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.

Opioids and Chronic Pain: Impact of the NIH Pathways to Prevention Evidence-Based Workshop Program.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) sponsors Pathways to Prevention (P2P), an evidence-based scientific workshop program that helps advance prevention research. Each P2P workshop is presided over by an independent expert panel and informed by a systematic evidence review, scientific presentations, and public input. Post-workshop activities include collaborating with federal agency partners to develop an action plan for addressing key research gaps. Primary outcomes of P2P workshops include developing a research agenda and creating or enhancing initiatives to implement the agenda. In 2014, ODP partnered with the NIH Pain Consortium and two NIH institutes to convene "The Role of Opioids in the Treatment of Chronic Pain." This workshop assessed the state-of-the-science on the long-term effectiveness, safety, and harms of opioid use for managing chronic pain. In 2021, ODP initiated an assessment of the outcomes and impact of the Opioids P2P workshop. We applied an evaluation framework and a mixed methods approach encompassing web analytics, bibliometric assessment, grant portfolio analysis, policy assessment, and key informant interviews. Our data showed that the workshop attracted a broad audience, and its published reports had high impact. The workshop also helped inform over 100 new research projects through grants funded by three federal agencies, as well as national legislation and practice guidelines from influential organizations. In sum, the Opioids P2P workshop and follow-up activities have identified gaps in scientific knowledge, informed clinical practice, and catalyzed change on a national level for addressing the prescription opioid crisis.

National Institutes of Health Advancing Multimorbidity Research.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity, the co-occurrence of 2 or more chronic diseases, is more common than having a single chronic disease, especially among persons age 65 years and older. The routine measurement of multimorbidity can facilitate a better understanding of potential causes and interactions and promote more effective treatment and improved outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To present a multimorbidity research framework and identify gaps in the research literature related to multimorbidity. DESIGN: In preparation for an expert panel workshop convened in September 2018, planning committee members reviewed the literature and developed a guiding framework that informed the selection of topics and speakers. RESULTS: The framework, grounded in a patient-centered approach, incorporates the concept of concordant and discordant comorbidity, and includes potential causes, interactions, and outcomes. This work informed workshop presentations and discussion related to identifying and selecting the best available multimorbidity instruments and determining future research needs. CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity research can be advanced by addressing gaps in study design and target populations, and by increasing attention to universal outcome measurement.

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.

Oncologists' perceptions of the usefulness of cancer survivorship care plan components.

PURPOSE: The Institute of Medicine recommends that cancer patients receive survivorship care plans (SCP) summarizing information important to the individual's long-term care. The various components of SCPs have varying levels of evidence supporting their impact. We surveyed medical oncologists to better understand how they perceived the relative value of different SCP components. METHODS: Medical oncologists caring for patients in diverse US practice settings were surveyed (357 respondents; participation rate 52.9%) about their perceptions of the usefulness of various components of SCPs to both patients and primary care physicians (PCPs). RESULTS: Oncologists perceived treatment summaries as "very useful" for PCPs but were less likely to perceive them as "very useful" for patients (55% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). Information about the psychological effects of cancer (41% vs. 29%; p < 0.001) and healthy behaviors (67% vs. 41%; p < 0.001) were considered more useful to patients than to PCPs. From 3 to 20% of oncologists believed that any given component of the SCP was not useful to either PCPs or patients. Oncologists who perceived SCPs to be more useful tended to be female or to practice in settings with a fully implemented electronic health record. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists do not perceive all components of SCPs to be equally useful to both patients and PCPs. To be successfully implemented, the SCP should be efficiently tailored to the unique needs and knowledge of patients and their PCPs. A minority of oncologists appear to be late adopters, suggesting that some resistance to the adoption of SCPs remains.

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.

Primary Care Providers' Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients.

BACKGROUND: Revised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients' mammography use (2011-2014). PARTICIPANTS: PCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40-89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency. KEY RESULTS: Overall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40-48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49-74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening. CONCLUSIONS: PCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography.

Fecal Immunochemical Test Program Performance Over 4 Rounds of Annual Screening: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a common method for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet its acceptability and performance over several rounds of annual testing are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess FIT performance characteristics over 4 rounds of annual screening. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California. PATIENTS: 323 349 health plan members aged 50 to 70 years on their FIT mailing date in 2007 or 2008 who completed the first round of FIT and were followed for up to 4 screening rounds. MEASUREMENTS: Screening participation, FIT positivity (≥20 µg of hemoglobin/g), positive predictive values for adenoma and CRC, and FIT sensitivity for detecting CRC obtained from Kaiser Permanente electronic databases and cancer registries. RESULTS: Of the patients invited for screening, 48.2% participated in round 1. Of those who remained eligible, 75.3% to 86.1% participated in subsequent rounds. Median follow-up was 4.0 years, and 32% of round 1 participants crossed over to endoscopy over 4 screening rounds-7.0% due to a positive FIT result. The FIT positivity rate (5.0%) and positive predictive values (adenoma, 51.5%; CRC, 3.4%) were highest in round 1. Overall, programmatic FIT screening detected 80.4% of patients with CRC diagnosed within 1 year of testing, including 84.5% in round 1 and 73.4% to 78.0% in subsequent rounds. LIMITATION: Screening detection, rather than long-term cancer prevention, was evaluated. CONCLUSION: Annual FIT screening was associated with high sensitivity for CRC, with high adherence to annual follow-up screening among initial participants. The findings indicate that annual programmatic FIT screening is feasible and effective for population-level CRC screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial resources devoted to cancer screening nationally, the availability of clinical practice-based systems to support screening guidelines is not known. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevalence and correlates of practice-based systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening, with a focus on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH). DESIGN: Web and mail survey of primary care providers conducted in 2014. The survey assessed provider (gender, training) and facility (size, specialty training, physician report of National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH recognition, and practice affiliation) characteristics. A hierarchical multivariate analysis clustered by clinical practice was conducted to evaluate characteristics associated with the adoption of practice-based systems and technology to support guideline-adherent screening. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology, and nurse practitioners or physician assistants from four clinical care networks affiliated with PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium research centers. MAIN MEASURES: The prevalence of routine breast cancer risk assessment, electronic health record (EHR) decision support, comparative performance reports, and panel reports of patients due for routine screening and follow-up. KEY RESULTS: There were 385 participants (57.6 % of eligible). Forty-seven percent (47.0 %) of providers reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH. Less than half reported EHR decision support for breast (48.8 %) or cervical cancer (46.2 %) screening. A minority received comparative performance reports for breast (26.2 %) or cervical (19.7 %) cancer screening, automated reports of patients overdue for breast (18.7 %) or cervical (16.4 %) cancer screening, or follow-up of abnormal breast (18.1 %) or cervical (17.6 %) cancer screening tests. In multivariate analysis, reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH was associated with greater use of comparative performance reports of guideline-adherent breast (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.58-6.61) or cervical (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.32-4.96) cancer screening and automated reports of patients overdue for breast (OR 2.19, 95 % CI 1.15-41.7) or cervical (OR. 2.56, 95 % CI 1.26-5.26) cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Providers lack systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening. Practice transformation toward a PCMH may support the adoption of systems to achieve guideline-adherent cancer screening in primary care settings.

Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Changes to national guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening have created confusion and controversy for women and their primary care providers. OBJECTIVE: To characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards screening and changes in practice in response to recent revisions in guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: In 2014, we distributed a confidential web and mail survey to 668 women's health care providers affiliated with the four clinical care networks participating in the three PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium breast cancer research centers (385 respondents; response rate 57.6 %). MAIN MEASURES: We assessed self-reported attitudes toward breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as practice changes in response to the most recent revisions of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. KEY RESULTS: The majority of providers believed that mammography screening was effective for reducing cancer mortality among women ages 40-74 years, and that Papanicolaou (Pap) testing was very effective for women ages 21-64 years. While the USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations were widely perceived by the respondents as influential, 75.7 and 41.2 % of providers (for mammography and cervical cancer screening, respectively) reported screening practices in excess of those recommended by USPSTF. Provider-reported barriers to concordance with guideline recommendations included: patient concerns (74 and 36 % for breast and cervical, respectively), provider disagreement with the recommendations (50 and 14 %), health system measurement of a provider's screening practices that use conflicting measurement criteria (40 and 21 %), concern about malpractice risk (33 and 11 %), and lack of time to discuss the benefits and harms with their patients (17 and 8 %). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers do not consistently follow recent USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations, despite noting that these guidelines are influential.

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.

Physician-reported barriers to referring cancer patients to specialists: prevalence, factors, and association with career satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Quality care for patients with cancer often requires access to specialty providers, but little is known about barriers to referring cancer patients for specialized care. Referral barriers may also lessen physician career satisfaction. The study was aimed at determining what factors are associated with these barriers and whether greater barriers are associated with low career satisfaction. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined 1562 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 2144 specialists responding to the multiregional Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium physician survey. The prevalence of physician-reported barriers to referring cancer patients for more specialized care (restricted provider networks, preauthorization requirements, patient inability to pay, lack of surgical subspecialists, and excessive patient travel time) was assessed. The 5 items were averaged to calculate a barrier score. A multivariate linear regression was used to determine physician and practice setting characteristics associated with the barrier score, and a multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the association of the barrier score with physician career satisfaction. RESULTS: Three in 5 physicians reported always, usually, or sometimes encountering any barrier to cancer patient specialty referrals. In adjusted analyses of PCPs and specialists, international medical graduates, physicians practicing in solo or government-owned practices, and physicians with <90% of their patients in managed care plans had higher barrier scores than others (P < .05). High barrier scores were associated with lower physician career satisfaction among PCPs and specialists (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Many physicians experience barriers to specialty referral for cancer patients. Uniform systems for providing and tracking timely referrals may enhance care and promote physician career satisfaction.

Cancer screening test use - United States, 2013.

Regular breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with timely and appropriate follow-up and treatment reduces deaths from these cancers. Healthy People 2020 targets for cancer screening test use have been established, based on the most recent U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data are used to monitor progress toward the targets. CDC used the 2013 NHIS, the most recent data available, to examine breast, cervical, and CRC screening use. Although some demographic subgroups attained targets, screening use overall was below the targets with no improvements from 2010 to 2013 in breast, cervical, or CRC screening use. Cervical cancer screening declined from 2010 to 2013. Increased efforts are needed to achieve targets and reduce screening disparities.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in US Seniors Ages 76-84 Years.

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends patient-physician discussions about the appropriateness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults ages 76-84 years who have never been screened. In this study, we used data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey to examine patterns of CRC screening and provider recommendation among seniors ages 76-84 years, and made some comparisons to younger adults. Nationally-representative samples of 1379 adults ages 76-84 years and 8797 adults ages 50-75 years responded to questions about CRC screening status, receipt of provider recommendation, and discussion of test options; 22.7% (95% CI 20.1-25.3) of seniors ages 76-84 had never been tested for CRC and therefore were not up-to-date with guidelines; 3.9% (95% CI 2.0-7.6) of these individuals reported a recent provider recommendation for screening. In multivariate analyses, the likelihood of never having been tested was significantly greater for seniors of other/multiple race or Hispanic ethnicity; with high school or less education; without private health insurance coverage; who had ≤ 1 doctor visit in the past year; without recent screening for breast, cervical, or prostate cancer; with no or unknown CRC family history; or with ≤ 1 chronic disease. Among the minority of respondents ages 50-75 and 76-84 reporting a provider recommendation, 73.2% indicated that the provider recommended particular tests, which was overwhelmingly colonoscopy (≥ 89 %). Nearly one-quarter of adults 76-84 have never been screened for CRC, and rates of provider recommendation in this group are very low. Greater attention to informed CRC screening discussions with screening-eligible seniors is needed.

Influence of provider discussion and specific recommendation on colorectal cancer screening uptake among U.S. adults.

OBJECTIVES: It is unclear if provider recommendations regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities affect patient compliance. We evaluated provider-patient communications about CRC screening with and without a specific screening modality recommendation on patient compliance with screening guidelines. METHODS: We used the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) and identified 4283 respondents who were at least 50 years of age and answered questions about their communication with their care providers and CRC screening uptake. We defined being compliant with CRC screening as the use of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) within 1 year, sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or colonoscopy within 10 years. We used survey weights in all analyses. RESULTS: CRC screening discussions occurred with 3320 (76.2%) respondents. Approximately 95% of these discussions were with physicians. Overall, 2793 (62.6%) respondents were current with CRC screening regardless of the screening modality. Discussion about screening (odds ratio (OR)=8.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 7.20-10.84) and providers making a specific recommendation about screening modality rather than leaving it to the patient to decide (OR=2.04; 95% CI: 1.54-2.68) were associated with patient compliance with CRC screening guidelines. CONCLUSION: Compliance with CRC screening guidelines is improved when providers discuss options and make specific screening test recommendations.

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.

Challenges in meeting Healthy People 2020 objectives for cancer-related preventive services, National Health Interview Survey, 2008 and 2010.

INTRODUCTION: Healthy People (HP) is the US program that formulates and tracks national health objectives for the nation. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a designated data source for setting and evaluating several HP targets in cancer. We used data from the 2008 and 2010 NHIS to provide a benchmark for national performance toward meeting HP 2020 cancer-related objectives. METHODS: HP 2020 cancer screening, provider counseling, and health care access objectives were selected. For each objective, NHIS measures for the overall population and several sociodemographic subgroups were calculated; the findings were compared with established HP 2020 targets. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2010, rates of breast and cervical cancer screening declined slightly while colorectal cancer screening rates increased by 7 percentage points. Rates of cancer screening and provider counseling were below HP targets. Meeting HP targets seems less likely for subgroups characterized by low income, no health insurance, or no usual source of care. Meeting HP targets for access to health services will require an increase of 18 percentage points in the proportion of persons under age 65 with health insurance coverage and an increase of 10 percentage points in the proportion aged 18 to 64 with a usual source of care. CONCLUSION: Whether HP objectives for cancer screening and health care access are met may depend on implementation of health care reform measures that improve access to and coordination of care. Better integration of clinical health care and community-based efforts for delivering high-quality screening and treatment services and elimination of health disparities are also needed.

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.

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.

Physicians' beliefs about breast cancer surveillance testing are consistent with test overuse.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of surveillance testing for breast cancer survivors is an important problem but its extent and determinants are incompletely understood. The objectives of this study were to determine the extent to which physicians' breast cancer surveillance testing beliefs are consistent with test overuse, and to identify factors associated with these beliefs. METHODS: During 2009-2010, a cross-sectional survey of US medical oncologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) was carried out. Physicians responded to a clinical vignette ascertaining beliefs about appropriate breast cancer surveillance testing. Multivariable analyses examined the extent to which test beliefs were consistent with overuse and associated with physician and practice characteristics and physician perceptions, attitudes, and practices. RESULTS: A total of 1098 medical oncologists and 980 PCPs completed the survey (response rate 57.5%). Eighty-four percent of PCPs [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.4%-86.5%] and 72% of oncologists (95% CI, 69.8%-74.7%) reported beliefs consistent with blood test overuse, whereas 50% of PCPs (95% CI, 47.3%-53.8%) and 27% of oncologists (95% CI, 23.9%-29.3%) reported beliefs consistent with imaging test overuse. Among PCPs, factors associated with these beliefs included smaller practice size, lower patient volume, and practice ownership. Among oncologists, factors included older age, international medical graduate status, lower self-efficacy (confidence in knowledge), and greater perceptions of ambiguity (conflicting expert recommendations) regarding survivorship care. CONCLUSIONS: Beliefs consistent with breast cancer surveillance test overuse are common, greater for PCPs and blood tests than for oncologists and imaging tests, and associated with practice characteristics and perceived self-efficacy and ambiguity about testing. These results suggest modifiable targets for efforts to reduce surveillance test overuse.