The cost burden of metastatic prostate cancer in the US populations covered by employer-sponsored health insurance.

BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in the clinical management of metastatic prostate cancer include several costly therapies and diagnostic tests. The objective of this study was to provide updated information on the cost to payers attributable to metastatic prostate cancer among men aged 18 to 64 years with employer-sponsored health plans and men aged 18 years or older covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement insurance. METHODS: By using Merative MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental data for 2009-2019, the authors calculated differences in spending between men with metastatic prostate cancer and their matched, prostate cancer-free controls, adjusting for age, enrollment length, comorbidities, and inflation to 2019 US dollars. RESULTS: The authors compared 9011 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by commercial insurance plans with a group of 44,934 matched controls and also compared 17,899 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement plans with a group of 87,884 matched controls. The mean age of patients with metastatic prostate cancer was 58.5 years in the commercial samples and 77.8 years in the Medicare supplement samples. Annual spending attributable to metastatic prostate cancer was $55,949 per person-year (95% confidence interval [CI], $54,074-$57,825 per person-year) in the commercial population and $43,682 per person-year (95% CI, $42,022-$45,342 per person-year) in the population covered by Medicare supplement plans, both in 2019 US dollars. CONCLUSIONS: The cost burden attributable to metastatic prostate cancer exceeds $55,000 per person-year among men with employer-sponsored health insurance and $43,000 among those covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement plans. These estimates can improve the precision of value assessments of clinical and policy approaches to the prevention, screening, and treatment of prostate cancer in the United States.

Economic burden of skin cancer treatment in the USA: an analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Data, 2012-2018.

PURPOSE: We report the prevalence and economic cost of skin cancer treatment compared to other cancers overall in the USA from 2012 to 2018. METHODS: Using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey full-year consolidated data files and associated medical conditions and medical events files, we estimate the prevalence, total costs, and per-person costs of treatment for melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer among adults aged ≥ 18 years in the USA. To understand the changes in treatment prevalence and treatment costs of skin cancer in the context of overall cancer treatment, we also estimate the prevalence, total costs, and per-person costs of treatment for non-skin cancer among US adults. RESULTS: During 2012-15 and 2016-18, the average annual number of adults treated for any skin cancer was 5.8 (95% CI: 5.2, 6.4) and 6.1 (95% CI: 5.6, 6.6) million, respectively, while the average annual number of adults treated for non-skin cancers rose from 10.8 (95% CI: 10.0, 11.5) to 11.9 (95% CI: 11.2, 12.6) million, respectively. The overall estimated annual costs rose from $8.0 (in 2012-2015) to $8.9 billion (in 2016-18) for skin cancer treatment and $70.2 to $79.4 billion respectively for non-skin cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: The prevalence and economic cost of skin cancer treatment modestly increased in recent years. Given the substantial cost of skin cancer treatment, continued public health attention to implementing evidence-based sun-safety interventions to reduce skin cancer risk may help prevent skin cancer and the associated treatment costs.

Enhancing Cancer Economic Data Resources: The Interagency Consortium to Promote Health Economics Research on Cancer (HEROiC).

BACKGROUND: Cancer diagnosis and treatment can substantially affect health and financial outcomes for patients and families. Research in health care delivery across the cancer control continuum includes diverse activities led by multiple government and private sector organizations. Assessing the economic drivers and influencing factors associated with costs across this continuum is challenging as organizations leading research efforts often do not have forums to share data, develop linkages, and explore collaborative opportunities. OBJECTIVE: To describe the objectives, activities, and goals of the Interagency Consortium to Promote Health Economics Research on Cancer (HEROiC) to strengthen data resources and capacity for collaborative patient-focused cancer health economics research. MAIN ARGUMENT: HEROiC's goals include assessing the economic burden of cancer; examining the effects of policies, health care setting/system factors, and health service delivery approaches across the cancer control continuum; and enhancing collaborations among researchers and organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Data resources to study economic outcomes associated with cancer control are highly fragmented; HEROIC provides a forum to collaboratively develop, enhance, and utilize data resources and infrastructure for patient-centered cancer health economics research. This includes sharing data resources, developing linkages, identifying new data collection venues, and creating and supporting the dissemination of evidence-based information to diverse stakeholders. These efforts provide critical information to address the economic burden of cancer. RELEVANCE TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE: Cancer diagnosis and treatment affect patient health and financial outcomes. This commentary describes how HEROiC will enhance research data infrastructure and collaborations to support patient-centered research with the goal of reducing the economic burden of cancer.

Estimated economic burden of cancer associated with suboptimal diet in the United States.

PURPOSE: Suboptimal diet is a preventable cause of cancer. We aimed to estimate the economic burden of diet-associated cancer among US adults. METHODS: We used a Comparative Risk Assessment model to quantify the number of new cancer cases attributable to seven dietary factors among US adults ages 20 + years. A Markov cohort model estimated the 5-year medical costs for 15 diet-associated cancers diagnosed in 2015. We obtained dietary intake from 2013 to 2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, cancer incidence, and survival from 2008 to 2014 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, and medical costs from 2007 to 2013 linked SEER-Medicare data. RESULTS: The estimated 5-year medical costs of new diet-associated cancer cases diagnosed in 2015 were $7.44 (2018 US$). Colorectal cancer had the largest diet-related 5-year medical costs of $5.32B. Suboptimal consumption of whole grains ($2.76B), dairy ($1.82B), and high consumption of processed meats ($1.5B) accounted for the highest medical costs. Per-person medical costs attributable to suboptimal diet vary by gender, race, and age group. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal diet contributes substantially to the economic burden of diet-associated cancers among US adults. This study highlights the need to implement population-based strategies to improve diet and reduce cancer burden in the US.

The Association Between State-Issued Mask Mandates and County COVID-19 Hospitalization Rates.

CONTEXT: Mask mandates are one form of nonpharmaceutical intervention that has been utilized to combat the spread of SARS-CoV2, the virus that causes COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the association between state-issued mask mandates and changes in county-level and hospital referral region (HRR)-level COVID-19 hospitalizations across the United States. DESIGN: Difference-in-difference and event study models were estimated to examine the association between state-issued mask mandates and COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: All analyses were conducted with US county-level data. INTERVENTIONS: State-issued mask mandates. County-level data on the mandates were collected from executive orders identified on state government Web sites from April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily county-level (and HRR-level) estimates of inpatient beds occupied by patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were collected by the US Department of Health and Human Services. RESULTS: The state issuing of mask mandates was associated with an average of 3.6 fewer daily COVID-19 hospitalizations per 100 000 people (P < .05) and a 1.2-percentage-point decrease in the percentage of county beds occupied with COVID-19 patients (P < .05) within 70 days of taking effect. Event study results suggest that this association increased the longer mask mandates were in effect. In addition, the results were robust to analyses conducted at the HRR level. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that state-issued mask mandates were associated with reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations across the United States during the earlier portion of the pandemic. As new variants of the virus cause spikes in COVID-19 cases, reimposing mask mandates in indoor and congested public areas, as part of a layered approach to community mitigation, may reduce the spread of COVID-19 and lessen the burden on our health care system.

A framework for cancer health economics research.

LAY SUMMARY: Cancer has substantial economic impacts for patients, their families and/or caregivers, employers, and the health care system. However, there is only limited understanding of how economic issues can affect access to cancer care services and the receipt of high-quality cancer care. Health economics research in cancer is particularly timely due to the large and increasing number of patients with cancer and cancer survivors, but there are many factors that may create barriers to performing cancer health economics research. This commentary has identified important topics and questions in cancer health economics research and will assist in the development of this critical field.

The Estimated Lifetime Medical Cost of Diseases Attributable to Human Papillomavirus Infections Acquired in 2018.

INTRODUCTION: We estimated the lifetime medical costs of diagnosed cases of diseases attributable to human papillomavirus (HPV) infections acquired in 2018. METHODS: We adapted an existing mathematical model of HPV transmission and associated diseases to estimate the lifetime number of diagnosed cases of disease (genital warts; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; and cervical, vaginal, vulvar, penile, anal, and oropharyngeal cancers) attributable to HPV infections that were acquired in 2018. For each of these outcomes, we multiplied the estimated number of cases by the estimated lifetime medical cost per case obtained from previous studies. We estimated the costs of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis in a separate calculation. Future costs were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: The estimated discounted lifetime medical cost of diseases attributable to HPV infections acquired in 2018 among people aged 15 to 59 years was $774 million (in 2019 US dollars), of which approximately half was accounted for by infections in those aged 15 to 24 years. Human papillomavirus infections in women accounted for approximately 90% of the lifetime number of diagnosed cases of disease and 70% of the lifetime cost attributable to HPV infections acquired in 2018 among those aged 15 to 59 years. CONCLUSIONS: We estimated the lifetime medical costs of diseases attributable to HPV infections acquired in 2018 to be $774 million. This estimate is lower than previous estimates, likely due to the impact of HPV vaccination. The lifetime cost of disease attributable to incident HPV infections is expected to decrease further over time as HPV vaccination coverage increases.

Productivity costs associated with metastatic breast cancer in younger, midlife, and older women.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to estimate productivity costs due to metastatic breast cancer (mBC) via productive time lost among survivors and potential life-years lost from premature mortality among 3 age groups: younger (aged 18-44 years), midlife (aged 45-64 years), and older (aged ≥65 years) women. METHODS: The authors estimated the number of work and home productivity days missed due to mBC by age group using data from the 2000 to 2016 National Health Interview Survey. Years of potential life lost (YPLL) due to mBC were calculated for each age group using 2015 National Vital Statistics System data. The authors valued both sources of lost productivity time using the Current Population Survey and prior studies. RESULTS: The per-woman value of lost productive days (work and home) due to mBC ranged from $680 for older women to $5169 for younger women. In 2015, the value of lost work and home productivity days associated with mBC nationally was $67 million for younger women, $246 million for midlife women, and $66 million for older women. YPLL were highest among midlife women (403,786 life-years), followed by older women (248,522 life-years) and younger women (95,943 life-years). Midlife women were found to have the highest market value of YPLL ($4.1 billion), followed by younger women ($1.6 billion) and older women ($527 million). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrated that mBC generates a high economic burden through lost productivity, especially among midlife women.

Medical costs associated with metastatic breast cancer in younger, midlife, and older women.

PURPOSE: We estimated average medical costs due to metastatic breast cancer (mBC) among younger (aged 18-44), midlife (aged 45-64), and older women (aged 65 and older) by phase of care: initial, continuing, and terminal. METHODS: We used 2003-2014 North Carolina cancer registry data linked with administrative claims from public and private payers. We developed a claims-based algorithm to identify breast cancer patients who progressed to metastatic disease. We matched breast cancer patients (mBC and earlier stage) to non-cancer patients on age group, county of residence, and insurance plan. Outcomes were average monthly medical expenditures and expected medical expenditures by phase. We used regression to estimate excess costs attributed to mBC as the difference in mean payments between patients with mBC (N = 4806) and patients with each earlier-stage breast cancer (stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, and unknown stage; N = 21,772) and non-cancer controls (N = 109,631) by treatment phase and age group. RESULTS: Adjusted monthly costs for women with mBC were significantly higher than for women with earlier-stage breast cancer and non-cancer controls for all age groups and treatment phases except the initial treatment among women with stage 3 breast cancer at diagnosis. The largest expected total costs were for women aged 18-44 with mBC during the continuing phase ($209,961 95% Confidence Interval $165,736-254,186). CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial excess costs for mBC among younger women and during the continuing and terminal phases of survivorship. It is important to assess whether this care is high value for these women.

Estimating the impact of increasing cervical cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program among low-income women in the USA.

PURPOSE: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides free cervical cancer screening to low-income women. This study estimated the health benefits gained in terms of life years (LYs) saved and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained if cervical cancer screening by the NBCCEDP increased to reach more eligible women. METHODS: Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, NBCCEDP, and Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys were used. LYs saved and QALYs gained/100,000 women were estimated using modeling methods. They were used to predict additional health benefits gained if screening by the NBCCEDP increased from 6.5% up to 10-25% of the eligible women. RESULTS: Overall, per 100,000 women screened by the NBCCEDP, 1,731 LYs were saved and 1,608 QALYs were gained. For white women, 1,926 LYs were saved and 1,780 QALYs were gained/100,000 women screened by the NBCCEDP. For black women, 1,506 LYs were saved and 1,300 QALYs were gained/100,000 women screened. If the proportion of eligible women screened by the NBCCEDP increased to 10-25%, the estimated health benefits would range from 6,626-34,896 LYs saved and 6,153-32,407 QALYs gained. CONCLUSIONS: The reported estimates emphasize the value of cervical cancer screening program by extending LE in low-income women. Further, it demonstrates that screening a higher percentage of eligible women in the NBCCEDP may yield more health benefits.

Medical financial hardship among cancer survivors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The current study examined medical financial hardship in cancer survivors and those without a cancer history in the United States. METHODS: The 2013 to 2016 National Health Interview Survey was used to identify cancer survivors (stratified by ages 18-49 years [1424 survivors], ages 50-64 years [2916 survivors], and ages ≥65 years [6014 survivors]) and individuals without a cancer history (ages 18-64 years [66,951 individuals], ages 50-64 years [31,741 individuals], and ages ≥65 years [25,744 individuals]). Medical financial hardship was categorized into 3 domains: 1) material (eg, problems paying medical bills); 2) psychological (eg, worrying about paying medical bills); and 3) behavioral (eg, delaying/forgoing care due to cost). Generalized ordinal logistic regressions were used to examine the associations between cancer history, hardship, and health insurance deductibles/health savings accounts (among privately insured cancer survivors aged 18-64 years only). RESULTS: Compared with those without a cancer history, cancer survivors were more likely to report any material (ages 18-49 years: 43.4% vs 30.1%; ages 50-64 years: 32.8% vs 27.8%; and ages ≥65 years: 17.3% vs 14.7%), psychological (ages 18-49 years: 53.5% vs 47.1%), and behavioral (ages 18-49 years: 30.6% vs 21.8%; and ages 50-64 years: 27.2% vs 23.4%) measure of financial hardship, and multiple domains of hardship (age groups 18-49 years and 50-64 years; all P < .01). Among privately insured survivors, having a high-deductible health plan without a health savings account was found to be associated with greater hardship compared with having low-deductible insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Younger cancer survivors are particularly vulnerable to material, psychological, and behavioral medical financial hardship. Interventions designed to reduce financial hardship should consider multiple domains of hardship as well as insurance benefit design.

Economics of public health programs for underserved populations: a review of economic analysis of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of economic analysis methods used in estimating the costs and benefits of public health programs and systematically review the application of these methods to the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). METHODS: Published literature on economic analyses of the NBCCEDP was systematically reviewed. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist was used to assess methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Methods available for economic analysis of public health programs include program cost, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit analysis, and budget impact analysis. Of these, program cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-utility analysis have been applied to the NBCCEDP in previously published literature. CONCLUSION: While there have been multiple program cost analyses, there are relatively fewer cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies and no cost-benefit and budget impact analysis studies to evaluate the NBCCEDP. Addressing these gaps will inform implementation of effective public health programs with equitable resource allocation to all population subgroups.

The effect of delivery structure on costs, screening and health promotional services in state level National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Programs.

PURPOSE: We estimated the costs and effectiveness of state programs in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) based on the type of delivery structure. METHODS: Programs were classified into three delivery structures: (1) centralized, (2) decentralized, and (3) mixed. Centralized programs offer clinical services in satellite offices, but all other program activities are performed centrally. Decentralized programs contract with other entities to fully manage and provide screening and diagnostic services and other program activities. Programs with mixed service delivery structures have both centralized and decentralized features. Programmatic costs were averaged over a 3 year period (2006-2007, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010). Effectiveness was defined in terms of the average number of women served over the 3 years. We report costs per woman served by program activity and delivery structure and incremental cost effectiveness by program structure and by breast/cervical services. RESULTS: Average costs per woman served were lowest for mixed program structures (breast = $225, cervical = $216) compared to decentralized (breast = cervical = $276) and centralized program structures (breast = $259, cervical = $251). Compared with decentralized programs, for each additional woman served, centralized programs saved costs of $281 (breast) and $284 (cervical). Compared with decentralized programs, for each additional woman served, mixed programs added an additional $109 cost for breast but saved $1,777 for cervical cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed program structures were associated with the lowest screening and diagnostic costs per woman served and had generally favorable incremental costs relative to the other program structures.

Awardee-specific economic costs of providing cancer screening and health promotional services to medically underserved women eligible in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate awardee-specific costs of delivering breast and cervical cancer screening services in their jurisdiction and to assess potential variation in the cost of key activities across awardees. METHODS: We developed the cost assessment tool to collect resource use and cost data from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program awardees for 3 years between 2006 and 2010 and generated activity-based cost estimates. We estimated awardee-specific cost per woman served for all activities, clinical screening delivery services, screening promotion interventions, and overarching program support activities. RESULTS: The total cost per woman served by the awardees varied greatly from $205 (10th percentile) to $499 (90th percentile). Differences in the average (median) cost per person served for clinical services, health promotion interventions, and overarching support activities ranged from $51 to $125. CONCLUSIONS: The cost per woman served varied across awardee and likely reflected underlying differences across awardees in terms of screening infrastructure, population served, and barriers to screening uptake. Collecting information on contextual factors at the awardee, health system, provider, and individual levels may assist in understanding this variation in cost.

Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

PURPOSE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). METHODS: Using a modified CISNET breast cancer simulation model, we estimated outcomes for women aged 40-64 years associated with three scenarios: breast cancer screening within the NBCCEDP, screening in the absence of the NBCCEDP (no program), and no screening through any program. We report screening outcomes, cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and sensitivity analyses results. RESULTS: Compared with no program and no screening, the NBCCEDP lowers breast cancer mortality and improves QALYs, but raises health care costs. Base-case ICER for the program was $51,754/QALY versus no program and $50,223/QALY versus no screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis ICER for the program was $56,615/QALY [95% CI $24,069, $134,230/QALY] versus no program and $51,096/QALY gained [95% CI $26,423, $97,315/QALY] versus no screening. CONCLUSIONS: On average, breast cancer screening in the NBCCEDP was cost-effective compared with no program or no screening.

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.

Preventive care service use among cancer survivors with serious psychological distress: An analysis of the medical expenditure panel survey data.

Serious psychological distress (SPD) can adversely impact health and quality of life after cancer. The purpose of this study is to examine the association between SPD and the receipt of preventive care services and cancer screening among survivors and adults without a cancer history. A total of 12,564 cancer survivors and 160,023 adults without a cancer history as comparison group were identified from the population-based Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2008-2015). SPD was assessed using the 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. We examined use of preventive care and cancer screening services in cancer survivors and comparison adults with/without SPD. Multivariable logistic regression models were conducted for each outcome: preventive service (i.e. blood pressure, cholesterol, influenza vaccination, routine and dental check-up) or cancer screening (i.e. mammography, Papanicolau test, colorectal cancer screening) adjusting for demographic, comorbidity, usual source of care covariates. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Prevalence of SPD was 9.8% in cancer survivors compared to 4.6% in comparison adults. Survivors with SPD were more frequent utilizers of medical care, reporting 10 or more visits to the doctor's office in the past 12 months (29.3% vs. 14.1% without SPD). Having SPD was associated with lower odds of being up-to-date with preventive service use and cancer screening among age- and gender-eligible individuals. The magnitude of the effect was greater in adults' age ≥65 years. Better coordination of care and patient-physician discussions are likely needed to improve delivery of recommended preventive services for persons with SPD.

Changes in Health Insurance Coverage Associated With the Affordable Care Act Among Adults With and Without a Cancer History: Population-based National Estimates.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) improved health care coverage accessibility by expanding Medicaid eligibility, creating insurance Marketplaces, and subsidizing premiums. We examine coverage changes associated with ACA implementation, comparing adults with and without a cancer history. METHODS: We included nonelderly adults from the 2012 to 2015 National Health Interview Survey. Using information on state Medicaid policies (2013), expansion decisions (2015), family structure, income, insurance offers, and current coverage, we assigned adults in all 4 years to mutually exclusive eligibility categories including: Medicaid-eligible pre-ACA; expansion eligible for Medicaid; and Marketplace premium subsidy eligible. Linear probability regressions estimated pre-post (2012-2013 vs. 2014-2015) coverage changes by eligibility category, stratified by cancer history. RESULTS: The uninsured rate for cancer survivors decreased from 12.4% to 7.7% (P<0.001) pre-post ACA implementation. Relative to income >400% of the federal poverty guideline, the uninsured rate for cancer survivors decreased by an adjusted 8.4 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-15.6] among pre-ACA Medicaid eligible; 16.7 percentage points (95% CI, 9.0-24.5) among expansion eligible, and 11.3 percentage points (95% CI, -0.8 to 23.5, with a trend P=0.069) for premium subsidy eligible. Decreases in uninsured among expansion-eligible adults without a cancer history [9.7 percentage points (95% CI, 7.4-12.0), were smaller than for cancer survivors (with a trend, P=0.086)]. Despite coverage gains, ∼528,000 cancer survivors and 19.1 million without a cancer history remained uninsured post-ACA, yet over half were eligible for Medicaid or subsidized Marketplace coverage. CONCLUSIONS: ACA implementation was associated with large coverage gains in targeted expansion groups, including cancer survivors, but additional progress is needed.

Estimating health benefits and cost-savings for achieving the Healthy People 2020 objective of reducing invasive colorectal cancer.

This study aims to quantify the aggregate potential life-years (LYs) saved and healthcare cost-savings if the Healthy People 2020 objective were met to reduce invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence by 15%. We identified patients (n=886,380) diagnosed with invasive CRC between 2001 and 2011 from a nationally representative cancer dataset. We stratified these patients by sex, race/ethnicity, and age. Using these data and data from the 2001-2011 U.S. life tables, we estimated a survival function for each CRC group and the corresponding reference group and computed per-person LYs saved. We estimated per-person annual healthcare cost-savings using the 2008-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We calculated aggregate LYs saved and cost-savings by multiplying the reduced number of CRC patients by the per-person LYs saved and lifetime healthcare cost-savings, respectively. We estimated an aggregate of 84,569 and 64,924 LYs saved for men and women, respectively, accounting for healthcare cost-savings of $329.3 and $294.2 million (in 2013$), respectively. Per person, we estimated 6.3 potential LYs saved related to those who developed CRC for both men and women, and healthcare cost-savings of $24,000 for men and $28,000 for women. Non-Hispanic whites and those aged 60-64 had the highest aggregate potential LYs saved and cost-savings. Achieving the HP2020 objective of reducing invasive CRC incidence by 15% by year 2020 would potentially save nearly 150,000 life-years and $624 million on healthcare costs.

Impact of sociodemographic characteristics on underemployment in a longitudinal, nationally representative study of cancer survivors: Evidence for the importance of gender and marital status.

BACKGROUND: We examined the longitudinal association between sociodemographic factors and an expanded definition of underemployment among those with and without cancer history in the United States. METHODS: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2007-2013) were used in multivariable regression analyses to compare employment status between baseline and two-year follow-up among adults aged 25-62 years at baseline (n = 1,614 with and n = 39,324 without cancer). Underemployment was defined as becoming/staying unemployed, changing from full to part-time, or reducing part-time work significantly. Interaction effects between cancer history/time since diagnosis and predictors known to be associated with employment patterns, including age, gender/marital status, education, and health insurance status at baseline were modeled. RESULTS: Approximately 25% of cancer survivors and 21% of individuals without cancer reported underemployment at follow-up (p = 0.002). Multivariable analyses indicated that those with a cancer history report underemployment more frequently (24.7%) than those without cancer (21.4%, p = 0.002) with underemployment rates increasing with time since cancer diagnosis. A significant interaction between gender/marital status and cancer history and underemployment was found (p = 0.0004). There were no other significant interactions. Married female survivors diagnosed >10 years ago reported underemployment most commonly (38.7%), and married men without cancer reported underemployment most infrequently (14.0%). A wider absolute difference in underemployment reports for married versus unmarried women as compared to married versus unmarried men was evident, with the widest difference apparent for unmarried versus married women diagnosed >10 years ago (18.1% vs. 38.7%). CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors are more likely to experience underemployment than those without cancer. Longer time since cancer diagnosis and gender/marital status are critical factors in predicting those at greatest risk of underemployment. The impact of cancer on work should be systematically studied across sociodemographic groups and recognized as a component of comprehensive survivorship care.