The Annual Cost of Cancer Screening in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cancer has substantial health, quality-of-life, and economic impacts. Screening may decrease cancer mortality and treatment costs, but the cost of screening in the United States is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the annual cost of initial cancer screening (that is, screening without follow-up costs) in the United States in 2021. DESIGN: Model using national health care survey and cost resources data. SETTING: U.S. health care systems and institutions. PARTICIPANTS: People eligible for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening with available data. MEASUREMENTS: The number of people screened and associated health care system costs by insurance status in 2021 dollars. RESULTS: Total health care system costs for initial cancer screenings in the United States in 2021 were estimated at $43 billion. Approximately 88.3% of costs were attributable to private insurance; 8.5% to Medicare; and 3.2% to Medicaid, other government programs, and uninsured persons. Screening for colorectal cancer represented approximately 64% of the total cost; screening colonoscopy represented about 55% of the total. Facility costs (amounts paid to facilities where testing occurred) were major drivers of the total estimated costs of screening. LIMITATIONS: All data on receipt of cancer screening are based on self-report from national health care surveys. Estimates do not include costs of follow-up for positive or abnormal screening results. Variations in costs based on geography and provider or health care organization are not fully captured. CONCLUSION: The $43 billion estimated annual cost for initial cancer screening in the United States in 2021 is less than the reported annual cost of cancer treatment in the United States in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Identification of cancer screening costs and their drivers is critical to help inform policy and develop programmatic priorities, particularly for enhancing access to recommended cancer screening services. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Cost-of-care discussions for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma: Findings from a large, population-based pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Costs of cancer care can result in patient financial hardship; many professional organizations recommend provider discussions about treatment costs as part of high-quality care. In this pilot study, the authors examined patient-provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma-cancers with recently approved, high-cost treatment options. METHODS: Individuals who were newly diagnosed in 2017-2018 with stage III/IV NSCLC (n = 1767) and in 2018 with stage III/IV melanoma (n = 689) from 12 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions were randomly selected for the National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Study. Documentation of cost discussions was abstracted from the medical record. The authors examined patient, treatment, and hospital factors associated with cost discussions in multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Cost discussions were documented in the medical records of 20.3% of patients with NSCLC and in 24.0% of those with melanoma. In adjusted analyses, privately insured (vs. publicly insured) patients were less likely to have documented cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80). Patients who did not receive systemic therapy or did not receive any cancer-directed treatment were less likely to have documented cost discussions than those who did receive systemic therapy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19-0.81] and 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.70], respectively), as were patients who were treated at hospitals without residency programs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Cost discussions were infrequently documented in the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and melanoma, which may hinder identifying patient needs and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. Efforts to increase cost-of-care discussions and relevant referrals, as well as their documentation, are warranted.

A pragmatic randomized trial of mailed fecal immunochemical testing to increase colorectal cancer screening among low-income and minoritized populations.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, particularly among low-income and minoritized populations, for whom the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged progress in achieving equity. METHODS: A hub-and-spoke model was used. The hub was a nonacademic organization and the spokes were three community health center (CHC) systems overseeing numerous clinic sites. Via a cluster-randomized trial design, nine clinic sites were randomized to intervention and 16 clinic sites were randomized to usual care. Patient-level interventions included invitation letters, mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), and call/text-based reminders. Year 1 intervention impact, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, was assessed as the proportion completing screening among individuals not up to date at baseline, which compared intervention and nonintervention clinics accounting for intraclinic cluster variation; confidence intervals (CIs) around differences not including 0 were interpreted as statistically significant. RESULTS: Among 26,736 patients who met eligibility criteria, approximately 58% were female, 55% were Hispanic individuals, and 44% were Spanish speaking. The proportion completing screening was 11.5 percentage points (ppts) (95% CI, 6.1-16.9 ppts) higher in intervention versus usual care clinics. Variation in differences between intervention and usual care clinics was observed by sex (12.6 ppts [95% CI, 7.2-18.0 ppts] for females; 8.8 ppts [95% CI, 4.7-13.9 ppts] for males) and by racial and ethnic group (13.8 ppts [95% CI, 7.0-20.6 ppts] for Hispanic individuals; 13.0 ppts [95% CI, 3.6-22.4 ppts] for Asian individuals; 11.3 ppts [95% CI, 5.8-16.8 ppts] for non-Hispanic White individuals; 6.1 ppts [95% CI, 0.8-10.4 ppts] for Black individuals). CONCLUSIONS: A regional mailed FIT intervention was effective for increasing CRC screening rates across CHC systems serving diverse, low-income populations.

Use of pembrolizumab among older adults with cancer in the United States, before and after FDA approval of its tumor-agnostic indication.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab, an anticancer immunotherapy agent, has received multiple approvals since its first approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014. Limited data exist on its real-world use and shifts post tumor-agnostic approval in 2017 for the treatment of patients with any microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) solid tumors. This study analyzes pembrolizumab's pre and post-tumor-agnostic approval use among older U.S. adults, revealing its evolving role in oncology practice. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data (2014-2019), we examined the cancer sites of pembrolizumab recipients before and after tumor-agnostic approval. Cancer sites were classified based on the timing of site-specific approvals (before/after tumor-agnostic approval) or no site-specific approval, and inclusion in MSI-H/dMMR clinical trials. RESULTS: The total number of pembrolizumab recipients increased from 4221 in the pre-agnostic period to 20 479 in the post-agnostic period. Pembrolizumab was used for a broad range of cancer types, including cancers that had no FDA-approved site-specific indications at the time of use (25.8% in pre- and 24.6% in post-agnostic periods). The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients receiving pembrolizumab for cancers with site-specific approvals before tumor-agnostic approval decreased from 77.3% to 70.8%. The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients receiving pembrolizumab for cancers that gained site-specific approvals following tumor-agnostic approval almost doubled (6.8% to 13.0%). The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients with cancers included in MSI-H/dMMR trials also doubled (12.3% to 25.5%) following tumor-agnostic approval. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab use has expanded over time among older adults with cancer, extending beyond those with FDA-approved site-specific indications.

Cancer Survivors' Experience of Care and Financial Toxicity: Results From a National Survey.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity (FT) can adversely affect quality of life, treatment adherence, and clinical outcomes. Patient experience of care (PEC) captures patient's perspectives on interactions with health care providers (HCPs) and systems, but the impact of PEC on FT is unknown. This study examined the relationship between PEC and FT. METHODS: We used data from the 2016-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Experience with Cancer Survivorship Supplement. PEC was assessed by patient-reported frequencies of their HCPs providing explanations that were easy to understand, listening carefully, showing respect, and spending enough time with the patient. FT was assessed by nine items to measure material, psychological, and behavioral FT. Analyses were performed using multivariable logistic regression controlling for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and weighted to produce nationally representative estimates and account for survey nonresponse. RESULTS: Data from 1,068 individuals diagnosed with cancer at age >18 years were assessed. A total of 30% reported material FT, 35% reported psychological FT, and 27% reported behavioral FT. Examining PEC, 64% of respondents indicated that HCPs always explained things, 60% always listened, 66% always showed respect, and 57% always spent adequate time with them. Odds of psychological FT were significantly (P < .05) lower among patients reporting HCPs always (v never/sometimes) listened to them (odds ratio [OR], 0.37 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.70]), showed them respect (OR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.81]), and spent enough time with them (OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.86]). Significant associations with PEC were also found with MEPS psychological FT items on worry about paying medical bills, family's financial stability, and keeping job/income because of cancer. CONCLUSION: Worry/anxiety regarding costs can be a major factor affecting individuals diagnosed with cancer. Improving patient-provider interactions to enhance patient experience of care may reduce psychological financial toxicity.

Association of race/ethnicity and patient care experiences with healthcare utilization and healthcare costs among prostate cancer survivors: A SEER-CAHPS study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the association of race/ethnicity and patient care experiences (PCEs) with healthcare utilization and costs among US older adults with prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study used data from 2007 to 2015 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results dataset linked to Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey and Medicare claims (SEER-CAHPS). We identified males aged ≥65 years who completed a CAHPS survey within 6-60 months post-PCa diagnosis. Covariate-adjusted associations of six CAHPS PCE composite measures with any emergency department visit and any inpatient stay (using logistic regressions), and with total part A and part B Medicare costs (using generalized linear models) were examined by race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian, and other). RESULTS: Among 1834 PCa survivors, a 1-point higher score for getting care quickly was associated with higher odds (odds ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.15; p = 0.009) of any inpatient stay in Hispanic patients. Higher total costs were associated with a 1-point higher score for getting needed care among Hispanic patients ($590.84; 95% CI: $262.15, $919.53; p < 0.001); a 1-point higher score for getting care quickly among Hispanic patients ($405.26; 95% CI: $215.83, $594.69; p < 0.001); and a 1-point higher score for customer service among patients belonging to other races ($361.69; 95% CI: $15.68, $707.69; p = 0.04). DISCUSSION: We observed differential associations by race/ethnicity between PCEs and healthcare utilization and costs. Further research is needed to explore the causes of these associations.

Role of Patient Characteristics and Insurance Type in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Care Disparities.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the role of social determinants of health (SDOH) in the utilization of novel treatments among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Taussig Cancer Center's Myeloma Patient Registry to identify adults with NDMM between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021. Electronic health records data captured treatment with (1) triplet or quadruplet regimen and (2) lenalidomide during the first year after NDMM, and (3) stem-cell transplant (SCT) through December 31, 2022. Multivariable logistic regression models examined associations of demographic/clinical characteristics and SDOH with care patterns. RESULTS: We identified 569 patients with median age at diagnosis of 66 years (IQR, 59-73); 55% were male, 76% White, 23% Black, 1.1% other races, insured by Medicare (51%), private payer (38%), Medicaid (8.3%), and self-pay/other (1.8%). In the multivariable models, self-pay/other payers (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.15 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.54]) was associated with lower odds of triplet or quadruplet regimen, compared with Medicare. Private insurance (AOR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.27 to 0.86]) and self-pay/other payers (AOR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.74]) had lower odds of lenalidomide. Black patients (v White; AOR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.85]) and patients treated at regional hospitals (v Taussig Cancer Center; AOR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.57]) had lower odds of SCT. The odds of receiving triplet or quadruplet regimen, lenalidomide, and SCT also varied by the year of NDMM. CONCLUSION: Care for NDMM varied based on race, insurance type, year of diagnosis, and treatment facility. It may be useful to examine the impact of insurance-related characteristics and recent policy initiatives on care disparities.