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.

Association of Employment Disruptions and Financial Hardship Among Individuals Diagnosed with Cancer in the United States: Findings from a Nationally Representative Study.

Financial hardship (FH), defined as adverse patient effects due to cancer costs, is experienced by approximately half of individuals diagnosed with cancer. Many individuals diagnosed with cancer also experience disruptions with their employment. This study examines associations of employment disruptions and FH among a nationally representative sample of individuals diagnosed with cancer in the United States. We utilized 2016/2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer data from individuals who worked for pay following cancer diagnosis. Employment disruption included taking extended paid time off work; switching to part-time/less demanding jobs; and/or retiring early due to cancer diagnosis/treatment. FH domains included: material (e.g., borrowing money/financial sacrifices); psychologic (e.g., worrying about medical bills/income); and behavioral (delaying/forgoing healthcare services because of cost). Multivariable logistic regression analyses determined associations of employment disruption and FH. Among 732 individuals with a cancer history, 47.4% experienced employment disruptions; 55.9% experienced any FH. Any FH was significantly more common among individuals with versus without employment disruptions across multiple measures and domains (68.7% vs. 44.5%; P value of difference <0.0001). Individuals with employment disruptions were more likely to have any FH [OR, 2.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.62-3.52] and more FHs (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.96-3.89]. This study highlights that employment disruptions are common and significantly associated with multiple domains of FH among individuals with a cancer history. Employer workplace accommodation, physician discussions regarding potential impacts of cancer care on employment, and other policies to minimize employment disruptions among individuals diagnosed with cancer may reduce FH in this vulnerable population. Significance: Individuals diagnosed with cancer may have employment disruptions; they may also develop FHs. People with cancer who have employment changes are more likely to also have FHs. Physicians and employers can help individuals with cancer through advancing planning, workplace assistance, and improved medical leave and insurance policies.

"It's just not easy to understand": A mixed methods study of health insurance literacy and insurance plan decision-making in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Understanding cancer survivors' health insurance decision-making is needed to improve insurance choice, potentially resulting in reduced financial hardship. METHODS: This explanatory mixed methods study assessed health insurance decision-making in cancer survivors. Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM) captured HIL. Quantitative eye-tracking data collected from two simulated health insurance plan choice sets gauged dwell time (seconds), or interest, in benefits. Dwell time differences by HIL were estimated using adjusted linear models. Qualitative interviews explored survivors' insurance decision-making choices. RESULTS: Cancer survivors (N = 80; 38% breast cancer) had a median age of 43 at diagnosis (IQR 34-52). When comparing traditional and high-deductible health plans, survivors were most interested in drug costs (median dwell time 58 s, IQR 34-109). When comparing health maintenance organization and preferred provider organization plans, survivors were most interested in test/imaging costs (40s, IQR 14-67). Survivors with low versus high HIL had more interest in deductible (ß = 19 s, 95% CI 2-38) and hospitalization costs (ß = 14 s, 95% CI 1-27) in adjusted models. Survivors with low versus high HIL more often ranked out-of-pocket (OOP) maximums and coinsurance as the most important and confusing benefits, respectively. Interviews (n = 20) revealed survivors felt alone "to do their own research" about insurance choices. OOP maximums were cited as the deciding factor since it is "how much money is going to be taken out of my pocket." Coinsurance was considered "rather than a benefit, it's a hindrance." CONCLUSION: Interventions to aid in health insurance understanding and choice are needed to optimize plan choice and potentially reduce cancer-related financial hardship.

Influence of Cost-Related Considerations on Clinical Trial Participation: Results from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).

BACKGROUND: People experiencing financial burden are underrepresented in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: Describe the prevalence of cost-related considerations influential to trial participation and their associations with person-level characteristics. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study used and assessed how three cost-related considerations would influence the decision to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3682 US adult respondents to the Health Information National Trends Survey MAIN MEASURES: Survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between respondent characteristics and odds of reporting cost-related considerations as very influential to participation. KEY RESULTS: Among 3682 respondents, median age was 48 (IQR 33-61). Most were non-Hispanic White (60%), living comfortably or getting by on their income (74%), with ≥ 1 medical condition (61%). Over half (55%) of respondents reported at least one cost-related consideration as very influential to trial participation, including if usual care was not covered by insurance (reported by 42%), payment for participation (24%), or support for participation (24%). Respondents who were younger (18-34 vs. ≥ 75, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.3, 95% CI 2.3-8.1), more educated (high school vs.

Cost-Related Medication Nonadherence and Patient Cost Responsibility for Rural and Urban Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: The relationship between out-of-pocket spending and cost-related medication nonadherence among older rural- and urban-dwelling cancer survivors is not well understood. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, Medicare claims, and the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey linked data resource linked data (2007-2015) to investigate the relationship between cancer survivors' cost responsibility in the year before and after report of delaying or not filling a prescription medication because of cost in the past 6 months (cost-related medication nonadherence). Secondary exposures and outcomes included Medicare spending and utilization. Generalized linear models assessed bidirectional relationships between cost-related medication nonadherence, spending, and utilization. Effects of residence were assessed via interaction terms. RESULTS: Of 6,591 older cancer survivors, 13% reported cost-related medication nonadherence. Survivors were a median 8 years (interquartile range, 4.5-12.5 years) from their cancer diagnosis, 15% were dually Medicare/Medicaid-eligible, and prostate (40%) and breast (32%) cancer survivors were most prevalent. With every $500 USD increase in patient cost responsibility, risk of cost-related medication nonadherence increased by 3% (risk ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.04). After report of cost-related medication nonadherence, patient cost responsibility was 22% higher (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.32) compared with those not reporting nonadherence, amounting to $523 USD (95% CI, $430 USD to $630 USD). Medicare spending and utilization were also higher before and after report of cost-related nonadherence versus none. For survivors residing in rural (18%) and urban (82%) areas, residence did not modify adherence or cost outcomes. CONCLUSION: A bidirectional relationship exists between patient cost responsibility and cost-related medication nonadherence. Interventions reducing urban- and rural-dwelling survivor health care costs and cost-related adherence barriers are needed.

Health insurance and financial hardship in cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Uninsured or underinsured individuals with cancer are likely to experience financial hardship, including forgoing healthcare or non-healthcare needs such as food, housing, or utilities. This study evaluates the association between health insurance coverage and financial hardship among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-sectional analysis used Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) survey data from May to July 2020. Cancer survivors who previously received case management or financial aid from PAF self-reported challenges paying for healthcare and non-healthcare needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Associations between insurance coverage and payment challenges were estimated using Poisson regression with robust standard errors, which allowed for estimation of adjusted relative risks (aRR). Of 1,437 respondents, 74% had annual household incomes <$48,000. Most respondents were enrolled in Medicare (48%), 22% in employer-sponsored insurance, 13% in Medicaid, 6% in an Affordable Care Act (ACA) plan, and 3% were uninsured. Approximately 31% of respondents reported trouble paying for healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents who were uninsured (aRR 2.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.83-3.64), enrolled in an ACA plan (aRR 1.86, 95% CI 1.28-2.72), employer-sponsored insurance (aRR 1.70, 95% CI 1.23-2.34), or Medicare (aRR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09-2.03) had higher risk of trouble paying for healthcare compared to Medicaid enrollees. Challenges paying for non-healthcare needs were reported by 57% of respondents, with 40% reporting trouble paying for food, 31% housing, 28% transportation, and 20% internet. In adjusted models, Medicare and employer-sponsored insurance enrollees were less likely to have difficulties paying for non-healthcare needs compared to Medicaid beneficiaries. Despite 97% of our cancer survivor sample being insured, 31% and 57% reported trouble paying for healthcare and non-healthcare needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively. Greater attention to both medical and non-medical financial burden is needed given the economic pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer-Related Care Costs and Employment Disruption: Recommendations to Reduce Patient Economic Burden as Part of Cancer Care Delivery.

Cancer survivors are frequently unprepared to manage the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs associated with undergoing cancer treatment and the potential for employment disruption. This commentary outlines a set of research recommendations stemming from the National Cancer Institute's Future of Health Economics Research Conference to better understand and reduce patient economic burden as part of cancer care delivery. Currently, there are a lack of detailed metrics and measures of survivors' OOP costs and employment disruption, and data on these costs are rarely available at the point of care to guide patient-centered treatment and survivorship care planning. Future research should improve the collection of data about survivors' OOP costs for medical care, other cancer-related expenses, and experiences of employment disruption. Methods such as microcosting and the prospective collection of patient-reported outcomes in cancer care are needed to understand the true sum of cancer-related costs taken on by survivors and caregivers. Better metrics and measures of survivors' costs must be coupled with interventions to incorporate that information into cancer care delivery and inform meaningful communication about OOP costs and employment disruption that is tailored to different clinical situations. Informing survivors about the anticipated costs of their cancer care supports informed decision making and proactive planning to mitigate financial hardship. Additionally, system-level infrastructure should be developed and tested to facilitate screening to identify survivors at risk for financial hardship, improve communication about OOP costs and employment disruption between survivors and their health-care providers, and support the delivery of appropriate financial navigation services.

Impact of Pain on Employment and Financial Outcomes Among Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Although pain is a frequently reported symptom among individuals with cancer, there is limited information on the impact of pain on employment or financial outcomes. This study used nationally representative data to examine the role of pain levels on employment and financial outcomes. METHODS: We used data from the 2016-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement to identify 1,213 adults diagnosed with cancer. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to examine association of pain levels and self-reported employment and financial outcomes. RESULTS: Approximately 43% of adults with a cancer history reported no pain, 29% mild pain, 18% moderate pain, and 10% severe pain over the past 7 days. Compared with those reporting no pain, individuals reporting any pain had significantly increased likelihood of adverse employment outcomes including early retirement, feeling less productive, and staying at a job because of concerns about losing insurance. Individuals with any pain (compared with no pain) also had significantly increased likelihood of adverse financial outcomes including borrowing money or going into debt, inability to cover medical costs, and worrying about paying medical bills. For both employment and financial outcomes, there were dose-response relationships, with worse outcomes generally associated with greater pain levels. CONCLUSION: Pain is frequently associated with adverse employment and financial outcomes among cancer survivors, and greater pain is associated with worse outcomes. Better assessment of pain severity among survivors and implementation of strategies to assist with employment and financial objectives may be important steps to enhance patient-centered care.

Delivery of Financial Navigation Services Within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

Background: Cancer centers have a responsibility to help patients manage the costs of their cancer treatment. This article describes the availability of financial navigation services within the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. Methods: Data were obtained from the NCI Survey of Financial Navigation Services and Research, an online survey administered to NCI-designated cancer centers from July to September 2019. Of the 62 eligible centers, 57 completed all or most of the survey, for a response rate of 90.5%. Results: Nearly all cancer centers reported providing help with applications for pharmaceutical assistance programs and medical discounts (96.5%), health insurance coverage (91.2%), assistance with nonmedical costs (96.5%), and help understanding medical bills and out-of-pocket costs (85.9%). Although other services were common, in some cases they were only available to certain patients. These services included direct financial assistance with medical and nonmedical costs and referrals to outside organizations for financial assistance. The least common services included medical debt management (63.2%), detailed discussions about the cost of treatment (54.4%), and guidance about legal protections (50.1%). Providing treatment cost transparency to patients was reported as a common challenge: 71.9% of centers agreed or strongly agreed that it is difficult to determine how much a cancer patient's treatment will cost, and 70.2% of oncologists are reluctant to discuss financial issues with patients. Conclusions: Cancer centers provide many financial services and resources. However, there remains a need to build additional capacity to deliver comprehensive financial navigation services and to understand the extent to which patients are referred and helped by these services.

Patient-Provider Discussions About Out-of-Pocket Costs of Cancer Care in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the importance of cost-related discussions in cancer care, little is known about the prevalence or drivers of these discussions in clinical practice. This study estimates the prevalence and examines the correlates of cancer survivors' discussions about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care with providers. METHODS: The 2016 and 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Surveys were used to identify 1,550 survivors who responded to the question on discussion about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. Multivariable multinomial logistic regression examined the correlates of discussions about out-of-pocket costs. Analyses were performed in 2019. RESULTS: Approximately one quarter of cancer survivors reported having discussed the out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. In multivariable analyses, respondents in the following categories were less likely to report no cost discussion than any cost discussion: black non-Hispanic/other race (RRR=0.67, 95% CI=0.45, 0.98; white non-Hispanic race as reference), no health insurance at diagnosis (RRR=0.51, 95% CI=0.27, 0.95; private health insurance as reference), and any experience of financial hardship (RRR=0.48, 95% CI=0.35, 0.66; no financial hardship as reference). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported discussions about out-of-pocket costs for cancer care are infrequent in the U.S. The findings highlight the needs to improve the understanding of the barriers and facilitators for effective discussions about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care.

Medical Financial Hardship Intensity and Financial Sacrifice Associated with Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: With rising costs of cancer care, this study aims to estimate the prevalence of, and factors associated with, medical financial hardship intensity and financial sacrifices due to cancer in the United States. METHODS: We identified 963 cancer survivors from the 2016 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey - Experiences with Cancer. Medical financial hardship due to cancer was measured in material (e.g., filed for bankruptcy), psychological (e.g., worry about paying bills and finances), and behavioral (e.g., delaying or forgoing care due to cost) domains. Nonmedical financial sacrifices included changes in spending and use of savings. Multivariable logistic models were used to identify characteristics associated with hardship intensity and sacrifices stratified by age group (18-64 or 65+ years). RESULTS: Among cancer survivors ages 18 to 64 years, 53.6%, 28.4%, and 11.4% reported at least one, two, or all three domains of hardship, respectively. Among survivors ages 65+ years, corresponding percentages were 42.0%, 12.7%, and 4.0%, respectively. Moreover, financial sacrifices due to cancer were more common in survivors ages 18 to 64 years (54.2%) than in survivors 65+ years (38.4%; P < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with hardship intensity in multivariable analyses included low income and educational attainment, racial/ethnic minority, comorbidity, lack of private insurance coverage, extended employment change, and recent cancer treatment. Most were also significantly associated with financial sacrifices. CONCLUSIONS: Medical financial hardship and financial sacrifices are substantial among cancer survivors in the United States, particularly for younger survivors. IMPACT: Efforts to mitigate financial hardship for cancer survivors are warranted, especially for those at high risk.

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.

Annual Out-of-Pocket Expenditures and Financial Hardship Among Cancer Survivors Aged 18-64 Years - United States, 2011-2016.

In the United States in 2019, an estimated 16.9 million persons are living after receiving a cancer diagnosis (1). These cancer survivors face many challenges, including functional limitations, serious psychological distress (2), and other lasting and late effects of cancer treatments. Because of the high cost of cancer therapy, many cancer survivors are more likely to face substantial out-of-pocket health care expenditures and financial hardship, compared with persons without a history of cancer (3,4). Out-of-pocket expenditures and financial hardship associated with cancer have been higher among survivors aged 18-64 years than they have been among older survivors (5). To estimate annual out-of-pocket expenditures and financial hardship among cancer survivors aged 18-64 years, compared with persons without a cancer history, CDC, the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute analyzed data from the 2011-2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).* The average annual out-of-pocket spending per person was significantly higher among cancer survivors ($1,000; 95% confidence interval [CI] = $886-$1,113) than among persons without a cancer history ($622; CI = $606-$639). Financial hardship was common; 25.3% of cancer survivors reported material hardship (e.g., problems paying medical bills), and 34.3% reported psychological hardship (e.g., worry about medical bills). These findings add to accumulating evidence documenting the financial difficulties of many cancer survivors. Mitigating the negative impact of cancer in the United States will require implementation of strategies aimed at alleviating the disproportionate financial hardship experienced by many survivors. These strategies include systematic screening for financial hardship at cancer diagnosis and throughout cancer care, integration of discussions about the potential for adverse financial consequences of treatments in shared treatment decision-making, and linkage of patients and survivors to available resources to ensure access to high-quality evidence-based care.

The social and economic toll of cancer survivorship: a complex web of financial sacrifice.

PURPOSE: To assess the financial outcomes and associated social and economic effects on cancer survivors and their families. METHODS: We assessed the responses of 1656 cancer survivors to a survey with both closed- and open-ended questions about cancer-related financial sacrifices they and their family experienced and evaluated differences in financial sacrifice by reported levels of cancer-related debt. RESULTS: The most commonly reported financial sacrifices included cutbacks on household budgets, challenges with health care insurance and costs, career/self-advancement constraints, reduction/depletion of assets, and inability to pay bills. Survivors who incurred $10,000 or more in debt were significantly more likely to report social and economic impacts, including housing concerns and strained relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates both the frequency with which cancer survivors and families must make financial sacrifices as a result of their cancer, and the variety of forms that this sacrifice can take, even for individuals who have health insurance. The many types of financial hardship create challenges that are unique to each survivor and family. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Interventions that allow for personalized assistance with the specific financial and social needs of cancer survivors and their families have the potential to address a critical aspect of the long-term wellbeing of this important population.

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.

Making Cancer Rehabilitation Services Work for Cancer Patients: Recommendations for Research and Practice to Improve Employment Outcomes.

Cancer and its treatment can result in impairments that limit physical, psychosocial, and cognitive functioning, interfering with patients' ability to perform work-related functions. Because these work limitations can carry significant personal and societal costs, there is a timely need to identify and refer patients to cancer rehabilitation services to manage adverse consequences of treatment and to preserve employment. Coordinated efforts in 3 key areas will better connect patients to rehabilitation interventions that will help optimize employment. These include the following: planning for the impact of cancer on the ability to work; implementing routine screening for impairments and facilitating referrals to cancer rehabilitation specialists; and focusing rehabilitation interventions on preserving employment. Coordinated strategies are presented to achieve these 3 goals, including the following: implementing changes to clinical practice to routinely screen for impairments; working with oncology providers and patients to better understand the benefits of cancer rehabilitation to facilitate referrals and uptake; training more cancer rehabilitation providers to handle the increased need; better coordination of care across providers and with employers; and filling research gaps needed to proactively anticipate how cancer treatment would affect work for a given patient and deploy personalized interventions to preserve the ability to work.

Mammography Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries After Elimination of Cost Sharing.

BACKGROUND: We examined mammography use before and after Medicare eliminated cost sharing for screening mammography in January 2011. METHODS: Using National Health Interview Survey data, we examined changes in mammography use between 2010 and 2013 among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-74 years. Logistic regression and predictive margins were used to examine changes in use after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: In 2013, 74.7% of women reported a mammogram within 2 years, a 3.5 percentage point increase (95% confidence interval, -0.3, 7.2) compared with 2010. Increases occurred among women aged 65-69 years, unmarried women, and women with usual sources of care and 2-5 physician visits in the prior year. After adjustment, mammography use increased in 2013 versus 2010 (74.8% vs. 71.3%, P=0.039). Interactions between year and income, insurance, race, or ethnicity were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: There was a modest increase in mammography use from 2010 to 2013 among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-74 years, possibly consistent with an effect of eliminating Medicare cost sharing during this time. Findings suggest that eliminating cost sharing might increase use of recommended screening services.

For Working-Age Cancer Survivors, Medical Debt And Bankruptcy Create Financial Hardships.

The rising medical costs associated with cancer have led to considerable financial hardship for patients and their families in the United States. Using data from the LIVESTRONG 2012 survey of 4,719 cancer survivors ages 18-64, we examined the proportions of survivors who reported going into debt or filing for bankruptcy as a result of cancer, as well as the amount of debt incurred. Approximately one-third of the survivors had gone into debt, and 3 percent had filed for bankruptcy. Of those who had gone into debt, 55 percent incurred obligations of $10,000 or more. Cancer survivors who were younger, had lower incomes, and had public health insurance were more likely to go into debt or file for bankruptcy, compared to those who were older, had higher incomes, and had private insurance, respectively. Future longitudinal population-based studies are needed to improve understanding of financial hardship among US working-age cancer survivors throughout the cancer care trajectory and, ultimately, to help stakeholders develop evidence-based interventions and policies to reduce the financial hardship of cancer.