scholarly journals The Relationship between Health Insurance and Mortality for Cancer Patients: Medicare Advantage versus Fee-For-Service Medicare

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. p293
Author(s):  
Brett Lissenden

Compared to traditional fee-for-service Medicare (FFS), private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans offer additional health insurance coverage but restrict access to medical providers. This study measured how MA enrollment, relative to FFS enrollment, may influence mortality for cancer patients. The study used linked data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program and Medicare administration (SEER-Medicare) including diagnoses between 2006 and 2011 at all four major cancer sites (breast, colorectal, lung, prostate). The key innovation of the study was to measure and account for variation in prescription drug coverage between MA and FFS cancer patients. Among cancer patients with Part D coverage, MA enrollment was associated with modestly increased mortality. The estimated relationships were statistically distinguishable from zero for lung cancer and (in most model specifications) colorectal cancer. The findings are consistent with a hypothesis that restricted provider access may reduce health outcomes for patients who already have a serious illness.

2011 ◽  
Vol 165 (2) ◽  
pp. 338
Author(s):  
J.K. Smith ◽  
S. Ng ◽  
J.S. Hill ◽  
T.P. McDade ◽  
S.A. Shah ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
David A. Lipschutz

The Medicare program is quietly becoming privatized through increasing enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, even though MA has not lived up to its promise of delivering better care at lower cost. Policymakers must reverse this trend and ensure parity between traditional Medicare and MA rather than encourage it through legislation that only benefits MA. Furthermore, as discussions of expanding health insurance coverage through Medicare intensify, policymakers should explore what version of Medicare they wish to expand.


2010 ◽  
Vol 211 (3) ◽  
pp. S109
Author(s):  
Jillian K. Smith ◽  
SiNg Chau Ng ◽  
James E. Carroll ◽  
Theodore P. McDade ◽  
Shimul A. Shah ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6551-6551
Author(s):  
Leticia Maciel Nogueira ◽  
Jason A. Efstathiou ◽  
Helmneh M. Sineshaw ◽  
K Robin Yabroff ◽  
Ahmedin Jemal

6551 Background: Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) is a potentially superior radiotherapy technology for tumors with complex anatomy surrounded by sensitive tissues and for childhood cancers where sparing surrounding normal tissue is better achieved than with photon radiotherapy. The first conditions for payment of PBT claims went into effect in 2009. In 2014, the American Society of Radiation Oncology categorized PBT clinical indications into Group 1, for which health insurance coverage is recommended, and Group 2, for which coverage is recommended only if additional requirements are met. Methods: We evaluated 21,920 newly diagnosed patients in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) who received PBT between 2004 and 2016. Joinpoint analyses were used to evaluate the Annual Percent Change (APC) in the number and characteristics of patients treated with PBT. Results: The number of patients treated with PBT in NCDB facilities increased from 1,114 in 2004 to 3,173 in 2016 (APC = 8.78, p < .001), due mainly to increases in Group 1 cancers after 2010 (from 271 patients in 2010 to 1,124 in 2016, APC = 26.4, p < .001). The number of Group 2 patients treated with PBT increased slower (from 937 in 2004 to 2,049 in 2016, APC = 6.1, p < .05). Breast and prostate cancers were most common, although trends varied substantially by cancer site. Between 2010 and 2016, receipt of PBT increased for breast cancer patients from 40 in 2010 to 405 in 2016 (APC = 48.5, p < .001), but decreased for prostate cancer patients from 1,205 in 2011 to 680 in 2016 (APC = -14.06, p < .001). While most of Group 1 patients had private insurance coverage (59.3% of patients treated in 2016), Medicare was the most common primary insurance type among Group 2 patients (50% of patients treated in 2016). Conclusions: The number of newly diagnosed cancer patients treated with PBT has increased between 2004 to 2016 in the US, with a sharp increase for cancers with clinical indications for health insurance coverage since 2010. While most of these patients have private insurance coverage, the steady increase in the number of patients being treated with PBT for cancers with additional requirements for health insurance coverage is primarily in those with Medicare coverage.


Medical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Benitez ◽  
Timothy Williams ◽  
Evan Goldstein ◽  
Eric E. Seiber

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document