All Men Are Created Equal: Addressing Disparities in Prostate Cancer Care

Author(s):  
Hala Borno ◽  
Daniel J. George ◽  
Lowell E. Schnipper ◽  
Franco Cavalli ◽  
Thomas Cerny ◽  
...  

The global cancer burden is estimated to have risen to 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million deaths in 2018. By 2030, the number of cancer cases is projected to increase to 24.6 million and the number of cancer deaths, to 13 million. Global data mask the social and health disparities that influence cancer incidence and survival. Inequality in exposure to carcinogens, education, access to quality diagnostic services, and affordable treatments all affect the probability of survival. Worryingly, despite the fact that many cancers could be prevented by stronger public health actions and many others could be largely cured by better access to diagnostics and affordable treatments, the international community has yet to make a substantial move to tackle this challenge. In prostate cancer, studies show that there are geographic and racial/ethnic distribution differences as well as a number of other variables, including environmental factors, limited access to standard cancer treatments, reduced probability to be included in trials, and the financial burden of cancer treatments. Financial burden for the patients can result in poor adherence, increased debt, and poor long-term outcomes. The following article will discuss some of the important causes for disparity in prostate cancer and prostate cancer care, focused on the current situation in the United States, as well as possible remedies to address these causes.

2018 ◽  
pp. 2-4
Author(s):  
Kevin J. Dougherty ◽  
Claire Callender

This article explores what England and the United States can learn from each other withregard to reducing social class and racial/ethnic differences in higher education accessand completion. It focuses on seven policy strands: student information provision;outreach from higher education institutions; student financial aid; affirmative action orcontextualization in higher education admissions; higher education efforts to improveretention and completion; performance funding; and degree of reliance onsubbaccalaureate institutions.


2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 225-234
Author(s):  
Lindsay Rosenfeld ◽  
Jessica M. Kramer ◽  
Melissa Levin ◽  
Kimberly Barrett ◽  
Dolores Acevedo-Garcia

Optimal child development is supported by services, policies, a social determinants of health (SDOH) frame, and meaningful participation (as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health–Children and Youth [ICF-CY]). This scoping review describes the social determinants that may affect the participation of young children aged 0 to 3 years with developmental disabilities (DD) in the United States. Scoping review of studies including U.S. children with DD aged 0 to 3 years, from 2000 to 2016, were used. 5/979 studies met inclusion criteria. Two researchers independently coded studies to align them with both ICF-CY and SDOH. Studies found determinants of participation stemming from the child (e.g., individual) and multiple contexts: immediate, community, and policy. The emergent literature continues to primarily focus on child determinants but suggests participation of young children with DD is affected by social determinants stemming from the community and policy contexts. The literature underrepresents children from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (32) ◽  
pp. 4151-4157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ya-Chen Tina Shih ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Denise Aberle ◽  
Amy Abernethy ◽  
Justin Bekelman ◽  
...  

The national cost of cancer care is projected to reach $173 billion by 2020, increasing from $125 billion in 2010. This steep upward cost trajectory has placed enormous an financial burden on patients, their families, and society as a whole and raised major concern about the ability of the health care system to provide and sustain high-quality cancer care. To better understand the cost drivers of cancer care and explore approaches that will mitigate the problem, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the Institute of Medicine held a workshop entitled “Delivering Affordable Cancer Care in the 21st Century” in October 2012. Workshop participants included bioethicists, health economists, primary care physicians, and medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists, from both academic and community settings. All speakers expressed a sense of urgency about the affordability of cancer care resulting from the future demographic trend as well as the high cost of emerging cancer therapies and rapid diffusion of new technologies in the absence to evidence indicating improved outcomes for patients. This article is our summary of presentations at the workshop that highlighted the overuse and underuse of screening, treatments, and technologies throughout the cancer care continuum in oncology practice in the United States.


Author(s):  
Ryan D. Nipp ◽  
Ellen Miller Sonet ◽  
Gery P. Guy

In recent years, high health care costs and the financial burden of cancer care have received increased attention. In response to the financial burden of cancer care, patients may jeopardize their health outcomes by not properly adhering to prescribed therapies or even forgoing and delaying care in an effort to defray costs. In addition, the financial burden experienced by patients with cancer may negatively impact clinical outcomes, such as quality of life, physical and psychological symptoms, and potentially, even survival. Notably, in the current era of targeted treatment and immunotherapies for patients with cancer, the rising costs of cancer continue to remain at the forefront of patient concerns. Therefore, a critical need exists to determine how best to assist patients with the cost burden of cancer diagnosis and treatment


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 59-59
Author(s):  
Risha Gidwani ◽  
Randall Gale ◽  
Diane E. Meier ◽  
Steven M Asch

59 Background: Cancer is one of the highest cost conditions in the United States, with growth in cancer costs outpacing general medical costs. This is troubling from a patient perspective. Patients with cancer experience significantly greater financial burdens compared with patients with other medical conditions. Many patients forgo or discontinue cancer treatment partly because they do not want to burden their families with significant debt. The growth of cancer and other medical costs is also threatening the health of the U.S. economy, prompting calls for the need for high-value practices. In healthcare, value indicates an achievement of patient outcomes proportional to the resources spent to achieve them. Increasing the provision of palliative care may be one way to achieve higher value care in cancer. Methods: We summarize the literature regarding palliative care, patient outcomes, and costs to assess the value of palliative care in advanced cancer. We also review the literature to identify reasons for low patient receipt of palliative care. Results: Palliative care represents a strong opportunity to improve the value of cancer care. Palliative care is associated with better informed and more satisfied patients and families, a reduction in use of undesired medical services, and does not pose a risk of increased mortality. Reasons for low rates of palliative care include a mismatch between how patients perceive palliative care and how physicians believe patients perceive palliative care, a lack of familiarity with locally-available palliative services, and a perceived incompatibility with cancer therapy. Conclusions: Palliative care for patients with cancer can improve the patient and family experience while maximizing value for the healthcare system and averting unnecessary patient financial burden. Systems redesign is needed in order to support oncologists in supporting the palliative care needs of their patients and realizing this high-value cancer care.


2018 ◽  
Vol 199 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumedha Chhatre ◽  
S Bruce Malkowicz ◽  
J Sanford Schwartz ◽  
Ravishankar Jayadevappa

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan D. Nipp ◽  
Hang Lee ◽  
Elizabeth Powell ◽  
Nicole E. Birrer ◽  
Emily Poles ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document