Understanding the Implications of Medicaid Expansion for Cancer Care in the US

JAMA Oncology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa Ermer ◽  
Samantha L. Walters ◽  
Maureen E. Canavan ◽  
Michelle C. Salazar ◽  
Andrew X. Li ◽  
...  
2022 ◽  
pp. 000313482110604
Author(s):  
Alison R. Goldenberg ◽  
Lauren M. Willcox ◽  
Daria M. Abolghasemi ◽  
Renjian Jiang ◽  
Zheng Z. Wei ◽  
...  

Background Patient and socioeconomic factors both contribute to disparities in post-mastectomy reconstruction (PMR) rates. We sought to explore PMR patterns across the US and to determine if PMR rates were associated with Medicaid expansion. Methods The NCDB was used to identify women who underwent PMR between 2004-2016. The data was stratified by race, state Medicaid expansion status, and region. A multivariate model was fit to determine the association between Medicaid expansion and receipt of PMR. Results In comparison to Caucasian women receiving PMR in Medicaid expansion states, African American (AA) women in Medicaid expansion states were less likely to receive PMR (OR .96 [.92-1.00] P < .001). Patients in the Northeast (NE) had better PMR rates vs any other region in the US, for both Caucasian and AA women (Caucasian NE ref, Caucasian-South .80 [.77-.83] vs AA NE 1.11 [1.04-1.19], AA-South (.60 [.58-.63], P < .001). Interestingly, AA patients residing in the NE had the highest receipt of PMR 1.11 (1.04-1.19), even higher than their Caucasian counterparts residing in the same region (ref). Rural AA women had the lowest rates of PMR vs rural Caucasian women (.40 [.28-.58] vs .79 [.73-.85], P < .001]. Discussion Racial disparities in PMR rates persisted despite Medicaid expansion. When stratified by region, however, AA patients in the NE had higher rates of PMR than AA women in other regions. The largest disparities were seen in AA women in the rural US. Breast cancer disparities continue to be a complex problem that was not entirely mitigated by improved insurance coverage.


2018 ◽  
Vol 227 (4) ◽  
pp. S150
Author(s):  
Kerui Xu ◽  
Charles W. Acher ◽  
Nick A. Zaborek ◽  
Jessica R. Schumacher ◽  
Elise H. Lawson
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 1253
Author(s):  
The Lancet Oncology
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (11-12) ◽  
pp. e847-e855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne L Eaglehouse ◽  
Matthew W Georg ◽  
Patrick Richard ◽  
Craig D Shriver ◽  
Kangmin Zhu

ABSTRACT Introduction Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the USA, contributing largely to US healthcare spending. Provision of services (direct or purchased) and insurance benefit type may impact cost for cancer care. As a common cause of cancer in both men and women, we aim to compare colon cancer treatment costs between insurance benefit types and care sources in the US Military Health System (MHS) to better understand whether and to what extent these system factors impact cancer care costs. Materials and Methods Department of Defense Central Cancer Registry records and MHS Data Repository administrative claims were used to identify MHS beneficiaries aged 18–64 who were diagnosed with primary colon adenocarcinoma and received treatment between 2003 and 2008. The data linkage was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the Defense Health Agency, and the National Institutes of Health. Costs to the MHS for each claim related to cancer treatment were extracted from the linked data and adjusted to 2008 USD. We used quantile regression models to compare median cancer treatment costs between benefit types and care sources (direct, purchased, or both), adjusted for demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Results The median per capita (n = 801) costs for colon cancer care were $60,321 (interquartile range $24,625, $159,729) over a median follow-up of 1.7 years. The model-estimated treatment costs were similar between benefit types. Patients using direct care had significantly lower estimated median costs [$34,145 (standard error $4,326)] than patients using purchased care [$106,395 ($10,559)] or both care sources [$82,439 ($13,330)], controlled for patient demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Differences in cost by care source were noted for patients with later stage tumors and by treatment type. Relative costs were 2–3 times higher for purchased care compared to direct care for patients with late-stage tumors and for patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation treatment. Conclusions In the MHS, median cost for colon cancer treatment was lower in direct care compared to purchased care or patients using a combination of direct and purchased care. The variation in cancer treatment costs between care sources may be due to differences in treatment incentives or capabilities. Additional studies on cost differences between direct and purchased services are needed to understand how provision of care affects cancer treatment costs and to identify possible targets for cost reduction.


BMJ ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 346 (may29 4) ◽  
pp. f3261-f3261 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Noble ◽  
N. Biller-Andorno ◽  
J. M. Sutherland ◽  
M. Anstey
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document