Cancer diagnoses and survival rise as 65-year-olds become Medicare-eligible.

BACKGROUND: A Medicare effect has been described to account for increased health care utilization occurring at the age of 65 years. The existence of such an effect in cancer care, where it would be most likely to reduce mortality, has been unclear. METHODS: Patients aged 61 to 69 years who were diagnosed with lung, breast, colon, or prostate cancer from 2004 to 2016 were identified with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and were dichotomized on the basis of eligibility for Medicare (61-64 vs 65-69 years). With age-over-age (AoA) percent change calculations, trends in cancer diagnoses and staging were characterized. After matching, uninsured patients who were 61 to 64 years old (pre-Medicare group) were compared with insured patients who were 65 to 69 years old (post-Medicare group) with respect to cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: In all, 134,991 patients were identified with lung cancer, 175,558 were identified with breast cancer, 62,721 were identified with colon cancer, and 238,823 were identified with prostate cancer. The AoA growth in the number of cancer diagnoses was highest at the age of 65 years in comparison with all other ages within the decade for all 4 cancers (P < .01, P < .001, P < .01, and P < .001, respectively). In a comparison of diagnoses at the age of 65 years with those in the 61- to 64-year-old cohort, the greatest difference for all 4 cancers was seen in stage I. In matched analyses, the 5-year cancer-specific mortality was worse for lung (86.3% vs 78.5%; P < .001), breast (32.7% vs 11.0%; P < .001), colon (57.1% vs 35.6%; P < .001), and prostate cancer (16.9% vs 4.8%; P < .001) in the uninsured pre-Medicare group than the insured post-Medicare group. CONCLUSIONS: The age threshold of 65 years for Medicare eligibility is associated with more cancer diagnoses (particularly stage I), and this results in lower long-term cancer-specific mortality for all cancers studied. LAY SUMMARY: Contributing to the current debate regarding Medicare for all, this study shows that the expansion of Medicare would improve cancer outcomes for the near elderly.

Insurance type, not race, predicts mortality after pediatric trauma.

BACKGROUND: In adult trauma, mortality varies with race and insurance status. In the elderly, insurance type has little impact on mortality after trauma and the influence of race is reduced. How race and insurance affect pediatric trauma requires further attention. We hypothesized that mortality after pediatric trauma is influenced by insurance type and not race. METHODS: We reviewed all cases of blunt trauma in children ≤13 y requiring admission, using the National Trauma Data Bank Research Data Sets for 2007 and 2008. Exclusions included an Abbreviated Injury Score of 6 for any body region, dead on arrival, and missing data. Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We identified 831 Asian (1.2%), 10,592 black (15.5%), 45,173 white (66.2%), and 8498 Hispanic (12.5%) children, and 3161 children (4.6%) classified as other race. Mean age was 7.4 ± 4.5 y, 11.9% were uninsured, and overall in-hospital mortality was 1.4%. Multivariable modeling indicated that race was not associated with increased mortality (Asian versus white, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.05, P = 0.88; black versus white, AOR 0.92, P = 0.42; Hispanic versus white, AOR 0.87, P = 0.26; and other race versus white, AOR 1.01, P = 0.96). In contrast, insurance status (any insurance versus no insurance, AOR 0.6, P < 0.01) and insurance type (private insurance versus no insurance, AOR 0.47, P < 0.01; Medicaid versus no insurance, 0.67, P < 0.01) predicted reduced mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Insurance status and insurance type are important predictors of mortality after pediatric trauma while, in contrast, race is not.

Insurance-and race-related disparities decrease in elderly trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Little focus is on health care disparities in the elderly, a population largely covered by public insurance. We characterized insurance type and race in elderly trauma patients to determine if lack of insurance or minority status predict increased mortality. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank (version 7.0) was queried for all adult blunt trauma patients. We divided patients into two cohorts (15-64 or ≥ 65 years) based on age for universal Medicare eligibility. Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Multiple logistic regression was used to control for confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 541,471 patients met inclusion criteria. Among younger patients, the most common insurance type was private (41.0%), with 26.9% uninsured. In contrast, the most common insurance type among older patients was Medicare (64.6%), with 6.0% uninsured. Within the younger cohort, private insurance (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.6; p < 0.01) and other insurance (AOR, 0.8; p < 0.01) predicted reduced mortality, while Medicare predicted similar mortality (AOR, 1.1; p = 0.18) compared with no insurance. Black race (AOR, 1.4; p < 0.01) and Hispanic ethnicity (AOR, 1.4; p < 0.01) predicted higher mortality compared with white race. Within the older cohort, no insurance predicted similar mortality as Medicare (AOR, 1.0; p = 0.43), private insurance (AOR, 1.0; p = 0.51), and other insurance (AOR, 1.0; p = 0.71). Hispanic ethnicity predicted increased mortality (AOR, 1.4; p < 0.01), while Asian race was protective (AOR, 0.7; p = 0.01) compared with white race. CONCLUSION: Elderly trauma patients present primarily with Medicare, while younger trauma patients are mostly privately insured; elderly patients are four times more likely to be insured. Disparities caused by lack of insurance and minority race are reduced in elderly trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic/prognostic study, level III.