Do Contemporary Cancer Survivors Experience Better Quality of Life? Evaluating a Decade of SEER Medicare Health Outcomes Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: A cancer diagnosis may have deleterious effects on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as adults age. This study examined differences in HRQOL between cancer and matched noncancer Medicare beneficiaries over 65, within and across two time periods. METHODS: We used novel matching methods on data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) data resource. We matched SEER-MHOS respondents with cancer from a recent period (2015-2019) to respondents with cancer from an earlier period (2008-2012). We then matched these two cohorts, without replacement, to contemporary cohorts without cancer diagnoses. We estimated Veteran's RAND 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores for all cohorts. RESULTS: Our analysis found significantly higher mean MCS scores in the recent period for those with cancer relative to the recent noncancer control group. Breast and lung cancer presented positive and statistically significant trends. We found statistically insignificant differences in PCS scores between the two time periods. No cancer sites had different PCS scores over time compared with the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health for those with cancer improved more between 2008 and 2019 than a matched noncancer comparison group. Physical health remained stable across time. These findings highlight the importance of including a matched noncancer group when evaluating HRQOL outcomes. IMPACT: SEER-MHOS respondents with cancer report stable PCS scores across 15 years of data and higher MCS scores relative to noncancer controls.

Associations between healthcare costs and care experiences among older adults with and without cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Care coordination and patient-provider communication are important for older adults with cancer, as they likely have additional, non-cancer chronic conditions requiring consultation across multiple providers. Suboptimal care coordination and patient-provider communication can lead to costly and preventable adverse outcomes. This study examines Medicare expenditures associated with patient-reported care coordination and patient-provider communication among older adults with and without cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We explore SEER-CAHPS® (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) linked data for differences in health care expenditures by care coordination and patient-provider communication experiences for beneficiaries with and without cancer. The cancer cohort included beneficiaries with ten prevalent cancer types diagnosed 2011-2019 at least six months before completing a CAHPS survey. Medicare expenditures were abstracted from Medicare claims data. Care coordination and patient-provider communication composite scores (range 0-100, higher scores indicate better experiences) were patient-reported in the CAHPS® survey. We estimated expenditure differences per one-point change in composite scores for patients with and without cancer. RESULTS: Our analysis included 16,778 matched beneficiaries with and without a previously diagnosed cancer (N = 33,556). Higher care coordination and patient-provider communication scores were inversely associated with Medicare expenditures among beneficiaries with and without cancer in the six months prior to survey response, ranging from -$83 (standard error [SE] = $7) to -$90 (SE = $6) per month. Six months post-survey, expenditures estimates ranging -$88 (SE = $6) to -$106 (SE = $8) were found. DISCUSSION: We found that lower Medicare expenditures were associated with higher care coordination and patient-provider communication scores. As the number of survivors living longer both with and beyond their cancer grows, addressing their multifaceted care and improving outcomes will be critical.

Associations between mental health and care experiences among older adults with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand whether people with cancer who received mental health services reported different care experiences than those who did not. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems (CAHPS) linked data to identify Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 and over diagnosed with solid tumor malignancies between 8/2006 and 12/2013. We identified mental health services using claims spanning 12 months before cancer diagnosis through up to 5 years afterward. Outcomes were care experience ratings (e.g., Overall Care) and composite measures (e.g., Doctor Communication). We estimated frequentist and Bayesian regression models adjusted for standard confounders, including sociodemographics, general and mental health status (MHS), and other characteristics. Models included interaction terms to understand whether mental healthcare changes self-reported experiences for individuals with adverse MHS. RESULTS: Approximately 22% (n = 4998 individuals with cancer) had a mental health disorder claim; 17% of these reported fair/poor MHS versus only 7% of those in the cancer-only cohort (without a mental health disorder claim). Before adjusting for mental healthcare utilization and case-mix, worse MHS was associated with worse care experiences (p < 0.001 for all six measures). After accounting for mental health disorder-related healthcare utilization and case mix, multivariable regression models showed no associations between MHS and worse care experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Care for mental health disorders mediates the association between MHS and perceived care experiences. The results suggest that mental health treatment may improve the self-reported experiences of care for older adults with cancer and adverse mental health issues.

Associations between illness burden and care experiences among Medicare beneficiaries before or after a cancer diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: To understand associations between a new measure of illness burden and care experiences in a large, national sample of Medicare beneficiaries surveyed before or after a cancer diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SEER-CAHPS Illness Burden Index (SCIBI) was previously developed using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) linked data. The SCIBI provides a standardized morbidity score based on self- and other-reported information from 8 domains and proxies relative risk of 12-month, all-cause mortality among people surveyed before or after a cancer diagnosis. We analyzed a population of Medicare beneficiaries (n = 116,735; 49% fee-for-service and 51% Medicare Advantage [MA]; 73% post-cancer diagnosis) surveyed 2007-2013 to understand how their SCIBI scores were associated with 12 different care experience measures. Frequentist and Bayesian multivariable regression models adjusted for standard case-mix adjustors, enrollment type, timing of cancer diagnoses relative to survey, and survey year. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: SCIBl scores were associated (P < .001) in frequentist models with better ratings of Health Plan (coefficient ± standard error: 0.33 ± 0.08) and better Getting Care Quickly scores (0.51 ± 0.09). In Bayesian models, individuals with higher illness burden had similar results on the same two measures and also reported reliably worse Overall Care experiences (coefficient ± posterior SD: -0.17 ± 0.06). Illness burden may influence how people experience care or report those experiences. Individuals with greater illness burdens may need intensive care coordination and multilevel interventions before and after a cancer diagnosis.

Are care experiences associated with survival among cancer patients? An analysis of the SEER-CAHPS data resource.

PURPOSE: Cancer patients' care experiences encompass the range of interactions with the health care system and are an important indicator of care quality, which may influence survival outcomes. This study evaluates relationships between care experiences and survival using a large, nationally representative sample of cancer patients. METHODS: We used linked SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results)-CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) data to identify people diagnosed 8/2006-12/2013, focusing on 10 solid tumor cancer sites with the highest mortality rates among those > 65. CAHPS measures included 5 global ratings and 3 composite scores. We used survey-weighted Cox proportional hazard models comparing survival time for those who had lower (0-8) vs higher ratings (9-10) and lower (0-89) vs higher (90-100) composite scores, adjusting for case-mix and additional covariates. RESULTS: We identified 2,263 eligible people; 26% died by 5-year post-survey completion or end of follow-up (12/31/2017). We found lower Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) ratings were significantly associated with lower mortality (adjusted HR = 0.67, p = 0.03). Lower Getting Needed Care scores were also significantly associated with lower mortality (adjusted HR = 0.79, p = 0.04). For other care experience measures, general health status, cancer stage, and comorbidities were more predictive of survival (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Except for PDP and Getting Needed Care, survival was similar for those with worse versus better care experiences. Patients with poorer cancer prognoses may perceive better services from their drug plan and more responsive care from clinical providers compared to those with better prognoses. Further research is needed examining processes underlying perceptions of care experiences and survival.

Associations between shared care and patient experiences among older cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivors have unique medical care needs. "Shared care," delivered by both oncologists and primary care providers (PCPs), may better address these needs. Little information is available on differences in outcomes among survivors receiving shared care versus oncologist-led or PCP-led care. This study compared experiences of care for survivors receiving shared care, oncologist-led, PCP-led, or other care patterns. METHODS: We used SEER-CAHPS data, including NCI's SEER registry data, Medicare claims, and Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey responses. Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries age ≥ 65 years in SEER-CAHPS with breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, renal, or prostate cancers or hematologic malignancies who responded to a Medicare CAHPS survey ≥ 18 months post-diagnosis were included. CAHPS measures included ratings of overall care, personal doctor, specialist physician, health plan, prescription drug plan, and five composite scores. Survivorship care patterns were identified using proportions of oncologist, PCP, and other physician encounters. Multivariable regressions examined associations between care patterns and CAHPS outcomes. RESULTS: Among 10,132 survivors, 15% received shared care, 10% oncologist-led, 33% PCP-led, and 42% other. Compared with shared care, we found no significant differences in experiences of care except for getting needed drugs (lower scores for PCP-led and other care patterns). Sensitivity analyses using different patterns of care definitions similarly showed no associations between survivorship care pattern and experience of care. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study dataset, survivors age 65+ receiving shared care reported similar experiences of care to those receiving oncologist-led, PCP-led, and other patterns of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Shared care may not provide survivor-perceived benefits compared with other care patterns.

Random survival forests using linked data to measure illness burden among individuals before or after a cancer diagnosis: Development and internal validation of the SEER-CAHPS illness burden index.

PURPOSE: To develop and internally validate an illness burden index among Medicare beneficiaries before or after a cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Data source: SEER-CAHPS, linking Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry, Medicare enrollment and claims, and Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (Medicare CAHPS) survey data providing self-reported sociodemographic, health, and functional status information. To generate a score for everyone in the dataset, we tabulated 4 groups within each annual subsample (2007-2013): 1) Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries or 2) Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries, surveyed before cancer diagnosis; 3) MA beneficiaries or 4) Medicare FFS beneficiaries surveyed after diagnosis. Random survival forests (RSFs) predicted 12-month all-cause mortality and drew predictor variables (mean per subsample = 44) from 8 domains: sociodemographic, cancer-specific, health status, chronic conditions, healthcare utilization, activity limitations, proxy, and location-based factors. Roughly two-thirds of the sample was held out for algorithm training. Error rates based on the validation ("out-of-bag," OOB) samples reflected the correctly classified percentage. Illness burden scores represented predicted cumulative mortality hazard. RESULTS: The sample included 116,735 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, of whom 73 % were surveyed after their cancer diagnosis; overall mean mortality rate in the 12 months after survey response was 6%. SEER-CAHPS Illness Burden Index (SCIBI) scores were positively skewed (median range: 0.29 [MA, pre-diagnosis] to 2.85 [FFS, post-diagnosis]; mean range: 2.08 [MA, pre-diagnosis] to 4.88 [MA, post-diagnosis]). The highest decile of the distribution had a 51 % mortality rate (range: 29-71 %); the bottom decile had a 1% mortality rate (range: 0-2 %). The error rate was 20 % overall (range: 9% [among FFS enrollees surveyed after diagnosis] to 36 % [MA enrollees surveyed before diagnosis]). CONCLUSIONS: This new morbidity measure for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer may be useful to future SEER-CAHPS users who wish to adjust for comorbidity.

Risk adjustment in Home Health Care CAHPS.

The authors disagree with previous research concluding that the Home Health Care Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Services (CAHPS) publicly reported data are insufficiently adjusted for patient comorbidities.

Care experiences among dually enrolled older adults with cancer: SEER-CAHPS, 2005-2013.

PURPOSE: Given the associations between poverty and poorer outcomes among older adults with cancer, we sought to understand the effects of dual enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid-as a marker of poverty-on self-reported care experiences among seniors diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study using cancer registry, Medicare claims, and care experience survey data (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER]-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems [CAHPS®]) for a national sample of fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees aged 65 or older. We included people with one incident primary, malignant cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2011, surveyed within 2 years after diagnosis (n = 9,800; 995 dual enrollees). Medicare CAHPS measures included 5 global ratings and 3 composite scores. RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounders, people with cancer histories who were dually enrolled were significantly more likely to report better experiences than non-duals on 2 measures (Medicare/their health plan: adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.87; prescription drug plan [PDP]: aOR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Dual enrollees with cancer reported better experiences than Medicare-only enrollees in terms of their health plan (Medicare FFS or Medicare Advantage) and their PDP. Better ratings among dually enrolled beneficiaries suggest possible divergence between health outcomes and care experiences, warranting additional investigation.

Healthcare experience among older cancer survivors: Analysis of the SEER-CAHPS dataset.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about factors affecting medical care experiences of cancer survivors. This study examined experience of care among cancer survivors and assessed associations of survivors' characteristics with their experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a newly-developed, unique data resource, SEER-CAHPS (NCI's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results [SEER] data linked to Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems [CAHPS] survey responses), to examine experiences of care among breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer survivors age >66years who completed CAHPS >1year after cancer diagnosis and survived ≥1year after survey completion. Experience of care was assessed by survivor-provided scores for overall care, health plan, physicians, customer service, doctor communication, and aspects of care. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations of survivors' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with care experience. RESULTS: Among 19,455 cancer survivors with SEER-CAHPS data, higher self-reported general-health status was significantly associated with better care experiences for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors. In contrast, better mental-health status was associated with better care experience for lung cancer survivors. College-educated and Asian survivors were less likely to indicate high scores for care experiences. Few differences in survivors' experiences were observed by sex or years since diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The SEER-CAHPS data resources allows assessment of factors influencing experience of cancer among U.S. cancer survivors. Higher self-reported health status was associated with better experiences of care; other survivors' characteristics also predicted care experience. Interventions to improve cancer survivors' health status, such as increased access to supportive care services, may improve experience of care.

Examining colorectal cancer survivors' surveillance patterns and experiences of care: a SEER-CAHPS study.

PURPOSE: We examined associations between experiences of care and adherence to surveillance guidelines among Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Using linked data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End results (SEER) cancer registry program and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient experience surveys (SEER-CAHPS), we identified local/regional CRC survivors diagnosed in 1999-2009 aged 65+, who underwent surgical resection and completed a CAHPS survey <36 months of diagnosis. Adherence for a 3-year observation period was defined as receiving a colonoscopy; ≥2 carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tests; and each year had ≥2 office visits and ≥1 computerized tomography test. RESULTS: Many of the 314 participants reported ratings of a 9 or 10 out of 10 for overall care (55.4%), personal doctor (58.6%), health plan (59.6%), and specialist doctor (47.0%). Adherence to post-resection surveillance was 76.1% for office visits, 36.9% for CEA testing, 48.1% for colonoscopy, and 10.3% for CT Imaging. Overall, 37.9% of the sample were categorized as non-adherent (adhering to ≤1 surveillance guideline). In multivariable models, ratings of personal doctor and specialist doctor were positively associated with adherence to office visits, and ratings of personal doctor were associated with adherence overall. CONCLUSIONS: Findings point to the potentially important role of patient-provider relationships in adherence to office visits for CRC surveillance. As adherence may increase survival among CRC survivors, further investigation is needed to identify specific components of this relationship that impact office visit adherence, and other potentially modifiable drivers of surveillance guidelines.

Trends in healthcare utilization among older Americans with colorectal cancer: a retrospective database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Analyses of utilization trends (cost drivers) allow us to understand changes in colorectal cancer (CRC) costs over time, better predict future costs, identify changes in the use of specific types of care (eg, hospice), and provide inputs for cost-effectiveness models. This retrospective cohort study evaluated healthcare resource use among US Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with CRC between 1992 and 2002. METHODS: Cohorts included patients aged 66+ newly diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon (n = 52,371) or rectum (n = 18,619) between 1992 and 2002 and matched patients from the general Medicare population, followed until death or December 31, 2005. Demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated by cancer subsite. Resource use, including the percentage that used each type of resource, number of hospitalizations, and number of hospital and skilled nursing facility days, was evaluated by stage and subsite. The number of office, outpatient, and inpatient visits per person-year was calculated for each cohort, and was described by year of service, subsite, and treatment phase. Hospice use rates in the last year of life were calculated by year of service, stage, and subsite for CRC patients who died of CRC. RESULTS: CRC patients (mean age: 77.3 years; 44.9% male) used more resources than controls in every category (P < .001), with the largest differences seen in hospital days and home health use. Most resource use (except hospice) remained relatively steady over time. The initial phase was the most resource intense in terms of office and outpatient visits. Hospice use among patients who died of CRC increased from 20.0% in 1992 to 70.5% in 2004, and age-related differences appear to have evened out in later years. CONCLUSION: Use of hospice care among CRC decedents increased substantially over the study period, while other resource use remained generally steady. Our findings may be useful for understanding CRC cost drivers, tracking trends, and forecasting resource needs for CRC patients in the future.

Factors associated with improved survival among older colorectal cancer patients in the US: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to estimate the relative impact of changes in demographics, stage at detection, treatment mix, and medical technology on 5-year survival among older colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. METHODS: We selected older patients diagnosed with CRC between 1992 and 2000 from the SEER-Medicare database and followed them through 2005. Trends in demographic characteristics, stage at detection and initial treatment mix were evaluated descriptively. Separate multivariate logistic regression models for colon (CC) and rectal cancer (RC) patients were estimated to isolate the independent effects of these factors along with technological change (proxied by cohort year) on 5-year survival. RESULTS: Our sample included 37,808 CC and 13,619 RC patients (combined mean +/- SD age: 77.2 +/- 7.0 years; 55% female; 87% white). In recent years, more CC patients were diagnosed at Stage I and fewer at Stages II and IV, and more RC patients were diagnosed at Stage I and fewer at Stages II and III. CC and RC patients diagnosed in later years were slightly older with somewhat better Charlson scores and were more likely to be female, from the Northeast, and from areas with higher average education levels. Surgery alone was more common in later years for CC patients while combined surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy was more common for RC patients. Between 1992 and 2000, 5-year observed survival improved from 43.0% to 46.3% for CC patients and from 39.4% to 42.2% for RC patients. Multivariate logistic regressions indicate that patients diagnosed in 2000 had significantly greater odds of 5-year survival than those diagnosed in 1992 (OR: 1.35 for CC, 1.38 for RC). Our decomposition suggests that early detection had little impact on survival; rather, technological improvements (e.g., new medical technologies or more effective use of existing technologies) and changing demographics were responsible for the largest share of the change in 5-year survival in CC and RC between 1992 and 2000. CONCLUSION: Technological advances and changes in patient demographics had the largest impact on improved colorectal cancer survival during the study period.

Estimating the short-term clinical and economic benefits of smoking cessation: do we have it right?

Smoking cessation is cost effective from a long-term perspective, but less is known about its short-term cost-effectiveness. Short-term health benefits are clear for certain groups, such as cardiovascular patients, pregnant women and patients undergoing surgery. Smoking cessation reduces overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality and cancer-related mortality within 5 years of quitting, and, in some cases, the risks are reduced to the levels of never smokers. In this article, conducted from a USA policy perspective, we found some evidence of the clinical and economic benefits of smoking cessation in the short term, which could be incorporated into cost-effectiveness studies. Nonetheless, the policy and social welfare implications of a short-term focus must be carefully evaluated, considering the established favorable long-term cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation.

Lifetime and treatment-phase costs associated with colorectal cancer: evidence from SEER-Medicare data.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study provides detailed estimates of lifetime and phase-specific colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment costs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 66 years and older, newly diagnosed with CRC in a Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry (1996-2002), matched 1:1 (by age, sex, and geographic region) to patients without cancer from a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. The Kaplan-Meier sample average estimator was used to estimate observed 10-year costs, which then were extrapolated to 25 years. A secondary analysis computed costs on a per-survival-year basis to adjust for differences in mortality by stage and age. Costs were expressed in 2006 US$, with future costs discounted 3% per year. RESULTS: Our sample included 56,838 CRC patients (41,256 colon cancer [CC] patients and 15,582 rectal cancer [RC] patients; mean +/- SD age, 77.7 +/- 7.1 y; 55% women; and 86% white). Lifetime excess costs were $29,500 for CC and $26,500 for RC patients. Per survival year, stage IV CRC patients incurred $31,000 in excess costs compared with $3000 for stage 0 patients. CRC patients incurred excess costs of $33,500 in the initial phase, $4500/y in the continuing phase, and $14,500 in the terminal phase. RC patients had lower costs than CC patients in the initial phase, but higher costs in both the continuing and terminal phases. CONCLUSIONS: Excess costs associated with CRC are striking and vary considerably by treatment phase, cancer subsite, and stage at diagnosis. Interventions aimed at earlier diagnosis and prevention have the potential to reduce cancer-related health care costs.

The economics of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current review presents a brief overview of the recent literature on the costs of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), one of the most common forms of cancer. SCCHN is a relatively deadly disease. Approximately 50% of patients survive to 5 years, and surgery and chemoradiotherapy can leave survivors with pain, disfigurement, and disability that further add to the burden of the disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Earlier diagnosis of SCCHN increases the likelihood of treating with a single modality, lowers the risk of mortality, decreases medical expenditures, and improves patients' quality of life. Unfortunately, more than one-half of new cases of oral cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage. Patients with SCCHN have been shown to use significantly more healthcare resources than similar patients without SCCHN, with resource use varying by cancer stage. SUMMARY: Although there have been a number of treatment innovations for SCCHN in the past 5 years, the lack of economic data complicates the task of evaluating these new interventions. In this time of mounting concerns over healthcare costs, more emphasis on economic data is clearly warranted.