Faculty Opinions recommendation of Why do patients with cancer visit emergency departments? Results of a 2008 population study in North Carolina.

Author(s):  
Marcin Chwistek
2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (19) ◽  
pp. 2683-2688 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah K. Mayer ◽  
Debbie Travers ◽  
Annah Wyss ◽  
Ashley Leak ◽  
Anna Waller

Purpose Emergency departments (EDs) in the United States are used by patients with cancer for disease or treatment-related problems and unrelated issues. The North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool (NC DETECT) collects information about ED visits through a statewide database. Patients and Methods After approval by the institutional review board, 2008 NC DETECT ED visit data were acquired and cancer-related visits were identified. Descriptive statistics and logistic regressions were performed. Of 4,190,911 ED visits in 2008, there were 37,760 ED visits by 27,644 patients with cancer. Results Among patients, 77.2% had only one ED visit in 2008, the mean age was 64 years, and there were slightly more men than women. Among visits, the payor was Medicare for 52.4% and Medicaid for 12.1%. More than half the visits by patients with cancer occurred on weekends or evenings, and 44.9% occurred during normal hours. The top three chief complaints were related to pain, respiratory distress, and GI issues. Lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers were identified in 26.9%, 6.3%, 6%, and 7.7% of visits, respectively, with diagnosis. A total of 63.2% of visits resulted in hospital admittance. When controlling for sex, age, time of day, day of week, insurance, and diagnosis position, patients with lung cancer were more likely to be admitted than patients with other types of cancer. Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to provide a population-based snapshot of ED visits by patients with cancer in North Carolina. Efforts that target clinical problems and specific populations may improve delivery of quality cancer care and avoid ED visits.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. e190979 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey M. Caterino ◽  
David Adler ◽  
Danielle D. Durham ◽  
Sai-Ching Jim Yeung ◽  
Matthew F. Hudson ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Aaron Philip Mitchell

8 Background: The rising cost of cancer drugs may make treatment unaffordable for some patients. Patients often rely on drug manufacturer-administered Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs (PAPs) to obtain drugs at reduced or no cost. The overall impact of PAPs on cancer care delivery is unknown. Methods: We identified all patients obtaining cancer drugs across an academically affiliated, integrated health system in the state of North Carolina during 2014. The proportion of patients receiving PAP assistance, and the retail value of the assistance, were quantified for each oncology drug. Cancer drugs were analyzed with respect to route of administration. Results: 215 unique patients submitted a total of 478 successful PAP requests for cancer drugs. The majority of the retail value of drugs obtained was for oral cancer drugs, particularly targeted therapies including tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Among all cancer patients who received medical treatment, 5.5% required PAP assistance, whereas 10.6% receiving an oral agent required PAP assistance (Table). The proportion receiving PAP assistance varied substantially by drug, ranging from <1% of patients (e.g., carboplatin, methotrexate) to 50% of patients (e.g., ponatinib, temsirolimus). Patients obtained a total of $1,556,575 of imatinib and $1,449,633 of dasatinib, which were the two drugs with the highest aggregate retail value. 40% of PAP-utilizing patients were uninsured, 26% had Medicaid coverage, 20% had Medicare coverage, and 14% were commercially insured. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of patients with cancer receive private charitable assistance through PAPs in order to obtain standard-of-care treatments. In particular, a disproportionate share of patients treated with orally-available cancer drugs require PAP assistance. This includes patients with federal and private insurance, suggesting an inability of patients to meet cost-sharing requirements. [Table: see text]


2014 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary Y. Kerr ◽  
Katherine J. Harmon ◽  
Stephen W. Marshall ◽  
Scott K. Proescholdbell ◽  
Anna E. Waller

2007 ◽  
Vol 68 (6) ◽  
pp. 399-403
Author(s):  
Amy Tucker Woodell ◽  
James Michael Bowling ◽  
Kathryn E. Moracco ◽  
Melissa L. Reed

Author(s):  
Alexandra M Procter ◽  
Angela Gialamas ◽  
Rhiannon M Pilkington ◽  
Alicia Montgomerie ◽  
Catherine R Chittleborough ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document