Advancing health equity in cancer survivorship research: National Institutes of Health 2017-2022 portfolio review.

BACKGROUND: Communities and researchers have called for a paradigm shift from describing health disparities to a health equity research agenda that addresses structural drivers. Therefore, we examined whether the cancer survivorship research portfolio has made this shift. METHODS: We identified grants focused on populations experiencing health disparities from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Cancer Survivorship Research Portfolio (N = 724), Fiscal Years 2017-2022. Grant characteristics were abstracted, drivers of health disparities were mapped onto the levels and domains of influence, and opportunities for future research were identified. RESULTS: A total of 147 survivorship grants focused on health disparities were identified, of which 73.5% of grants focused on survivors from racial and ethnic minoritized groups, 25.9% living in rural areas, 24.5% socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 2.7% sexual and gender minority groups. Study designs were 51.0% observational; 82.3% of grants measured or intervened on at least 1 individual-level of influence compared to higher levels of influence (32.7% interpersonal, 41.5% institutional and community, and 12.2% societal). Behavioral and health care system domains of influence were commonly represented, especially at the individual level (47.6% and 36.1%, respectively). Less frequently represented was the physical and built environment (12.2%). CONCLUSIONS: NIH-funded cancer survivorship research on health disparities is still focused on individual level of influence. However, the proportion of grants examining structural and social drivers as well as the mechanisms that drive disparities in health care and health outcomes among cancer survivors have increased over time. Gaps in funded research on specific populations, cancer types, and focus areas of survivorship science were identified and warrant priority.

Understanding the Impact of Medicaid-Serving Primary Care Team Functioning and Clinical Context on Cancer Care Treatment Quality: Implications for Addressing Structural Inequities.

PURPOSE: Primary care factors related to Medicaid enrollees' receipt of guideline concordant cancer treatment is understudied; however, team structure and processes likely affect care disparities. We explore Medicaid-serving primary care teams functioning within multiteam systems to understand performance variations in quality of breast and colorectal cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a comparative case study, using critical case sampling of primary care clinics in New Jersey, to provide maximum variation on clinic-level care performance rates (Medicaid enrollees' receipt of guideline-concordant treatment). Site evaluations, conducted from 2019 to 2020, included observation (2-3 days) and interviews. Using a multistep analytic process, we explored contextual factors within primary care that may contribute to cancer care performance variations. RESULTS: We identified performance variations stemming from adaptations of multiteam system inputs and processes on the basis of contextual factors (ie, business model, clinic culture). Team 1 (average performer), part of a multisite safety-net clinic system, mainly teamed outside their organization, relying on designated roles, protocol-based care, and quality improvement informed by within-team metrics. Team 2 (high performer), part of a for-profit health system, remained mission-driven to improve urban health, teamed exclusively with internal teams through electronically enabled information exchange and health system-wide quality improvement efforts. Team 3 (low performer), a physician-owned private practice with minimal teaming, accepted Medicaid enrollees to diversify their payer mix and relied on referral-based care with limited consideration of social barriers. CONCLUSION: Primary care team structures and processes variations may (in part) explain performance variations. Future research aiming to improve care quality for Medicaid populations should consider primary care teams' capacity and context in relation to composite teams to support care quality improvements in subsequent prospective trials.

Clinical Multiteam System Composition and Complexity Among Newly Diagnosed Early-Stage Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

PURPOSE: Sixty percent of adults have multiple chronic conditions at cancer diagnosis. These patients may require a multidisciplinary clinical team-of-teams, or a multiteam system (MTS), of high-complexity involving multiple specialists and primary care, who, ideally, coordinate clinical responsibilities, share information, and align clinical decisions to ensure comprehensive care needs are managed. However, insights examining MTS composition and complexity among individuals with cancer and comorbidities at diagnosis using US population-level data are limited. METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare data (2006-2016), we identified newly diagnosed patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer who had a codiagnosis of cardiopulmonary disease and/or diabetes (n = 75,201). Zaccaro's theory-based classification of MTSs was used to categorize clinical MTS complexity in the 4 months following cancer diagnosis: high-complexity (≥ 4 clinicians from ≥ 2 specialties) and low-complexity (1-3 clinicians from 1-2 specialties). We describe the proportions of patients with different MTS compositions and quantify the incidence of high-complexity MTS care by patient groups. RESULTS: The most common MTS composition was oncology with primary care (37%). Half (50.3%) received high-complexity MTS care. The incidence of high-complexity MTS care for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients with cancer was 6.7% (95% CI, -8.0 to -5.3) and 4.7% (95% CI, -6.3 to -3.0) lower than non-Hispanic White patients with cancer; 13.1% (95% CI, -14.1 to -12.2) lower for rural residents compared with urban; 10.4% (95% CI, -11.2 to -9.5) lower for dual Medicaid-Medicare beneficiaries compared with Medicare-only; and 16.6% (95% CI, -17.5 to -15.8) lower for colorectal compared with breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Incidence differences of high-complexity MTS care were observed among cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions from underserved populations. The results highlight the need to further understand the effects of and mechanisms through which care team composition, complexity, and functioning affect care quality and outcomes.

National Cancer Institute-Funded Social Risk Research in Cancer Care Delivery: Opportunities for Future Research.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients and survivors with food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation-related barriers face challenges in access and utilization of quality cancer care thereby adversely impacting their health outcomes. This portfolio analysis synthesized and described National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported social risk research focused on assessing food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation-related barriers among individuals diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a query using the National Institutes of Health iSearch tool to identify NCI-awarded extramural research and training grants (2010-2022). Grant abstracts, specific aims, and research strategies were coded for research characteristics, study population, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 30 grants included in this analysis, most assessed transportation-related barriers as patient-level social needs. Grants focused on community-level social risks, food insecurity, and housing instability were largely absent. Most grants included activities that identified the presence of social risks and/or needs (n = 24), connected patients to social care resources (n = 10), and engaged community members or organizations to inform the research study (n = 9). Of the grants, 18 focused on a single type of cancer, primarily breast cancer, and more than half focused on the treatment and survivorship phases. CONCLUSIONS: In the last decade, there has been limited NCI-funded social risk research grants focused on food insecurity and housing instability. Findings highlight opportunities for future cancer care delivery research, including community and health system-level approaches that integrate social and clinical care to address social risks and social needs. Such efforts can help improve outcomes of populations that experience cancer health and health-care disparities.

Multilevel factors associated with inequities in multidisciplinary cancer consultation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the prevalence of multidisciplinary cancer consultations (MDCc) over the last decade and examine patient, surgeon, hospital, and neighborhood factors associated with receipt of MDCc among individuals diagnosed with cancer. DATA SOURCE: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data from 2006 to 2016. STUDY DESIGN: We used time-series analysis to assess change in MDCc prevalence from 2007 to 2015. We also conducted multilevel logistic regression with random surgeon- and hospital-level effects to assess associations between patient, surgeon, neighborhood, and health care organization-level factors and receipt of MDCc during the cancer treatment planning phase, defined as the 2 months following cancer diagnosis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries >65 years of age with surgically resected breast, colorectal (CRC), or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stages I-III (n = 103,250). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: From 2007 to 2015, the prevalence of MDCc increased from 35.0% to 61.2%. Overall, MDCc was most common among patients with breast cancer compared to CRC and NSCLC. Cancer patients who were Black, had comorbidities, had dual Medicare-Medicaid coverage, were residing in rural areas or in areas with higher Black and Hispanic neighborhood composition were significantly less likely to have received MDCc. Patients receiving surgery at disproportionate payment-sharing or rural-designated hospitals had 2% (95% CI: -3.55, 0.58) and 17.6% (95% CI: -21.45, 13.70), respectively, less probability of receiving MDCc. Surgeon- and hospital-level effects accounted for 15% of the variance in receipt of MDCc. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of MDCc has increased over the last decade, but significant geographical and health care organizational barriers continue to impede equitable access to and delivery of quality care across cancer patient populations. Multilevel and multicomponent interventions that target care coordination, health system, and policy changes may enhance equitable access to and receipt of MDCc.

Perceptions of care coordination among older adult cancer survivors: A SEER-CAHPS study.

OBJECTIVE: Care coordination reflects deliberate efforts to harmonize patient care. This study examined variables associated with patient-reported care coordination scores among Medicare beneficiaries with a history of cancer. METHODS: We utilized Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (SEER-CAHPS) linked data, which includes cancer registry data, patient experience surveys, and Medicare claims. We identified Medicare beneficiaries with a CAHPS survey ≤10 years after cancer diagnosis who reported seeing a personal doctor within six months. Multivariable regression models examined associations between cancer survivor characteristics and patient-reported care coordination, with higher scores indicating better coordination. RESULTS: Cancer site distribution of the 14,646 survey respondents was 33.7% prostate, 22.1% breast, 11.1% colorectal, 7.2% lung, and 25.9% other. Rural residence at diagnosis (versus urban, 1.1-point difference; p = 0.04) and reporting >4 visits with a personal doctor (versus 1-2 visits, 3.0-point difference; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher care coordination. Older age (p < 0.001) and seeing more specialists (p = 0.006) were associated with significantly lower care coordination. Patients with melanoma (women: 5.2-point difference, p < 0.001; men: 2.7 points, p = 0.01) or breast cancer (women: 2.4 points; p < 0.001) reported significantly lower care coordination scores than did men with prostate cancer (reference group). Time from diagnosis to survey, cancer stage, number of cancers, and comorbidities were not significantly associated with care coordination scores. DISCUSSION: Cancer site, rural residence, and number of physician interactions are associated with patient-reported care coordination scores. Future research should address multilevel influences that lead to worse care coordination for older adult cancer survivors.

Patterns of HIV testing among women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer in the New Jersey Medicaid Program.

PURPOSE: Practice-based guidelines recommend HIV testing during initial invasive cervical cancer (ICC) workup. Determinants of HIV testing during diagnosis of AIDS-defining cancers in vulnerable populations, where risk for HIV infection is higher, are under-explored. METHODS: We examine factors associated with patterns of HIV testing among Medicaid enrollees diagnosed with ICC. Using linked data from the New Jersey State Cancer Registry and New Jersey Medicaid claims and enrollment files, we evaluated HIV testing among 242 ICC cases diagnosed from 2012 to 2014 in ages 21-64 at (a) any point during Medicaid enrollment (2011-2014) and (b) during cancer workup 6 months pre ICC diagnosis to 6 months post ICC diagnosis. Logistic regression models identified factors associated with HIV testing. RESULTS: Overall, 13% of women had a claim for HIV testing during ICC workup. Two-thirds (68%) of women did not have a claim for HIV testing (non-receipt of HIV testing) while enrolled in Medicaid. Hispanic/NH-API/Other women had lower odds of non-receipt of HIV testing compared with NH-Whites (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.94). Higher odds of non-receipt of HIV testing were observed among cases with no STI testing (OR: 4.92; 95% CI 2.27-10.67) and < 1 year of Medicaid enrollment (OR: 3.07; 95% CI 1.14- 8.26) after adjusting for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: Few women had HIV testing claims during ICC workup. Opportunities for optimal ICC care are informed by knowledge of HIV status. Further research should explore if lack of HIV testing claims during ICC workup is an accurate indicator of ICC care, and if so, to assess testing barriers during workup.

Determinants of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Follow-Up And Invasive Cervical Cancer Among Uninsured and Underinsured Women in New Jersey.

OBJECTIVES: To identify determinants of follow-up care and diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer among uninsured/underinsured women screened for cervical cancer. METHODS: We examined the associations between health care facility, area-level, and individual-level factors on the outcomes of interest in retrospective cohort of women from the New Jersey Cancer Education and Early Detection Program (2000-2015). RESULTS: Women screened at department of health clinics (aOR:3.11, 95% CI: 2.30-4.20) and health care system-affiliated clinics (aOR:1.71, 95% CI: 1.11-2.64) had higher odds of lacking follow-up care compared with women in private physician practices. Similarly, women residing in areas with the highest unemployment had higher odds of lacking follow-up (aOR:1.48, 95% CI: 1.07-2.06). Delays in follow-up care were higher for women born in Central/South American countries compared with U.S.-born women (aOR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.12-1.92). CONCLUSIONS: Improved outreach efforts and multilevel strategies are needed to address the persistent barriers to appropriate follow-up care for underserved women.