145159 noncancer control subjects among Medicare enrollees who were matched by sex, age-group, and geographic location. Frequency of service use was calculated by category for patients and control subjects using Medicare claims data from 1995 to 2001. For each service category, time estimates were combined with service frequency and an hourly value of patient time. Net patient time costs were summed in the initial, continuing, and last-year-of-life phases of care for each tumor site. Net time cost estimates for the initial phase of care were applied to national estimates of numbers of new cancers in 2005 to obtain national time costs for the initial phase of care. Results Net patient time costs during the initial phase of care ranged from $271 (95% confidence interval [CI] = $213 to $329) and $842 (95% CI = $806 to $878) for melanoma of the skin and prostate cancer, respectively, to $5348 (95% CI = $4978 to $5718) and $5605 (95% CI = $5273 to $5937) for gastric and ovarian cancers, respectively. Net patient time costs for care during the last year of life ranged from $1509 (95% CI = $1343 to $1675) for melanoma of the skin to $7799 (95% CI = $7433 to $8165), $7435 (95% CI = $7207 to $7663), and $7388 (95% CI = $7018 to $7758) for gastric, lung, and ovarian cancers, respectively. In 2005, patient time costs for the initial phase of care were $2.3 billion. Conclusions Patient time costs for cancer care in the United States are substantial and vary by tumor site and phase of care, likely reflecting differences in stage at diagnosis and availability and intensity of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]