Neighborhood-Level Redlining and Lending Bias Are Associated with Breast Cancer Mortality in a Large and Diverse Metropolitan Area.

BACKGROUND: Structural inequities have important implications for the health of marginalized groups. Neighborhood-level redlining and lending bias represent state-sponsored systems of segregation, potential drivers of adverse health outcomes. We sought to estimate the effect of redlining and lending bias on breast cancer mortality and explore differences by race. METHODS: Using Georgia Cancer Registry data, we included 4,943 non-Hispanic White (NHW) and 3,580 non-Hispanic Black (NHB) women with a first primary invasive breast cancer diagnosis in metro-Atlanta (2010-2014). Redlining and lending bias were derived for census tracts using the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act database. We calculated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations of redlining, lending bias on breast cancer mortality and estimated race-stratified associations. RESULTS: Overall, 20% of NHW and 80% of NHB women lived in redlined census tracts, and 60% of NHW and 26% of NHB women lived in census tracts with pronounced lending bias. Living in redlined census tracts was associated with a nearly 1.60-fold increase in breast cancer mortality (hazard ratio = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.37-1.82) while residing in areas with substantial lending bias reduced the hazard of breast cancer mortality (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99). Among NHB women living in redlined census tracts, we observed a slight increase in breast cancer mortality (hazard ratio = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.90-1.42); among NHW women the association was more pronounced (hazard ratio = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.78). CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the role of ecologic measures of structural racism on cancer outcomes. IMPACT: Place-based measures are important contributors to health outcomes, an important unexplored area that offers potential interventions to address disparities.

Show Me the Money: Patients' Perspectives on a Decision Aid for Sacubitril/Valsartan Addressing Out-of-Pocket Cost.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket medication costs for patients who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be an important part of shared decision-making, but cost has generally been excluded from clinical discussions. This study reports patients' perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly addresses out-of-pocket costs. METHODS: Structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from 2 medical centers to elicit their views on a publicly available decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly incorporates considerations related to out-of-pocket costs. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Key themes identified were general enthusiasm for decision aids for medication decisions, openness on the part of patients to incorporation of cost into decision-making and the decision aid, requests for greater specificity regarding patient-specific cost, and challenges communicating evidence of benefit in a way that allows patients to make cost-benefit analyses for themselves. Patients also raised questions regarding logistical challenges of incorporating a decision aid into the normal clinical and decision-making workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were receptive to the inclusion of out-of-pocket cost as relevant in a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan. Key challenges to effective integration of cost in these decisions include developing mechanisms for acquiring reliable patient-specific cost estimates and addressing patients' difficulties (and sometimes skepticism) applying trial evidence to their own situation. In addition, implementation strategies are important to develop to facilitate decision aid integration for routine medical decisions into clinic workflow.

Physician Training in Cancer Prevention and Control: A Population Health Imperative.

Cancer is the second leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the U.S. Although reducing the number of new cancer cases is a national health goal, the continuing growth of the older adult population ensures that the burden of cancer will increase. Despite documentation of the shortage of oncologists to meet the growing need, relatively limited attention has been focused on increasing the physician workforce trained in the prevention and control of cancer. The existing physician workforce with such specialized training in cancer prevention and control is small, aging, increasing at a low rate, and likely to decrease because of an imbalance between retiring physicians and new entrants. This commentary addresses the imperative for increasing the number of physicians trained in preventive medicine with a specialization in cancer prevention and control by first providing a brief overview of U.S. cancer morbidity and mortality, then describing the status of, and trends in, physician training in cancer prevention and control, and concluding by suggesting opportunities for bolstering physician training in cancer prevention and control.