Importance of Patient Health Insurance Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Genomic Testing in Oncologists' Treatment Decisions.

PURPOSE: Use of genomic testing, especially multimarker panels, is increasing in the United States. Not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance, which can result in substantial patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Little is known about oncologists' treatment decisions with respect to patient insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing. METHODS: We identified 1,049 oncologists who used multimarker tumor panels from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Separate multivariable ordinal logistic regressions examined associations of oncologist-, practice-, and area-level characteristics and oncologists' ratings of importance (very, somewhat, or a little/not important) of insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing in treatment decisions, adjusting for oncologist years of experience, sex, race and ethnicity, specialty, use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests, region, tumor boards, patient insurance mix, and area-level socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: Among oncologists, 47.3%, 32.7%, and 20.0% reported that patient insurance coverage for genomic testing was very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively, in treatment decisions. In addition, 56.9%, 28.0%, and 15.2% reported that OOP costs for testing were very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively. In adjusted analyses, oncologists who used NGS tests were more likely to report patient insurance and OOP costs as important (odds ratio [OR], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.16 to 3.45] and OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.22 to 3.68], respectively) in treatment decisions compared with oncologists who did not use these tests, as were oncologists who treated solid tumors, rather than only hematological cancers. More years of experience and higher percentages of Medicaid or self-paid/uninsured patients in the practice were associated with reporting insurance coverage (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.89]) and OOP costs (OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 to 2.01]) as important. Oncologists in practices with molecular tumor boards for genomic tests were less likely to report coverage (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.85]) and OOP costs (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.97]) as important than their counterparts in practices without these tumor boards. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists rate patient health insurance and OOP costs for genomic tests as important considerations in subsequent treatment recommendations. Modifiable factors associated with these ratings can inform interventions to support patient-physician decision making about care.

Investment in Prevention Health Care Delivery Research by the National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND: Research assessing the delivery of preventive health care has considerable potential for improving health outcomes and reducing health care costs for the United States population. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevention health care delivery research grant portfolio supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A random sample of 14,523 NIH research projects funded during 2012-2019 was selected and coded for various study topics using a structured taxonomy. We analyzed the subset of prevention research projects, for which health care delivery was identified as an independent or dependent variable, including study characteristics and funding trends. RESULTS: Overall, 11.2% of NIH-funded prevention research projects were relevant to health care delivery. Of these projects, 68.6% assessed access to care, 53.4% examined quality, and 27.1% assessed costs. Over the study period, the percentage of funded prevention research projects involving health care delivery increased from 10.9%-15.1%. Over half of the projects assessed research related to the prevention of a new health condition, identification of risk factors, or health promotion (55.5%), whereas < half addressed prevention of disease progression/recurrence (40.4%), screening for early disease (20.2%), or screening for risk factors (1.4%). human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome, cancer, and substance use were the most prevalent health topics studied, whereas other topics-such as lung diseases and Alzheimer disease-were less frequently studied. CONCLUSIONS: Health care delivery research comprises a modest portion of the NIH prevention research portfolio and is mostly focused on access and quality of care; cost-related analyses are less prevalent.human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome, cancer, and substance use are frequently studied health topics in this portfolio.

Emerging approaches to multiple chronic condition assessment.

Older adults experience a higher prevalence of multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Establishing the presence and pattern of MCCs in individuals or populations is important for healthcare delivery, research, and policy. This report describes four emerging approaches and discusses their potential applications for enhancing assessment, treatment, and policy for the aging population. The National Institutes of Health convened a 2-day panel workshop of experts in 2018. Four emerging models were identified by the panel, including classification and regression tree (CART), qualifying comorbidity sets (QCS), the multimorbidity index (MMI), and the application of omics to network medicine. Future research into models of multiple chronic condition assessment may improve understanding of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of older persons.

Measuring Multimorbidity: Selecting the Right Instrument for the Purpose and the Data Source.

BACKGROUND: Adults have a higher prevalence of multimorbidity-or having multiple chronic health conditions-than having a single condition in isolation. Researchers, health care providers, and health policymakers find it challenging to decide upon the most appropriate assessment tool from the many available multimorbidity measures. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe a broad range of instruments and data sources available to assess multimorbidity and offer guidance about selecting appropriate measures. DESIGN: Instruments were reviewed and guidance developed during a special expert workshop sponsored by the National Institutes of Health on September 25-26, 2018. RESULTS: Workshop participants identified 4 common purposes for multimorbidity measurement as well as the advantages and disadvantages of 5 major data sources: medical records/clinical assessments, administrative claims, public health surveys, patient reports, and electronic health records. Participants surveyed 15 instruments and 2 public health data systems and described characteristics of the measures, validity, and other features that inform tool selection. Guidance on instrument selection includes recommendations to match the purpose of multimorbidity measurement to the measurement approach and instrument, review available data sources, and consider contextual and other related constructs to enhance the overall measurement of multimorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of multimorbidity measurement can be enhanced with appropriate measurement selection, combining data sources and special considerations for fully capturing multimorbidity burden in underrepresented racial/ethnic populations, children, individuals with multiple Adverse Childhood Events and older adults experiencing functional limitations, and other geriatric syndromes. The increased availability of comprehensive electronic health record systems offers new opportunities not available through other data sources.

Sources of Support for Studies That Inform Recommendations of the Community Preventive Services Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) makes evidence-based recommendations about preventive services, programs, and policies in community settings to improve public health. CPSTF recommendations are based on systematic evidence reviews. This study examined the sponsors (ie, sources of financial, material, or intellectual support) for publications included in systematic reviews used by the CPSTF to make recommendations during a 9-year period. METHODS: We examined systematic evidence reviews (effectiveness reviews and economic reviews) for CPSTF findings issued from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2018. We assessed study publications used in these reviews for sources of support; we classified sources as government, nonprofit, industry, or no identified support. We also identified country of origin for each sponsor and the most frequently mentioned sponsors. RESULTS: The CPSTF issued findings based on 144 systematic reviews (106 effectiveness reviews and 38 economic reviews). These reviews included 3846 publications: 3363 publications in effectiveness reviews and 483 publications in economic reviews. Government agencies supported 57.1% (n = 1919) of publications in effectiveness reviews and 59.2% (n = 286) in economic reviews. More than 1500 study sponsors from 36 countries provided support. The National Institutes of Health was the leading sponsor for effectiveness reviews (21.3%; 718 of 3363) and economic reviews (16.2%; 78 of 480), followed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (7.0%; 234 of 3363 effectiveness reviews and 14.8%; 71 of 480 economic reviews). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base used by the CPSTF was supported by an array of sponsors, with government agencies providing the most support. Study findings highlight the need for sponsorship transparency and the role of government as a leading supporter of studies that underpin CPSTF recommendations for improving public health.

Factors Associated With Oncologist Discussions of the Costs of Genomic Testing and Related Treatments.

BACKGROUND: Use of genomic testing is increasing in the United States. Testing can be expensive, and not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance. Little is known about how often oncologists discuss costs of testing and treatment or about the factors associated with those discussions. METHODS: We identified 1220 oncologists who reported discussing genomic testing with their cancer patients from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Multivariable polytomous logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between oncologist and practice characteristics and the frequency of cost discussions. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among oncologists who discussed genomic testing with patients, 50.0% reported often discussing the likely costs of testing and related treatments, 26.3% reported sometimes discussing costs, and 23.7% reported never or rarely discussing costs. In adjusted analyses, oncologists with training in genomic testing or working in practices with electronic medical record alerts for genomic tests were more likely to have cost discussions sometimes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19 to 3.69) or often (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.30 to 3.79), respectively, compared to rarely or never. Other factors statistically significantly associated with more frequent cost discussions included treating solid tumors (rather than only hematological cancers), using next-generation sequencing gene panel tests, having higher patient volume, and working in practices with higher percentages of patients insured by Medicaid, or self-paid or uninsured. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeting modifiable oncologist and practice factors, such as training in genomic testing and use of electronic medical record alerts, may help improve cost discussions about genomic testing and related treatments.

Time to Follow-up After Colorectal Cancer Screening by Health Insurance Type.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that patients with Medicaid insurance or Medicaid-like coverage would have longer times to follow-up and be less likely to complete colonoscopy compared with patients with commercial insurance within the same healthcare systems. METHODS: A total of 35,009 patients aged 50-64years with a positive fecal immunochemical test were evaluated in Northern and Southern California Kaiser Permanente systems and in a North Texas safety-net system between 2011 and 2012. Kaplan-Meier estimation was used between 2016 and 2017 to calculate the probability of having follow-up colonoscopy by coverage type. Among Kaiser Permanente patients, Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the association between coverage type and receipt of follow-up, adjusting for sociodemographics and health status. RESULTS: Even within the same integrated system with organized follow-up, patients with Medicaid were 24% less likely to complete follow-up as those with commercial insurance. Percentage receiving colonoscopy within 3 months after a positive fecal immunochemical test was 74.6% for commercial insurance, 63.10% for Medicaid only, and 37.5% for patients served by the integrated safety-net system. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that patients with Medicaid were less likely than those with commercial insurance to complete follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test and had longer average times to follow-up. With the future of coverage mechanisms uncertain, it is important and timely to assess influences of health insurance coverage on likelihood of follow-up colonoscopy and identify potential disparities in screening completion.

Colorectal cancer screening in the United States: Trends from 2008 to 2015 and variation by health insurance coverage.

Regular colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for reducing CRC incidence and mortality. This paper provides an updated analysis of CRC screening in the United States (US) and examines CRC screening by several features of health insurance coverage. Recommendation-consistent CRC screening was calculated for adults aged 50-75 in 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015 using data from the National Health Interview Survey. CRC screening prevalence in 2015 was described overall and by sociodemographic subgroups. CRC screening by health insurance coverage was further examined using multivariable logistic regression, stratified by age (50-64 years and 65-75 years) and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, time in US, and comorbid conditions. Recommendation-consistent screening increased from 51.6% in 2008 to 58.3% in 2010 (p < 0.001). Use plateaued from 2010 to 2013 but increased to 61.3% in 2015 (p < 0.001). In 2015, adults aged 50-64 years with traditional employer-sponsored private insurance were more likely to be screened (62.2%) than those with traditional private direct purchase plans (50.9%) and the uninsured (24.8%) (p < 0.01, respectively). After multivariable adjustment, differences between traditional employer-sponsored private insurance and the uninsured remained statistically significant. Adults aged 65-75 with Medicare and private insurance were more likely to be screened (76.3%) than those with Medicare, no supplemental insurance (68.8%) or Medicare and Medicaid (65.2%) (p < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the differences between Medicare and private insurance and Medicare no supplemental insurance remained statistically significant. CRC screening rates have increased over time, but certain segments of the population, especially the uninsured, continue to screen below recommended levels.

Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey.

BACKGROUND: Clinician surveys provide critical information about many facets of health care, but are often challenging to implement. Our objective was to assess use by participants and non-participants of a prepaid gift card incentive that could be later reclaimed by the researchers if unused. METHODS: Clinicians were recruited to participate in a mailed or online survey as part of a study to characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines and practices (n = 177). An up-front incentive of a $50 gift card to a popular online retailer was included with the study invitation. Clinicians were informed that the gift card would expire if it went unused after 4 months. Outcome measures included use of gift cards by participants and non-participants and comparison of hypothetical costs of different incentive strategies. RESULTS: 63.5% of clinicians who responded to the survey used the gift card, and only one provider who didn't participate used the gift card (1.6%). Many of those who participated did not redeem their gift cards (36.5% of respondents). The price of the incentives actually claimed totaled $3700, which was less than half of the initial outlay. Since some of the respondents did not redeem their gift cards, the cost of incentives was less than it might have been if we had provided a conditional incentive of $50 to responders after they had completed the survey. CONCLUSIONS: Redeemable online gift card codes may provide an effective way to motivate clinicians to participate in surveys.

Opportunities and challenges for the use of large-scale surveys in public health research: a comparison of the assessment of cancer screening behaviors.

Large-scale surveys that assess cancer prevention and control behaviors are a readily available, rich resource for public health researchers. Although these data are used by a subset of researchers who are familiar with them, their potential is not fully realized by the research community for reasons including lack of awareness of the data and limited understanding of their content, methodology, and utility. Until now, no comprehensive resource existed to describe and facilitate use of these data. To address this gap and maximize use of these data, we catalogued the characteristics and content of four surveys that assessed cancer screening behaviors in 2005, the most recent year with concurrent periods of data collection: the National Health Interview Survey, Health Information National Trends Survey, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and California Health Interview Survey. We documented each survey's characteristics, measures of cancer screening, and relevant correlates; examined how published studies (n = 78) have used the surveys' cancer screening data; and reviewed new cancer screening constructs measured in recent years. This information can guide researchers in deciding how to capitalize on the opportunities presented by these data resources.

The appropriateness of more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended in Medicare beneficiaries: a modeling study.

IMPORTANCE: Many Medicare beneficiaries undergo more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended. Whether this is favorable for beneficiaries and efficient from a societal perspective is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended is favorable for Medicare beneficiaries (ie, whether it results in a net health benefit) and whether it is efficient from a societal perspective (ie, whether the net health benefit justifies the additional resources required). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Microsimulation modeling study of 65-year-old Medicare beneficiaries at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and with an average life expectancy who underwent a screening colonoscopy at 55 years with negative results. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy screening as recommended by guidelines (ie, at 65 and 75 years) vs scenarios with a shorter screening interval (5 or 3 instead of 10 years) or in which screening was continued to 85 or 95 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (measure of net health benefit); additional colonoscopies required per additional QALY gained and additional costs per additional QALY gained (measures of efficiency). RESULTS: Screening previously screened Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended resulted in only small increases in CRC deaths prevented and life-years gained. In comparison, the increases in colonoscopies performed and colonoscopy-related complications experienced were large. As a result, all scenarios of more intensive screening than recommended resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain (ie, a net harm). The only exception was shortening the screening interval from 10 to 5 years, which resulted in 0.7 QALYs gained per 1000 beneficiaries. However, this scenario was inefficient because it required no less than 909 additional colonoscopies and an additional $711 000 per additional QALY gained. Results in previously unscreened beneficiaries were slightly less unfavorable, but conclusions were identical. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Screening Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended is not only inefficient from a societal perspective; often it is also unfavorable for those being screened. This study provides evidence and a clear rationale for clinicians and policy makers to actively discourage this practice.

Comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy: a new tool to inform recommendations for optimal screening strategies.

BACKGROUND: Many guidelines recommend considering health status and life expectancy when making cancer screening decisions for elderly persons. OBJECTIVE: To estimate life expectancy for elderly persons without a history of cancer, taking into account comorbid conditions. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: A 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries in selected geographic areas, including their claims and vital status information. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years or older between 1992 and 2005 without a history of cancer (n = 407 749). MEASUREMENTS: Medicare claims were used to identify comorbid conditions included in the Charlson index. Survival probabilities were estimated by comorbidity group (no, low/medium, and high) and for the 3 most prevalent conditions (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure) by using the Cox proportional hazards model. Comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy was calculated based on comparisons of survival models with U.S. life tables. Survival probabilities from the U.S. life tables providing the most similar survival experience to the cohort of interest were used. RESULTS: Persons with higher levels of comorbidity had shorter life expectancies, whereas those with no comorbid conditions, including very elderly persons, had favorable life expectancies relative to an average person of the same chronological age. The estimated life expectancy at age 75 years was approximately 3 years longer for persons with no comorbid conditions and approximately 3 years shorter for those with high comorbidity relative to the average U.S. population. LIMITATIONS: The cohort was limited to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 66 years or older living in selected geographic areas. Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry and Medicare claims lack information on functional status and severity of comorbidity, which might influence life expectancy in elderly persons. CONCLUSION: Life expectancy varies considerably by comorbidity status in elderly persons. Comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy may help physicians tailor recommendations for stopping or continuing cancer screening for individual patients.

Assessing non-cancer-related health status of US cancer patients: other-cause survival and comorbidity prevalence.

With advances in prevention, screening, and treatment, cancer patients are living longer; hence, non-cancer-related health status will likely play a larger role in determining their life expectancy. In this study, we present a novel method for characterizing non-cancer--related health status of cancer patients using population-based cancer registry data. We assessed non-cancer-related health status in the context of survival from other causes of death and prevalence of comorbidities. Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (2000-2006) were used to analyze cancer patients' survival probabilities by cause of death. Other-cause survival was estimated using a left-truncated survival method with the hazard of death due to other causes characterized as a function of age. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims (1992-2005) were used to quantify comorbidity prevalence. Relative to the US population, survival from a non-cancer-related death was higher for patients diagnosed with early stage breast and prostate cancer but lower for lung cancer patients at all stages. Lung cancer patients had worse comorbidity status than did other cancer patients. The present study represents the first attempt to evaluate the non-cancer-related health status of US cancer patients by cancer site (breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung) and stage. The findings provide insight into non-cancer-related health issues among cancer patients and their risk of dying from other causes.

Multilevel predictors of colorectal cancer screening use in California.

BACKGROUND: Screening can detect colorectal cancer (CRC) early, yet its uptake needs to be improved. Social determinants of health (SDOH) may be linked to CRC screening use but are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To examine geographic variation in CRC screening and the extent to which multilevel SDOH explain its use in California, the most populous and racially/ethnically diverse state in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of individual and neighborhood data on 20,626 adult respondents aged >50 years from the 2005 California Health Interview Survey. METHODS: We used multilevel logistic regression models to estimate the effects of individual characteristics and area-level segregation, socioeconomic status (SES), and healthcare resources at 2 different geographic levels on CRC screening use. RESULTS: We confirmed that individual-level factors (eg, race/ethnicity, income, insurance) were strong predictors and found that area-level healthcare resources were associated with CRC screening. Primary care shortage in the Medical Service Study Area was associated with CRC screening for any modality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.00). County-level HMO penetration (OR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.47-2.33) and primary care shortage (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99) were associated with CRC screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Contextual factors including locality, primary care resources, and HMO membership are important determinants of CRC screening uptake; SES and segregation did not explain variation in screening behavior. More studies of contextual factors and varying geographic scales are needed to further elucidate their impact on CRC screening uptake.

Physician visits and colorectal cancer testing among Medicare enrollees in North Carolina and South Carolina, 2005.

INTRODUCTION: Many Medicare enrollees do not receive colorectal cancer tests at recommended intervals despite having Medicare screening coverage. Little is known about the physician visits of Medicare enrollees who are untested. Our study objective was to evaluate physician visits of enrollees who lack appropriate testing to identify opportunities to increase colorectal cancer testing. METHODS: We used North Carolina and South Carolina Medicare data to compare type and frequency of physician visits for Medicare enrollees with and without a colorectal cancer test in 2005. Type of physician visit was defined by the physician specialty as primary care, mixed specialty (more than 1 specialty, 1 of which was primary care), and nonprimary care. We used multivariate modeling to assess the influence of type and frequency of physician visits on colorectal cancer testing. RESULTS: Approximately half (46.5%) of enrollees lacked appropriate colorectal cancer testing. Among the untested group, 19.8% had no physician visits in 2005. Enrollees with primary care visits were more likely to be tested than those without a primary care visit. Many enrollees who had primary care visits remained untested. Enrollees with visits to all physician types had a greater likelihood of having colorectal cancer testing. CONCLUSION: We identified 3 categories of Medicare enrollees without appropriate colorectal cancer testing: those with no visits, those who see primary care physicians only, and those with multiple visits to physicians with primary and nonprimary care specialties. Different strategies are needed for each category to increase colorectal cancer testing in the Medicare population.

A population-based assessment of specialty physician involvement in cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are critical for evaluating new cancer therapies, but few adult patients participate in them. Physicians have an important role in facilitating patient participation in clinical trials. We examined the characteristics of specialty physicians who participate in clinical trials by enrolling or referring patients, the types of trials in which they participate, and factors associated with physicians who report greater involvement in clinical trials. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. The study included 1533 specialty physicians who cared for colorectal and lung cancer patients (496 medical oncologists, 228 radiation oncologists, and 809 surgeons) and completed a survey conducted during 2005-2006 (response rate = 61.0%). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize physicians' personal and practice characteristics, and regression models were used to examine associations between these characteristics and physician participation in clinical trials. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 87.8% of medical oncologists, 66.1% of radiation oncologists, and 35.0% of surgeons reported referring or enrolling one or more patients in clinical trials during the previous 12 months. The mean number of patients referred or enrolled by these physicians was 17.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.5 to 18.9) for medical oncologists, 9.5 (95% CI = 7.7 to 11.3) for radiation oncologists, and 12.2 (95% CI = 9.8 to 14.6) for surgeons (P < .001). Specialty type, involvement in teaching, and affiliation with a Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) and/or a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center were associated with physician trial participation and enrolling more patients (all Ps < .05). Two-thirds of physicians with a CCOP or National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center affiliation reported participating in trials. CONCLUSIONS: Features of specialty physicians' practice environments are associated with their trial participation, but many physicians at CCOPs and cancer centers do not participate.

Primary care, economic barriers to health care, and use of colorectal cancer screening tests among Medicare enrollees over time.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of primary care and economic barriers to health care on CRC testing relative to the 2001 Medicare expansion of screening coverage. METHODS: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data were use to study community-dwelling enrollees aged 65 to 80 years, free of renal disease and CRC, and who participated in the survey in 2000 (n = 8,330), 2003 (n = 7,889), or 2005 (n = 7,614). Three outcomes were examined: colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy within 5 years (recent endoscopy), endoscopy more than 5 years previously, and fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 2 years. RESULTS: Endoscopy use increased and FOBT use decreased during the 6-year period, with no significant independent differences between those receiving care from primary care physicians and those receiving care from other physicians. Beneficiaries without a usual place of health care were the least likely to undergo CRC testing, and that gap widened with time: adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.39) for FOBT, and AOR = 0.35 (95% CI, 0.27-0.46) for endoscopy in 2000 compared with AOR = 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.30) for FOBT and AOR = 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.30) for endoscopy in 2005. Disparities in use of recent endoscopy by type of health insurance coverage in both 2000 and 2005 were greater for enrollees with a high school education or higher than they were for less-educated enrollees. There were no statistically significant differences by delayed care due to cost after adjustment for health insurance. CONCLUSION: Despite expanding coverage for screening, complex CRC screening disparities persisted based on differences in the usual place and cost of health care, type of health insurance coverage, and level of education.

Racial and ethnic trends of colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have remained lower than the Healthy People 2010 goal, particularly among minority populations. PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the racial-ethnic trends in CRC screening and the continued impact of healthcare access indicators on screening differences after Medicare expanded coverage. METHODS: The study used data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey for 2000, 2003, and 2005. The sample was restricted to non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Hispanics. The primary outcome was the proportion of enrollees who underwent lower-gastrointestinal endoscopy within 5 years and/or home fecal occult blood test within 1 year. RESULTS: Over the 6-year period under study, the proportion screened increased among each of the three racial-ethnic groups, but lower proportions of blacks and Hispanics underwent screening compared with whites at each time point. Hispanic-white differences persisted but black-white differences narrowed in 2003 and widened in 2005. In each survey year, racial differences attenuated after adjustment for type of supplemental health insurance and disappeared after further adjustment for educational and income levels. CONCLUSIONS: Despite expanding benefits for CRC screening, which would be expected to disproportionally benefit racial and ethnic minorities, racial disparities in use of screening persist in part because of differences in the types of health insurance coverage, education, and income. There was a slight reversal of the initial attenuation of the black-white difference after the Medicare policy change. Efforts are needed to increase the reach of CRC screening to minority populations, particularly those lacking adequate health insurance coverage or with less education or income.

The contribution of longitudinal comorbidity measurements to survival analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical and health services research studies are longitudinal, raising questions about how best to use an individual's comorbidity measurements over time to predict survival. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of different approaches to longitudinal comorbidity measurement in predicting survival, and to examine strategies for addressing the inevitable issue of missing data. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using Cox regression analysis to examine the association between various Romano-Charlson comorbidity measures and survival. SUBJECTS: Fifty thousand cancer-free individuals aged 66 or older enrolled in Medicare between 1991 and 1999 for at least 1 year. RESULTS: The best fitting model combined both time independent baseline comorbidity and the time dependent prior year comorbidity measure. The worst fitting model included baseline comorbidity only. Overall, the models fit best when using the "rolling" comorbidity measures that assumed chronic conditions persisted rather than measures using only prior year's recorded diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal comorbidity is an important predictor of survival, and investigators should make use of individuals' longitudinal comorbidity data in their regression modeling.