Improving Cancer Patients' Insurance Choices (I Can PIC): A Randomized Trial of a Personalized Health Insurance Decision Aid.

BACKGROUND: Many cancer survivors struggle to choose a health insurance plan that meets their needs because of high costs, limited health insurance literacy, and lack of decision support. We developed a web-based decision aid, Improving Cancer Patients' Insurance Choices (I Can PIC), and evaluated it in a randomized trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible individuals (18-64 years, diagnosed with cancer for ≤5 years, English-speaking, not Medicaid or Medicare eligible) were randomized to I Can PIC or an attention control health insurance worksheet. Primary outcomes included health insurance knowledge, decisional conflict, and decision self-efficacy after completing I Can PIC or the control. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, health insurance literacy, financial toxicity, and delayed care at a 3-6-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 263 of 335 eligible participants (79%) consented and were randomized; 206 (73%) completed the initial survey (106 in I Can PIC; 100 in the control), and 180 (87%) completed a 3-6 month follow-up. After viewing I Can PIC or the control, health insurance knowledge and a health insurance literacy item assessing confidence understanding health insurance were higher in the I Can PIC group. At follow-up, the I Can PIC group retained higher knowledge than the control; confidence understanding health insurance was not reassessed. There were no significant differences between groups in other outcomes. Results did not change when controlling for health literacy and employment. Both groups reported having limited health insurance options. CONCLUSION: I Can PIC can improve cancer survivors' health insurance knowledge and confidence using health insurance. System-level interventions are needed to lower financial toxicity and help patients manage care costs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Inadequate health insurance compromises cancer treatment and impacts overall and cancer-specific mortality. Uninsured or underinsured survivors report fewer recommended cancer screenings and may delay or avoid needed follow-up cancer care because of costs. Even those with adequate insurance report difficulty managing care costs. Health insurance decision support and resources to help manage care costs are thus paramount to cancer survivors' health and care management. We developed a web-based decision aid, Improving Cancer Patients' Insurance Choices (I Can PIC), and evaluated it in a randomized trial. I Can PIC provides health insurance information, supports patients through managing care costs, offers a list of financial and emotional support resources, and provides a personalized cost estimate of annual health care expenses across plan types.

Behavioral economics: "nudging" underserved populations to be screened for cancer.

Persistent disparities in cancer screening by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status require innovative prevention tools and techniques. Behavioral economics provides tools to potentially reduce disparities by informing strategies and systems to increase prevention of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. With an emphasis on the predictable, but sometimes flawed, mental shortcuts (heuristics) people use to make decisions, behavioral economics offers insights that practitioners can use to enhance evidence-based cancer screening interventions that rely on judgments about the probability of developing and detecting cancer, decisions about competing screening options, and the optimal presentation of complex choices (choice architecture). In the area of judgment, we describe ways practitioners can use the availability and representativeness of heuristics and the tendency toward unrealistic optimism to increase perceptions of risk and highlight benefits of screening. We describe how several behavioral economic principles involved in decision-making can influence screening attitudes, including how framing and context effects can be manipulated to highlight personally salient features of cancer screening tests. Finally, we offer suggestions about ways practitioners can apply principles related to choice architecture to health care systems in which cancer screening takes place. These recommendations include the use of incentives to increase screening, introduction of default options, appropriate feedback throughout the decision-making and behavior completion process, and clear presentation of complex choices, particularly in the context of colorectal cancer screening. We conclude by noting gaps in knowledge and propose future research questions to guide this promising area of research and practice.

Health care system collaboration to address chronic diseases: a nationwide snapshot from state public health practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: Until recently, health care systems in the United States often lacked a unified approach to prevent and manage chronic disease. Recent efforts have been made to close this gap through various calls for increased collaboration between public health and health care systems to better coordinate provision of services and programs. Currently, the extent to which the public health workforce has responded is relatively unknown. The objective of this study is to explore health care system collaboration efforts and activities among a population-based sample of state public health practitioners. METHODS: During spring 2013, a national survey was administered to state-level chronic disease public health practitioners. Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they collaborate with health care systems. Those who reported "yes" were asked to indicate all topic areas in which they collaborate and provide qualitative examples of their collaborative work. RESULTS: A total of 759 respondents (84%) reported collaboration. Common topics of collaboration activities were tobacco, cardiovascular health, and cancer screening. More client-oriented interventions than system-wide interventions were found in the qualitative examples provided. Respondents who collaborated were also more likely to use the Community Guide, use evidence-based decision making, and work in program areas that involved secondary, rather than primary, prevention. CONCLUSION: The study findings indicate a need for greater guidance on collaboration efforts that involve system-wide and cross-system interventions. Tools such as the Community Guide and evidence-based training courses may be useful in providing such guidance.

Exempting casinos from the Smoke-free Illinois Act will not bring patrons back: they never left.

OBJECTIVE: The Smoke-free Illinois Act was implemented in January 2008, one month after the beginning of a national recession. In December 2010, the Illinois legislature proposed new legislation that would provide an exemption for casinos from the act until neighbouring states also implement smoke-free casino policies. Lobbyists and gaming commission representatives argued that Illinois casinos were losing patrons to casinos in neighbouring states that allow smoking. This study examined the influence of the act on casino admissions in Illinois and neighbouring states in light of the economy. METHODS: A multilevel model was developed to examine monthly casino admissions from January 2007 to December 2008. RESULTS: There was no difference in changes in admissions across the four states over time after accounting for the economic downturn. CONCLUSIONS: The Smoke-Free Illinois Act did not have a detectable effect on Illinois casino admissions.