The value of microvascular breast reconstruction: Cost equivalence of TRAM and DIEP flaps implications in the era of CMS reforms.

BACKGROUND: Recent CMS billing changes have raised concerns about insurance coverage for deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. This study compared the costs and utilization of transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM), DIEP, and latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps in breast reconstruction. METHOD: The study utilized the National Inpatient Sample database to identify female patients who underwent DIEP, TRAM, and LD flap procedures from 2016 to 2019. Key data such as patient demographics, length of stay, complications, and costs (adjusted to 2021 USD) were analyzed, focusing on differences across the flap types. RESULTS: A total of 17,770 weighted patient encounters were identified, with the median age being 51. The majority underwent DIEP flaps (73.5%), followed by TRAM (14.2%) and LD (12.1%) flaps. The findings revealed that DIEP and TRAM flaps had a similar length of stay (LOS), while LD flaps typically had a shorter LOS. The total hospital charges to costs using cost-to-charge ratio were also comparable between DIEP and TRAM flaps, whereas LD flaps were significantly less expensive. Factors such as income quartile, primary payer of hospitalization, and geographic region significantly influenced flap choice. CONCLUSION: The study's results appear to contradict the prevailing notion that TRAM flaps are more cost-effective than DIEP flaps. The total hospital charges to costs using cost-to-charge ratio and hospital stays associated with TRAM and DIEP flaps were found to be similar. These findings suggest that changes in the insurance landscape, which may limit the use of DIEP flaps, could undermine patient autonomy while not necessarily reducing healthcare costs. Such policy shifts could favor less costly options like the LD flap, potentially altering the landscape of microvascular breast reconstruction.

Legitimacy of Cost Concern for Health Insurance Coverage of Gender-Affirming Surgeries: Comparison of the Interest in Keeping Insurance Cost Down versus the Cost-Effectiveness of Including Gender-Affirming Surgeries in Employer Health Insurance Plans.

This RCD discusses the recent development in Lange v Houston County. In this case, the United States District Court for The Middle District Of Georgia Macon Division found that an Exclusion Policy, prohibiting health insurance coverage of gender-affirming surgery for an employee, Anna Lange, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On appeal, the Defendants argued that the District Court erred in its decision and relied on the cost burden of gender-affirming surgery as one of their defenses. This RCD highlights that cost is a common defense tactic used by defendants in these cases. However, the author argues that these concerns are unfounded and meritless given the cost-effectiveness of including gender-affirming surgeries in health insurance plans, as highlighted in the RCD.

The costs and inequities of precision medicine for patients with prostate cancer: A call to action.

Financial toxicity is a growing problem in the delivery of cancer care and contributes to inequities in outcomes across the cancer care continuum. Racial/ethnic inequities in prostate cancer, the most common cancer diagnosed in men, are well described, and threaten to widen in the era of precision oncology given the numerous structural barriers to accessing novel diagnostic studies and treatments, particularly for Black men. Gaps in insurance coverage and cost sharing are 2 such structural barriers that can perpetuate inequities in screening, diagnostic workup, guideline-concordant treatment, symptom management, survivorship, and access to clinical trials. Mitigating these barriers will be key to achieving equity in prostate cancer care, and will require a multi-pronged approach from policymakers, health systems, and individual providers. This narrative review will describe the current state of financial toxicity in prostate cancer care and its role in perpetuating racial inequities in the era of precision oncology.

Association Between California's State Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act and Utilization of Gender-Affirming Surgery.

Importance: Gender-affirming surgery is often beneficial for gender-diverse or -dysphoric patients. Access to gender-affirming surgery is often limited through restrictive legislation and insurance policies. Objective: To investigate the association between California's 2013 implementation of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits insurers and health plans from limiting benefits based on a patient's sex, gender, gender identity, or gender expression, and utilization of gender-affirming surgery among California residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population epidemiology study of transgender and gender-diverse patients undergoing gender-affirming surgery (facial, chest, and genital surgery) between 2005 and 2019. Utilization of gender-affirming surgery in California before and after implementation of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act in July 2013 was compared with utilization in Washington and Arizona, control states chosen because of geographic similarity and because they expanded Medicaid on the same date as California-January 1, 2014. The date of last follow-up was December 31, 2019. Exposures: California's Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act, implemented on July 9, 2013. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of gender-affirming surgery, defined as undergoing at least 1 facial, chest, or genital procedure. Results: A total of 25 252 patients (California: n = 17 934 [71%]; control: n = 7328 [29%]) had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Median ages were 34.0 years in California (with or without gender-affirming surgery), 39 years (IQR, 28-49 years) among those undergoing gender-affirming surgery in control states, and 36 years (IQR, 22-56 years) among those not undergoing gender-affirming surgery in control states. Patients underwent at least 1 gender-affirming surgery within the study period in 2918 (11.6%) admissions-2715 (15.1%) in California vs 203 (2.8%) in control states. There was a statistically significant increase in gender-affirming surgery in the third quarter of July 2013 in California vs control states, coinciding with the timing of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act (P < .001). Implementation of the policy was associated with an absolute 12.1% (95% CI, 10.3%-13.9%; P < .001) increase in the probability of undergoing gender-affirming surgery in California vs control states observed in the subset of insured patients (13.4% [95% CI, 11.5%-15.4%]; P < .001) but not self-pay patients (-22.6% [95% CI, -32.8% to -12.5%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation in California of its Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act was associated with a significant increase in utilization of gender-affirming surgery in California compared with the control states Washington and Arizona. These data might inform state legislative efforts to craft policies preventing discrimination in health coverage for state residents, including transgender and gender-diverse patients.

Understanding the role of access in Hispanic cancer screening disparities.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic populations in the United States experience numerous barriers to care access. It is unclear how cancer screening disparities between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White individuals are explained by access to care, including having a usual source of care and health insurance coverage. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the 2019 National Health Interview Survey was conducted and included respondents who were sex- and age-eligible for cervical (n = 8316), breast (n = 6025), or colorectal cancer screening (n = 11,313). The proportion of ever screened and up to date for each screening type was compared.  Regression models evaluated whether controlling for reporting a usual source of care and type of health insurance (public, private, none) attenuated disparities between Hispanics and non-Hispanic White individuals. RESULTS: Hispanic individuals were less likely than non-Hispanic White individuals to be up to date with cervical cancer screening (71.6% vs. 74.6%) and colorectal cancer screening (52.9% vs. 70.3%), but up-to-date screening was similar for breast cancer (78.8% vs. 76.3%). Hispanic individuals (vs. non-Hispanic White) were less likely to have a usual source of care (77.9% vs. 86.0%) and more likely to be uninsured (23.6% vs. 7.1%). In regressions, insurance fully attenuated cervical cancer disparities. Controlling for both usual source of care and insurance type explained approximately half of the colorectal cancer screening disparities (adjusted risk difference: -8.3 [-11.2 to -4.8]). CONCLUSION: Addressing the high rate of uninsurance among Hispanic individuals could mitigate cancer screening disparities. Future research should build on the relative successes of breast cancer screening and investigate additional barriers for colorectal cancer screening. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study uses data from a national survey to compare cancer screening use those who identify as Hispanic with those who identify as non-Hispanic White. Those who identify as Hispanic are much less likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening than those who identify as non-Hispanic White, slightly less likely to be up to date on cervical cancer screening, and similarly likely to receive breast cancer screening. Improving insurance coverage is important for health equity, as is further exploring what drives higher use of breast cancer screening and lower use of colorectal cancer screening.

Leveraging Innovative Financing Strategy to Increase Coverage and Resources Among Informal Sector for Social Health Insurance Within the Nigerian Context of Devolution: Evidence From Adoption Model Implementation.

Background: Enrollment in sub-national social health insurance schemes (SSHIS) can be challenging in developing countries like Nigeria, particularly among people in the informal sector. This could be due to a lack of knowledge on its mode of operation and benefits, distrust in government, inimical religious and traditional beliefs, as well as constraining economic factors. A complementary and innovative financing strategy such as the philanthropist adoption model (ADM) could be beneficial in improving SSHIS coverage and financial resources among persons in the informal sector. The study provides new evidence on how ADM influenced health insurance coverage and resources within SSHIS among informal settings in Nigeria. It also highlights contextual factors influencing the implementation of ADM. Methods: This study employed a mixed-methods case-study approach undertaken in Anambra State, Southeast Nigeria. Data were collected through in-depth interviews (n = 14), document review (n = 12), and quantitative (enrollment data) methods. The respondents were purposively selected based on their involvement with the implementation of the SSHIS. Data analysis for qualitative data was done using the manual thematic framework approach while descriptive analysis was performed for the quantitative data. Results: The implementation of ADM was a valuable and effective strategy for improving knowledge, coverage, and resource mobilization (annual premium pool) within the SSHIS in the informal sector. The main enablers of the implementation of ADM include strong political will and commitment, wider stakeholders' consultation and collaboration, numerous public-spirited philanthropists, and legal institutionalization of health insurance. Other enablers include organizational factors like good teamwork among Anambra State Health Insurance Agency (ASHIA) staff, enabling work environment (incentives, supervision, office space), and experienced marketers in the agency. However, ADM had several barriers that affected its implementation-acceptability issues due to distrust for government and the health system, health systems barriers including substandard health facilities and equipment, and inimical cultural and religious beliefs about health insurance. Conclusion: The study demonstrates a case for the implementation of innovative ADM as a strategy for enhancing SSHIS financial sustainability and coverage of persons in the informal sector. Hence, the strategy should be adopted in settings where philanthropy abounds for increasing access to quality healthcare delivery to poor beneficiaries toward achieving universal health coverage in developing countries.

The Impact of Medicare Health Insurance Coverage on Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Annual lung cancer screening via low-dose computed tomography can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk adults by 20%; however, screening take-up remains low. Inadequate insurance coverage or access to care may be a barrier to screening. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the effect of nearly universal access to Medicare coverage on annual lung cancer screening. RESEARCH DESIGN: A regression discontinuity design was used to estimate the causal effect of nearly universal access to Medicare at age 65. Data come from the 2017 to 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 28 states that adopted the optional module on lung cancer screening and lung cancer risk. SUBJECTS: A total of 11,163 individuals at high risk for lung cancer just above and below age 65. MEASURE: Self-reported use of low-dose computed tomography to screen for lung cancer in the past 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 10,951 people at high lung cancer risk (45.7% women, response rate=98.1%) reported lung cancer screening information. Nearly universal access to Medicare increased lung cancer screening by 16.2 percentage points among men (95% confidence interval: 2.4%-30.0%, P=0.02), compared with a baseline screening rate of 11.1% just younger than age 65. Women had a baseline screening rate of 18.2% and experienced no statistically significant change in screening (1.6 percentage point increase, 95% confidence interval: -19.8% to 23.0%, P=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Gaining Medicare coverage at age 65 increased lung cancer screening take-up among men at high lung cancer risk. Lack of insurance or inadequate access to care hinders screening.

Insurance type is associated with appropriate use of surgical and adjuvant care for differentiated thyroid carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to characterize the association between differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) patient insurance status and appropriateness of therapy (AOT) regarding extent of thyroidectomy and radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for DTC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2016. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) for AOT, as defined by the American Thyroid Association guidelines, and hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) were calculated. A difference-in-differences (DD) analysis examined the association of Medicaid expansion with outcomes for low-income patients aged <65. RESULTS: A total of 224,500 patients were included. Medicaid and uninsured patients were at increased risk of undergoing inappropriate therapy, including inappropriate lobectomy (Medicaid 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.54; uninsured 1.30, 95% CI: 1.05-1.60), and under-treatment with RAI (Medicaid 1.20, 95% CI: 1.14-1.26; uninsured 1.44, 95% CI: 1.33-1.55). Inappropriate lobectomy (HR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.7-2.3, P < .001) and under-treatment with RAI (HR 2.3, 95% CI: 2.2-2.5, P < .001) were independently associated with decreased survival, while appropriate surgical resection (HR 0.3, 95% CI: 0.3-0.3, P < .001) was associated with improved odds of survival; the model controlled for all relevant clinico-pathologic variables. No difference in AOT was observed in Medicaid expansion versus non-expansion states with respect to surgery or adjuvant RAI therapy. CONCLUSION: Medicaid and uninsured patients are at significantly increased odds of receiving inappropriate treatment for DTC; both groups are at a survival disadvantage compared with Medicare and those privately insured.

Elective versus nonelective brain tumor resections: a 5-year propensity score matching cost comparison analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Elective surgical cases generally have lower costs, higher profit margins, and better outcomes than nonelective cases. Investigating the differences in cost and profit between elective and nonelective cases would help hospitals in planning strategies to withstand financial losses due to potential pandemics. The authors sought to evaluate the exact cost and profit margin differences between elective and nonelective supratentorial tumor resections at a single institution. METHODS: The authors collected economic analysis data in all patients who underwent supratentorial tumor resection at their institution between January 2014 and December 2018. The patients were grouped into elective and nonelective cases. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for heterogeneity of baseline characteristics between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 143 elective cases and 232 nonelective cases over the 5 years. Patients in the majority of elective cases had private insurance and in the majority of nonelective cases the patients had Medicare/Medicaid (p < 0.01). The total charges were significantly lower for elective cases ($168,800.12) compared to nonelective cases ($254,839.30, p < 0.01). The profit margins were almost 6 times higher for elective than for nonelective cases ($13,025.28 vs $2,128.01, p = 0.04). After propensity score matching, there was still a significant difference between total charges and total cost. CONCLUSIONS: Elective supratentorial tumor resections were associated with significantly lower costs with shorter lengths of stay while also being roughly 6 times more profitable than nonelective cases. These findings may help future planning for hospital strategies to survive financial losses during future pandemics that require widespread cancellation of elective cases.

The Impact of Medicare Coverage on Downstream Financial Outcomes for Adults Who Undergo Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of gaining access to Medicare on key financial outcomes for surgical patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical care poses a significant financial burden, especially among patients with insufficient financial risk protection. Medicare may mitigate the risk of these adverse circumstances, but the impact of Medicare eligibility on surgical patients remains poorly understood. METHODS: Regression discontinuity analysis of national, cross-sectional survey and cost data from the 2008 to 2018 National Health Interview Survey and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Patients were between the ages of 57 to 72 with surgery in the past 12 months. The primary outcomes were the presence of medical debt, delay/deferment of care due to cost, total annual out-of-pocket costs, and experiencing catastrophic health expenditures. RESULTS: Among 45,982,243 National Health Interview Survey patients, Medicare eligibility was associated with a 6.6 percentage-point decrease (95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.0% to -4.3) in being uninsured (>99% relative reduction), 7.6 percentage-point decrease (24% relative reduction) in having medical debt (95%CI: -14.1% to -1.1%), and 4.9 percentage-point decrease (95%CI: -9.4% to -0.4%) in deferrals/delays in medical care due to cost (28% relative reduction). Among 33,084,967 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey patients, annual out-of-pocket spending decreased by $1199 per patient (95%CI: -$1633 to -$765), a 33% relative reduction, and catastrophic health expenditures decreased by 7.3 percentage points (95%CI: -13.6% to -0.1%), a 55% relative reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare may reduce the economic burden of healthcare spending and delays in care for older adult surgical patients. These findings have important implications for policy discussions regarding changing insurance eligibility thresholds for the older adult population.

Out-of-Pocket Costs Among Patients With a New Cancer Diagnosis Enrolled in High-Deductible Health Plans vs Traditional Insurance.

Importance: The financial burden of a cancer diagnosis is increasing rapidly with advances in cancer care. Simultaneously, more individuals are enrolling in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) vs traditional insurance than ever before. Objective: To characterize the out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) of cancer care for individuals in HDHPs vs traditional insurance plans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the administrative claims data of a single national insurer in the US for 134 826 patients aged 18 to 63 years with a new diagnosis of breast, colorectal, lung, or other cancer from 2008 to 2018 with 24 months or more of continuous enrollment. Propensity score matching was performed to create comparator groups based on the presence or absence of an incident cancer diagnosis. Exposures: A new cancer diagnosis and enrollment in an HDHP vs a traditional health insurance plan. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was OOPCs among individuals with breast, colon, lung, or all other types of cancer combined compared with those with no cancer diagnosis. A triple difference-in-differences analysis was performed to identify incremental OOPCs based on cancer diagnosis and enrollment in HDHPs vs traditional plans. Results: After propensity score matching, 134 826 patients remained in each of the cancer (73 572 women [55%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-58 years]; 110 071 non-Hispanic White individuals [82%]) and noncancer (66 619 women [49%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-59 years]; 105 023 non-Hispanic White individuals [78%]) cohorts. Compared with baseline costs of medical care among individuals without cancer, a breast cancer diagnosis was associated with the highest incremental OOPC ($714.68; 95% CI, $664.91-$764.45), followed by lung ($475.51; 95% CI, $340.16-$610.86), colorectal ($361.41; 95% CI, $294.34-$428.48), and all other types of cancer combined ($90.51; 95% CI, $74.22-$106.79). Based on the triple difference-in-differences analysis, compared with patients without cancer enrolled in HDHPs, those with breast cancer paid $1683.36 in additional yearly OOPCs (95% CI, $1576.66-$1790.07), those with colorectal cancer paid $1420.06 more (95% CI, $1232.31-$1607.80), those with lung cancer paid $467.25 more (95% CI, $130.13-$804.37), and those with other types of cancer paid $550.87 more (95% CI, $514.75-$586.99). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with cancer and private insurance experienced sharp increases in OOPCs compared with those without cancer, which was amplified among those with HDHPs. These findings illustrate the degree to which HDHPs offer poorer protection than traditional insurance against unexpected health care expenses. Coupled with the increasing cost of cancer care, higher cost sharing in the form of increasing enrollment in HDHPs requires further research on the potential clinical consequences through delayed or foregone care.

Financial toxicity in cancer care in India: a systematic review.

Although financial toxicity is widely acknowledged to be a potential consequence of costly cancer treatment, little is known about its prevalence and outcome among the Indian population. In this study, we systematically reviewed the prevalence, determinants, and consequences of financial toxicity among patients with cancer in India. 22 studies were included in the systematic review. The determinants of financial toxicity include household income, type of health-care facility used, stage of disease, area of residence, age at the time of diagnosis, recurrent cancer, educational status, insurance coverage, and treatment modality. Financial toxicity was associated with poor quality of life, accumulation of debts, premature entry into the labour market, and non-compliance with therapy. Our findings emphasise the need for urgent strategies to mitigate financial toxicity among patients with cancer in India, especially in the most deprived sections of society. The qualitative evidence synthesised in this systematic review could provide a basis for the development of such interventions to reduce financial toxicity among patients with cancer.

Socioeconomic factors associated with limb salvage versus amputation for adult extremity bone sarcomas in patients with insurance coverage.

BACKGROUND: Limb salvage (LS) has become the preferred treatment for adult patients with bone sarcoma of the extremities. The decision to perform LS versus an amputation is often dictated by tumor characteristics, however there may be socioeconomic factors associated with LS. Previously this has been linked to insurance status, however currently there is a paucity of data examining socioeconomic factors in patients with medical insurance at the time of sarcoma diagnosis. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine socioeconomic factors which could be associated with the decision to perform LS versus amputation for adult bone sarcoma patients. METHODS: Data from Optum Labs Data Warehouse, a national administrative claims database, was analyzed to identify patients with extremity bone sarcomas from 2006 to 2017. Bivariate regression was used to identify factors associated with LS versus amputation. RESULTS: Of 1,390 (743 males, 647 female) patients, 252 (18%) under amputation while 1,138 (82%) underwent LS. Lower extremity tumors (OR 4.72, p < 0.001), income <$75,000 (OR 1.85, p = 0.03), being treated a public hospital (OR 1.41, p = 0.04) and a hospital with <200 beds (OR 1.90, p = 0.006) were associated with amputation. Income ≥$125,000 (OR 0.62, 0.04) were associated with LS. CONCLUSION: In adult patients with medical insurance at the time of diagnosis, socioeconomic and hospital factors were associated with an amputation for bone sarcoma, with poorer patients, and those treated at smaller, and public hospitals more likely to undergo amputation.

Estimating the effectiveness of national health insurance in covering catastrophic health expenditure: Evidence from South Korea.

The catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) indicator has been used to measure the medical cost burden of households. Many countries have institutionalized their health insurance systems to reduce out-of-pocket payments, the main contributor to the financial burden. However, there is no method to estimate how the insurance coverage reduces the CHE. This study proposes an approach to evaluate the effectiveness of insurance in reducing the CHE impacts in terms of incidence and gap, which are based on a modified calculation method of CHE. Additionally, we apply these methods to data from the Korea Health Panel Survey (2011-2016). The results are as follows. First, under the setting of a threshold of 10%, the CHE incidence rate was 19.26% when the Korean national health insurance benefits reduced the CHE's incidence for 15.17% of the population in 2017. Second, the results of the concentration index of CHE showed that the intensity approach of CHE is better than the incidence approach. Third, the new approach we applied revealed that health insurance reduces the burden of CHE to some degree, although it was not an efficient way to reduce CHE. In conclusion, this study provides new policy approaches to save the finances of national health insurance and reduce the intensity of CHE at the same time by raising the low-cost burden of medical services and lowering that of high cost. Moreover, we suggest that policymakers should focus on income level of the households rather than specific diseases.

Understanding the Relationship between Breast Reconstruction Subtype and Risk of Financial Toxicity: A Single-Institution Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of breast reconstruction on financial toxicity remains poorly understood despite growing awareness. The authors sought to illustrate the relationship between breast reconstruction subtypes and the risk of financial toxicity. METHODS: The authors conducted a single-institution cross-sectional survey of all female breast cancer patients undergoing any form of breast reconstruction between January of 2018 and June of 2019. Financial toxicity was measured by means of the validated Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity instrument. Demographics, clinical course, and coping strategies were abstracted from a purpose-built survey and electronic medical records. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify associations with financial toxicity. RESULTS: The authors' analytical sample was 350 patients. One hundred eighty-four (52.6 percent) underwent oncoplastic reconstruction, 126 (36 percent) underwent implant-based reconstruction, and 40 (11.4 percent) underwent autologous reconstruction. Oncoplastic reconstruction recipients were older, had a higher body mass index, and were more likely to have supplemental insurance and receive adjuvant hormonal therapy. No significant differences in the risk of financial toxicity were uncovered across breast reconstruction subtypes (p = 0.53). Protective factors against financial toxicity were use of supplemental insurance (p = 0.0003) and escalating annual household income greater than $40,000 (p < 0.0001). Receipt of radiation therapy was positively associated with worsening financial toxicity (-2.69; 95 CI percent, -5.22 to -0.15). Financial coping strategies were prevalent across breast reconstruction subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction subtype does not differentially impact the risk of financial toxicity. Increasing income and supplemental insurance were found to be protective, whereas receipt of radiation therapy was positively associated with financial toxicity. Prospective, multicenter studies are needed to identify the main drivers of out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity in breast cancer care.

Cervical testing beyond the screening target age - A register-based cohort study from Finland.

OBJECTIVE: It has been proposed that cervical cancer screening should be continued in women with previous abnormal results or irregular attendance. We examined the coverage and factors that might influence cervical testing beyond the age range of the organized cervical screening programme in Finland. The national programme invites women in every five years least until the age of 60. After the stopping age, only opportunistic service is available. METHODS: Data on cervical testing were collected from the Mass Screening Registry and providers of opportunistic Pap/HPV-testing and were linked with information on socio-economic variables. The study included 373,353 women who had at least one invitation to the national screening programme between ages 50-60 years, and who were aged 65-74 years in the follow-up period 2006-2016. Multivariable binomial regression models were conducted to determine associations. RESULTS: Altogether 33% of the study population had been tested at least once at ages 65-74 years. Previous regular screening attendance (adjRR 1.70; 95% CI 1.67-1.73) and earlier abnormal results (adjRR 2.08; 95% CI 2.04-2.12) were most clearly related to higher testing adherence at older age. Other factors related to higher testing adherence were urban area of residence, domestic mother tongue, high education level, and high socio-economic status. CONCLUSION: Testing at older age was frequent with normal results, whereas only a small proportion of women with earlier abnormal results or irregular attendance were tested. The upper age limit of the national programme should be raised to 65 years, and the invitations thereafter should be targeted to selected high-risk groups.