Towards reducing cancer burden within the Medicaid program: Impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer stage at diagnosis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1572-1572
Author(s):  
Siran M. Koroukian ◽  
Jennifer Tsui ◽  
Weichuan Dong ◽  
Xiaoyu Yan ◽  
Uriel Kim ◽  
...  

1572 Background: Studies to date have shown post-Medicaid expansion (M-exp) decreases in the percentage of cancer patients who are uninsured and improvements in cancer stage at diagnosis in states that expanded Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act. However, most studies have examined impact of M-exp on stage outcomes at the population level, or among Medicaid and uninsured, rather than solely in the Medicaid population. Using cancer registry data from a non M-exp state (Georgia (GA)) and two M-exp states (Ohio (OH) and New Jersey (NJ)), we compared changes in cancer stage in patients on Medicaid, accounting for individual- and contextual-level characteristics at the Zip Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) level. Methods: We used GA, OH, and NJ cancer registry data for individuals 20-64 years of age and diagnosed with incident invasive female breast (BC), cervical (CC), and colorectal cancer (CRC). Data spanned from 2010-2017 for GA and OH, and from 2011-2016 for NJ (for BC and CRC only), with 2014 marking the year in which Medicaid was expanded in OH and NJ. We retrieved demographic data (age, race/ethnicity, sex for CRC, insurance status, and cancer stage from the cancer registries), and obtained ZCTA-level data from the American Community Survey (e.g., income, education, and female-headed households). We defined late-stage diagnosis as regional- or distant- stage. We conducted multivariable logistic regression models by state and cancer site to examine changes in late-stage cancer diagnosis pre- and post-M-exp, accounting for individual- and ZCTA-level covariates. Results: The number of patients with incident cancer who were on Medicaid increased by 41.7% (n = 1757 to 2490), 59.6% (327 to 522), and 76.4% (953 to 1681) for BC, CC, and CRC cancers, respectively, in Ohio; by 92.4% (433 to 833) for BC and by over 100% for CRC (232 to 496) in NJ; but by 12.7% (662 to 746) among CRC patients in GA, where the number of BC and CC patients on Medicaid remained relatively stable. Adjusting for individual and contextual-level factors, the adjusted risk ratio (ARR and (95% Confidence Interval)) for late-stage disease was lowest for BC patients in OH (0.93 (0.87, 0.99)) and for CRC patients in GA (0.94 (0.89, 0.99)). The ARR for BC and CRC in NJ were not statistically significant, though they trended towards improvement. Similarly, changes in late-stage for CC were not statistically significant in OH or in GA. Conclusions: The increased number of cancer patients in Medicaid and the reductions in late-stage diagnosis observed may potentially translate into reduced, or at least stabilized, cancer-related morbidity and mortality burden among Medicaid beneficiaries over time. However, reductions in late-stage diagnosis were not consistent across cancer sites or states, possibly due to differences in population demographics, health behaviors, healthcare seeking patterns, and state-level cancer prevention efforts.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10557-10557
Author(s):  
Ariella Cohain ◽  
Christine Hathaway ◽  
Mudit Gupta ◽  
Braxton Lagerman ◽  
Yali Li ◽  
...  

10557 Background: Several studies have shown screening methods can detect cancer at earlier stages and improve cancer prognosis; however, only four cancer types (breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung) currently have screening methods recommended by the United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF). In 2021, these four cancers are expected to make up roughly 40% of new cases and cancer deaths, meaning that the majority of cancer deaths will be associated with cancer types lacking recommended screening. We sought to characterize patients who were diagnosed with cancer types with and without recommended screening modalities to demonstrate the gaps in screening faced by the majority of cancers today. Methods: The Geisinger Health System (GHS) Phenomics Initiative Database (PIDB) provides deidentified data from electronic health, billing, and imaging records, and a tumor registry. PIDB was used to identify patients aged 50 to 76 who had cancers diagnosed between 2008 and 2020 and a record of USPSTF-recommended cancer screenings within GHS prior to diagnosis. Analysis focused on patients who received care at GHS during their screening-eligible intervals. Results: Between 2008 and 2020, 13,347 incident invasive cancers were identified in the GHS tumor registry. Of these, 40% (N = 5,331) were cancer types with a recommended screening modality. 57% of these cases (N = 3,039; 23% of all incident cancers) occurred in patients who underwent screening in the interval preceding diagnosis. Screening adherence was significantly associated with stage at diagnosis; patients who were not screened for their diagnosed cancer were more than twice as likely to have a late-stage diagnosis as compared with patients who received screening (multivariate ordinal logistic regression, OR = 2.16, p < 0.001). Patterns of screening adherence in this population are complex; however, 57% of these patients had received screening for a different cancer type. The majority of incident cancers were of those types with no recommended screening modality (N = 8,016; 60% of all incident cancers). Of these, most (N = 6,252; 78%) had been screened for at least one of breast, lung, colon, or cervical cancer and nearly half (N = 3,607; 45%) were current for all guideline-recommended screenings. Not surprisingly, stage at diagnosis was not associated with adherence to any or all screening modalities (multivariate ordinal logistic regression, p = 0.11 and p = 0.45). Conclusions: The majority (79%) of individuals diagnosed with cancer had a history of adherence to at least one screening recommendation. Out of all cancer patients, only 23% were screened specifically for the cancer with which they were subsequently diagnosed, a group that is associated with a lower odds of a late-stage diagnosis. This suggests that the majority of cancer patients who underwent any cancer screening did not benefit from earlier stage diagnosis.


2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xianhui Ran ◽  
Hongmei Zeng ◽  
Siwei Zhang ◽  
Lan An ◽  
Rongshou Zheng ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To explore the distribution and factors associated with cancer stage at diagnosis, we conducted a multi-center hospital-based study in China. Methods 38 hospitals were selected to set up the Chinese cancer clinical database. Detailed stage information was collected from clinical records and focus on cancers of the lung, stomach, colon-rectum, liver, female breast, and esophagus diagnosed during 2016-2017. We compared the stage distribution with the US by data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database during the same period. Results Overall 69632 first diagnosed cancer cases were analyzed. The proportion of cancer patients in stage I varies by cancer site, with highest in breast (28%) and lowest in liver (13%). The proportion of cancer cases at stage I was generally higher in women (OR:1.7,95%CI:1.6-1.8), in young (&lt;65 years) (OR:1.2,1.1-1.2) and in subjects having Chinese Urban Insurances (OR:1.9,1. 8-2.0). Except for esophageal cancer, the other five major cancers in China had more advanced stage than in the US. Conclusions Socio-demographic inequalities exist in stage at diagnosis for major cancer cases in China. Early detection interventions are especially needed to be targeted on patients with higher risk of advance disease diagnosis. Key messages Multi-center hospital-based study on cancer stage distribution in China shows that women, young, and those with Chinese Urban Insurance were more likely to be diagnosed with early stage. Stage distribution in China was generally more advanced compared with cancer patients in the US.


2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 719-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoichiro Tsukada ◽  
Fumiaki Nakamura ◽  
Momoko Iwamoto ◽  
Hiroshi Nishimoto ◽  
Yoshiko Emori ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 282-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Djenaba A. Joseph ◽  
Phyllis A. Wingo ◽  
Jessica B. King ◽  
Lori A. Pollack ◽  
Lisa C. Richardson ◽  
...  

AbstractPurpose:The objective of this study was to estimate the burden of cancer in counties affected by Hurricane Katrina using population-based cancer registry data, and to discuss issues related to cancer patients who have been displaced by disasters.Methods:The cancer burden was assessed in 75 counties in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi that were designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as eligible for individual and public assistance. Data from the National Program of Cancer Registries were used to determine three-year average annual age-adjusted incidence rates and case counts during the diagnosis years 2000–2002 for Louisiana and Alabama. Expected rates and counts for the most-affected counties in Mississippi were estimated by direct, age-specific calculation using the 2000–2002 county level populations and the site-, sex-, race-, and age-specific cancer incidence rates for Louisiana.Results:An estimated 23,549 persons with a new diagnosis of cancer in the past year resided in the disaster-affected counties. Fifty-eight percent of the cases were cancers of the lung/bronchus, colon/rectum, female breast, and prostate. Eleven of the top 15 cancer sites by sex and black/white race in disaster counties had >50% of cases diagnosed at the regional or distant stage.Conclusions:Sizable populations of persons with a recent cancer diagnosis were potentially displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Cancer patients required special attention to access records in order to confirm diagnosisand staging, minimize disruption in treatment, and ensure coverage of care. Cancer registry data can be used to provide disaster planners and clinicians with estimates of the number of cancer patients, many of whom maybe undergoing active treatment.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. e0180033 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingwei Luo ◽  
Sam Egger ◽  
Xue Qin Yu ◽  
David P. Smith ◽  
Dianne L. O’Connell

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document