Access to Care for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer in the United States: State of the Literature.

Access to care remains a persistent challenge for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. We review key findings in the science to date. (1) Location of care matters. There is survival benefit for AYAs treated either at a pediatric center or site with special status (eg, Children's Oncology Group, National Cancer Institute [NCI]-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center). (2) Socioeconomic status and insurance require further investigation. Medicaid expansion has had a moderate effect on AYA outcomes. The dependent care expansion benefit has come largely from improvements in coverage for younger populations whose parents have insurance, while some subgroups likely still face insurance gaps. (3) Clinical trial enrollment remains poor, but access may be improving. Numerous barriers and facilitators of clinical trial enrollment include those that are system level and patient level. NCI has established several initiatives over the past decade to improve enrollment, and newer collaboratives have recently brought together multidisciplinary US teams to increase clinical trial enrollment. (4) Effective AYA programs require provider and system flexibility and program reflection. With flexibility comes a need for metrics to assess program effectiveness in the context of the program model. Centers treating AYAs with cancer could submit a subset of metrics (appropriate to their program and/or services) to maintain their status; persistence would require an entity with staying power committed to overseeing the metrics and the system. Substantial clinical and biological advances are anticipated over the next 20 years that will benefit all patients with cancer. In parallel, it is crucial to prioritize research regarding access to health care and cancer care delivery; only with equitable access to care for AYAs can they, too, benefit from these advances.

Understanding Causes of Inferior Outcomes in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer.

Individuals diagnosed with cancer as adolescents and young adults (AYAs; ages 15-39 years) face unique vulnerabilities. Compared with individuals diagnosed when younger (≤14 years) or older (≥40 years), AYAs have not seen the same improvement in survival. Furthermore, they sit at a complex moment of social, emotional, and cognitive development, and have a unique interface with the healthcare system. With these observations, NCI prioritized addressing the unique vulnerabilities among AYAs with cancer, and NCCN developed guidelines regarding optimal AYA cancer care. Improvements in certain locales have been seen in the wake of this focus on AYAs, suggesting that continuing to consider AYA outcomes in the context of their specific needs is critical as we strive toward additional improvements. However, it is key to consider the drivers of these outcomes to continue this trajectory. This review presents a holistic conceptual model that includes factors that influence outcomes among AYAs with cancer, including domains in these levels that influence both clinical outcomes (such as relapse and survival) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). These include domains at the patient level, such as social constructs (race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status), behavior (adherence, risk-taking), biologic characteristics (cancer biology, host genetics), medical treatment (treatment regimen, risk-based survivorship care), and treatment-related toxicities. The model also includes domains at the system level, which include treatment location (NCI designation, facility model, AYA program presence), clinical trial enrollment, transdisciplinary communication, fertility preservation, and psychosocial support. Recognizing these multiple factors at the level of the individual and the healthcare system influence AYA outcomes (from HRQoL to survival), it is key not only to consider patient-level interventions and development of novel cancer agents but also to develop systems-level interventions that can be executed in parallel. In this way, the impact can be expanded to a vast number of AYAs.

Expenditures in Young Adults with Hodgkin Lymphoma: NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers versus Other Sites.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes among Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients diagnosed between 22 and 39 years are worse than among those diagnosed <21 years, and have not seen the same improvement over time. Treatment at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) mitigates outcome disparities, but may be associated with higher expenditures. METHODS: We examined cancer-related expenditures among 22- to 39-year-old HL patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2016 using deidentified administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse; CCC: n = 1,154; non-CCC: n = 643). Adjusting for sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and months enrolled, multivariable general linear models modeled average monthly health-plan paid (HPP) expenditures, and incidence rate ratios compared CCC/non-CCC monthly visit rates. RESULTS: In the year following diagnosis, CCC patients had higher HPP expenditures ($12,869 vs. $10,688, P = 0.001), driven by higher monthly rates of CCC nontreatment outpatient hospital visits (P = 0.001) and per-visit expenditures for outpatient hospital chemotherapy ($632 vs. $259); higher CCC inpatient expenditures ($1,813 vs. $1,091, P = 0.001) were driven by 3.1 times higher rates of chemotherapy admissions (P = 0.001). Out-of-pocket expenditures were comparable (P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with HL at CCCs saw higher health-plan expenditures, but comparable out-of-pocket expenditures. Drivers of CCC expenditures included outpatient hospital utilization (monthly rates of non-therapy visits and per-visit expenditures for chemotherapy). IMPACT: Higher HPP expenditures at CCCs in the year following HL diagnosis likely reflect differences in facility structure and comprehensive care. For young adults, it is plausible to consider incentivizing CCC care to achieve superior outcomes while developing approaches to achieve long-term savings.

Expenditures among young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia by site of care.

BACKGROUND: Individuals diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) between the ages of 22 and 39 years experience worse outcomes than those diagnosed when they are 21 years old or younger. Treatment at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) mitigates these disparities but may be associated with higher expenditures. METHODS: Using deidentified administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), the cancer-related expenditures were examined among patients with ALL diagnosed between 2001 and 2014. Multivariable generalized linear model with log-link modeled average monthly health-plan-paid (HPP) expenditures and amount owed by the patient (out-of-pocket [OOP]). Cost ratios were used to calculate excess expenditures (CCC vs non-CCC). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) compared CCC and non-CCC monthly visit rates. Models adjusted for sociodemographics, comorbidities, adverse events, and months enrolled. RESULTS: Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were comparable between CCC (n = 160) and non-CCC (n = 139) patients. Higher monthly outpatient expenditures in CCC patients ($15,792 vs $6404; P < .001) were driven by outpatient hospital HPP expenditures. Monthly visit rates and per visit expenditures for nonchemotherapy visits (IRR = 1.6; P = .001; CCC = $8247, non-CCC = $1191) drove higher outpatient hospital expenditures among CCCs. Monthly OOP expenditures were higher at CCCs for outpatient care (P = .02). Inpatient HPP expenditures were significantly higher at CCCs ($25,918 vs $13,881; ꞵ = 0.9; P < .001) before accounting for adverse events but were no longer significant after adjusting for adverse events (ꞵ = 0.4; P = .1). Hospitalizations and length of stay were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with ALL at CCCs have higher expenditures, likely reflecting differences in facility structure, billing practices, and comprehensive patient care. It would be reasonable to consider CCCs comparable to the oncology care model and incentivize the framework to achieve superior outcomes and long-term cost savings. LAY SUMMARY: Health care expenditures in young adults (aged 22-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are higher among patients at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) than those at non-CCCs. The CCC/non-CCC differences are significant among outpatient expenditures, which are driven by higher rates of outpatient hospital visits and outpatient hospital expenditures per visit at CCCs. Higher expenditures and visit rates of outpatient hospital visits among CCCs may also reflect how facility structure and billing patterns influence spending or comprehensive care. Young adults at CCCs face higher inpatient HPP expenditures; these are driven by serious adverse events.

Lung Cancer in Nonelderly Patients: Facility and Patient Characteristics Associated With Not Receiving Treatment.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients with lung cancer, race/ethnicity is associated with not receiving treatment; however, little attention has been given to nonelderly patients (aged ≤65 years) with a range of disease stages and histologies. Nonelderly patients with lung cancer have superior survival at NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), although the reasons remain unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 9,877 patients newly diagnosed with small cell or non-small cell lung cancer (all stages) between ages 22 and 65 years and reported to the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program registry between 1998 and 2008. Multivariable logistic regression examined factors associated with nontreatment. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, race/ethnicity was associated with not receiving cancer treatment (black: odds ratio [OR], 1.22; P=.004; Hispanic: OR, 1.17; P=.04), adjusting for patient age, sex, disease stage, histology, diagnosis year, distance to treatment facility, type of facility (CCC vs non-CCC), and insurance status. With inclusion of socioeconomic status (SES) in the model, the effect of race/ethnicity was no longer significant (black: OR, 1.02; P=.80; Hispanic: OR, 1.00; P=1.00). Factors independently associated with nontreatment included low SES (OR range, 1.37-2.15; P<.001), lack of private insurance (public: OR, 1.71; P<.001; uninsured: OR, 1.30; P<.001), and treatment facility (non-CCC: OR, 3.22; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In nonelderly patients with lung cancer, SES was associated with nontreatment, mitigating the effect of race/ethnicity. Patients were also at higher odds of nontreatment if they did not have private insurance or received cancer care at a non-CCC facility. These findings highlight the importance of understanding how both patient-level factors (eg, SES, insurance status) and facility-level factors (eg, treatment facility) serve as barriers to treatment of nonelderly patients with lung cancer.

Value, Access, and Cost of Cancer Care Delivery at Academic Cancer Centers.

Key challenges facing the oncology community today include access to appropriate, high quality, patient-centered cancer care; defining and delivering high-value care; and rising costs. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network convened a Work Group composed of NCCN Member Institution cancer center directors and their delegates to examine the challenges of access, high costs, and defining and demonstrating value at the academic cancer centers. The group identified key challenges and possible solutions to addressing these issues. The findings and recommendations of the Work Group were then presented at the Value, Access, and Cost of Cancer Care Policy Summit in September 2015 and multi-stakeholder roundtable panel discussions explored these findings and recommendations along with additional items.

Impact of care at comprehensive cancer centers on outcome: Results from a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Rigorous processes ensure quality of research and clinical care at National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers (NCICCCs). Unmeasurable elements of structure and process of cancer care delivery warrant evaluation. To the authors' knowledge, the impact of NCICCC care on survival and access to NCICCCs for vulnerable subpopulations remain unstudied. METHODS: The current study's population-based cohort of 69,579 patients had newly diagnosed adult-onset (aged 22-65 years) cancers reported to the Los Angeles County cancer registry between 1998 and 2008. Geographic information systems were used for geospatial analysis. RESULTS: With regard to overall survival across multiple diagnoses, patients not receiving their first planned treatment at NCICCCs experienced poorer outcomes compared with those treated at NCICCCs; differences persisted on multivariable analyses after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors (hepatobiliary: hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.4-1.7 [P<.001]; lung: HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6 [P<.001]; pancreatic: HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7 [P<.001]; gastric: HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7 [P = .01]; breast: HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5 [P<.001]; and colorectal: HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4 [P = .05]). With regard to barriers to care, multivariable analyses revealed that a lower likelihood of treatment at NCICCCs was associated with race/ethnicity (African-American: OR range across diagnoses: 0.4-0.7 [P<.03]; Hispanic: OR range, 0.5-0.7 [P<.04]); lack of private insurance (public: OR range, 0.6-0.8 [P<.004]; uninsured: OR range, 0.1-0.5 [P<.04]); less than high socioeconomic status (high-middle: OR range, 0.4-0.7 [P<.02]; middle: OR range, 0.3-0.5 [P<.001]; and low: OR range, 0.2-0.6 [P<.01]), and residing >9 miles from the nearest NCICCC (OR range, 0.5-0.7 [P<.02]). CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals aged 22 to 65 years residing in Los Angeles County with newly diagnosed adult-onset cancer, those who were treated at NCICCCs experienced superior survival compared with those treated at non-NCICCC facilities. Barriers to care at NCICCCs included race/ethnicity, insurance, socioeconomic status, and distance to an NCICCC.