Cancer diagnosis and treatment in working-age adults: Implications for employment, health insurance coverage, and financial hardship in the United States.

The rising costs of cancer care and subsequent medical financial hardship for cancer survivors and families are well documented in the United States. Less attention has been paid to employment disruptions and loss of household income after a cancer diagnosis and during treatment, potentially resulting in lasting financial hardship, particularly for working-age adults not yet age-eligible for Medicare coverage and their families. In this article, the authors use a composite patient case to illustrate the adverse consequences of cancer diagnosis and treatment for employment, health insurance coverage, household income, and other aspects of financial hardship. They summarize existing research and provide nationally representative estimates of multiple aspects of financial hardship and health insurance coverage, benefit design, and employee benefits, such as paid sick leave, among working-age adults with a history of cancer and compare them with estimates among working-age adults without a history of cancer from the most recently available years of the National Health Interview Survey (2019-2021). Then, the authors identify opportunities for addressing employment and health insurance coverage challenges at multiple levels, including federal, state, and local policies; employers; cancer care delivery organizations; and nonprofit organizations. These efforts, when informed by research to identify best practices, can potentially help mitigate the financial hardship associated with cancer.

American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2023.

In 2021, the American Cancer Society published its first biennial report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States. In this second report, the authors provide updated data on racial, ethnic, socioeconomic (educational attainment as a marker), and geographic (metropolitan status) disparities in cancer occurrence and outcomes and contributing factors to these disparities in the country. The authors also review programs that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. There are substantial variations in risk factors, stage at diagnosis, receipt of care, survival, and mortality for many cancers by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and metropolitan status. During 2016 through 2020, Black and American Indian/Alaska Native people continued to bear a disproportionately higher burden of cancer deaths, both overall and from major cancers. By educational attainment, overall cancer mortality rates were about 1.6-2.8 times higher in individuals with ≤12 years of education than in those with ≥16 years of education among Black and White men and women. These disparities by educational attainment within each race were considerably larger than the Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality within each educational attainment, ranging from 1.03 to 1.5 times higher among Black people, suggesting a major role for socioeconomic status disparities in racial disparities in cancer mortality given the disproportionally larger representation of Black people in lower socioeconomic status groups. Of note, the largest Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality were among those who had ≥16 years of education. By area of residence, mortality from all cancer and from leading causes of cancer death were substantially higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in large metropolitan areas. For colorectal cancer, for example, mortality rates in nonmetropolitan areas versus large metropolitan areas were 23% higher among males and 21% higher among females. By age group, the racial and geographic disparities in cancer mortality were greater among individuals younger than 65 years than among those aged 65 years and older. Many of the observed racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in cancer mortality align with disparities in exposure to risk factors and access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, which are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health. Equitable policies at all levels of government, broad interdisciplinary engagement to address these inequities, and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage, are needed to reduce cancer disparities.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2022.

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase in the United States due to the growth and aging of the population as well as advances in early detection and treatment. To assist the public health community in better serving these individuals, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate triennially to estimate cancer prevalence in the United States using incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries, vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, and population projections from the US Census Bureau. Current treatment patterns based on information in the National Cancer Database are presented for the most prevalent cancer types by race, and cancer-related and treatment-related side-effects are also briefly described. More than 18 million Americans (8.3 million males and 9.7 million females) with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2022. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,523,230), melanoma of the skin (760,640), and colon and rectum (726,450) among males and breast (4,055,770), uterine corpus (891,560), and thyroid (823,800) among females. More than one-half (53%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and two-thirds (67%) were aged 65 years or older. One of the largest racial disparities in treatment is for rectal cancer, for which 41% of Black patients with stage I disease receive proctectomy or proctocolectomy compared to 66% of White patients. Surgical receipt is also substantially lower among Black patients with non-small cell lung cancer, 49% for stages I-II and 16% for stage III versus 55% and 22% for White patients, respectively. These treatment disparities are exacerbated by the fact that Black patients continue to be less likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease than White patients for most cancers, with some of the largest disparities for female breast (53% vs 68%) and endometrial (59% vs 73%). Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based strategies and equitable access to available resources are needed to mitigate disparities for communities of color and optimize care for people with a history of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:409-436.

Health insurance status and cancer stage at diagnosis and survival in the United States.

Previous studies using data from the early 2000s demonstrated that patients who were uninsured were more likely to present with late-stage disease and had worse short-term survival after cancer diagnosis in the United States. In this report, the authors provide comprehensive data on the associations of health insurance coverage type with stage at diagnosis and long-term survival in individuals aged 18-64 years who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 with 19 common cancers from the National Cancer Database, with survival follow-up through December 31, 2019. Compared with privately insured patients, Medicaid-insured and uninsured patients were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage (III/IV) cancer for all stageable cancers combined and separately. For all stageable cancers combined and for six cancer sites-prostate, colorectal, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, oral cavity, liver, and esophagus-uninsured patients with Stage I disease had worse survival than privately insured patients with Stage II disease. Patients without private insurance coverage had worse short-term and long-term survival at each stage for all cancers combined; patients who were uninsured had worse stage-specific survival for 12 of 17 stageable cancers and had worse survival for leukemia and brain tumors. Expanding access to comprehensive health insurance coverage is crucial for improving access to cancer care and outcomes, including stage at diagnosis and survival.

Navigating financial toxicity in patients with cancer: A multidisciplinary management approach.

Approximately one-half of individuals with cancer face personal economic burdens associated with the disease and its treatment, a problem known as financial toxicity (FT). FT more frequently affects socioeconomically vulnerable individuals and leads to subsequent adverse economic and health outcomes. Whereas multilevel systemic factors at the policy, payer, and provider levels drive FT, there are also accompanying intervenable patient-level factors that exacerbate FT in the setting of clinical care delivery. The primary strategy to intervene on FT at the patient level is financial navigation. Financial navigation uses comprehensive assessment of patients' risk factors for FT, guidance toward support resources, and referrals to assist patient financial needs during cancer care. Social workers or nurse navigators most frequently lead financial navigation. Oncologists and clinical provider teams are multidisciplinary partners who can support optimal FT management in the context of their clinical roles. Oncologists and clinical provider teams can proactively assess patient concerns about the financial hardship and employment effects of disease and treatment. They can respond by streamlining clinical treatment and care delivery planning and incorporating FT concerns into comprehensive goals of care discussions and coordinated symptom and psychosocial care. By understanding how age and life stage, socioeconomic, and cultural factors modify FT trajectory, oncologists and multidisciplinary health care teams can be engaged and informative in patient-centered, tailored FT management. The case presentations in this report provide a practical context to summarize authors' recommendations for patient-level FT management, supported by a review of key supporting evidence and a discussion of challenges to mitigating FT in oncology care. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:437-453.

American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2021.

In this report, the authors provide comprehensive and up-to-date US data on disparities in cancer occurrence, major risk factors, and access to and utilization of preventive measures and screening by sociodemographic characteristics. They also review programs and resources that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. The overall cancer death rate is 19% higher among Black males than among White males. Black females also have a 12% higher overall cancer death rate than their White counterparts despite having an 8% lower incidence rate. There are also substantial variations in death rates for specific cancer types and in stage at diagnosis, survival, exposure to risk factors, and receipt of preventive measures and screening by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. For example, kidney cancer death rates by sex among American Indian/Alaska Native people are ≥64% higher than the corresponding rates in each of the other racial/ethnic groups, and the 5-year relative survival for all cancers combined is 14% lower among residents of poorer counties than among residents of more affluent counties. Broad and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion or other initiatives, could substantially reduce cancer disparities. However, progress will require not only equitable local, state, and federal policies but also broad interdisciplinary engagement to elevate and address fundamental social inequities and longstanding systemic racism.

Time to add screening for financial hardship as a quality measure?

Cancer treatment is associated with financial hardship for many patients and families. Screening for financial hardship and referrals to appropriate resources for mitigation are not currently part of most clinical practices. In fact, discussions regarding the cost of treatment occur infrequently in clinical practice. As the cost of cancer treatment continues to rise, the need to mitigate adverse consequences of financial hardship grows more urgent. The introduction of quality measurement and reporting has been successful in establishing standards of care, reducing disparities in receipt of care, and improving other aspects of cancer care outcomes within and across providers. The authors propose the development and adoption of financial hardship screening and management as an additional quality metric for oncology practices. They suggest relevant stakeholders, conveners, and approaches for developing, testing, and implementing a screening and management tool and advocate for endorsement by organizations such as the National Quality Forum and professional societies for oncology care clinicians. The confluence of increasingly high-cost care and widening disparities in ability to pay because of underinsurance and lack of health insurance coverage makes a strong argument to take steps to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer.

Understanding and addressing social determinants to advance cancer health equity in the United States: A blueprint for practice, research, and policy.

Although cancer mortality rates declined in the United States in recent decades, some populations experienced little benefit from advances in cancer prevention, early detection, treatment, and survivorship care. In fact, some cancer disparities between populations of low and high socioeconomic status widened during this period. Many potentially preventable cancer deaths continue to occur, and disadvantaged populations bear a disproportionate burden. Reducing the burden of cancer and eliminating cancer-related disparities will require more focused and coordinated action across multiple sectors and in partnership with communities. This article, part of the American Cancer Society's Cancer Control Blueprint series, introduces a framework for understanding and addressing social determinants to advance cancer health equity and presents actionable recommendations for practice, research, and policy. The article aims to accelerate progress toward eliminating disparities in cancer and achieving health equity.

The Affordable Care Act and access to care across the cancer control continuum: A review at 10 years.

Lack of health insurance coverage is strongly associated with poor cancer outcomes in the United States. The uninsured are less likely to have access to timely and effective cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care than their counterparts with health insurance coverage. On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law, representing the largest change to health care delivery in the United States since the introduction of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965. The primary goals of the ACA are to improve health insurance coverage, the quality of care, and patient outcomes, and to maintain or lower costs by catalyzing changes in the health care delivery system. In this review, we describe the main components of the ACA, including health insurance expansions, coverage reforms, and delivery system reforms, provisions within these components, and their relevance to cancer screening and early detection, care, and outcomes. We then highlight selected, well-designed studies examining the effects of the ACA provisions on coverage, access to cancer care, and disparities throughout the cancer control continuum. Finally, we identify research gaps to inform evaluation of current and emerging health policies related to cancer outcomes.

Minimizing the burden of cancer in the United States: Goals for a high-performing health care system.

Between 1991 and 2015, the cancer mortality rate declined dramatically in the United States, reflecting improvements in cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship care. However, cancer outcomes in the United States vary substantially between populations defined by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, health insurance coverage, and geographic area of residence. Many potentially preventable cancer deaths occur in individuals who did not receive effective cancer prevention, screening, treatment, or survivorship care. At the same time, cancer care spending is large and growing, straining national, state, health insurance plans, and family budgets. Indeed, one of the most pressing issues in American medicine is how to ensure that all populations, in every community, derive the benefit from scientific research that has already been completed. Addressing these questions from the perspective of health care delivery is necessary to accelerate the decline in cancer mortality that began in the early 1990s. This article, part of the Cancer Control Blueprint series, describes challenges with the provision of care across the cancer control continuum in the United States. It also identifies goals for a high-performing health system that could reduce disparities and the burden of cancer by promoting the adoption of healthy lifestyles; access to a regular source of primary care; timely access to evidence-based care; patient-centeredness, including effective patient-provider communication; enhanced coordination and communication between providers, including primary care and specialty care providers; and affordability for patients, payers, and society.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019.

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase in the United States because of the growth and aging of the population as well as advances in early detection and treatment. To assist the public health community in better serving these individuals, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate every 3 years to estimate cancer prevalence in the United States using incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries; vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics; and population projections from the US Census Bureau. Current treatment patterns based on information in the National Cancer Data Base are presented for the most prevalent cancer types. Cancer-related and treatment-related short-term, long-term, and late health effects are also briefly described. More than 16.9 million Americans (8.1 million males and 8.8 million females) with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2019; this number is projected to reach more than 22.1 million by January 1, 2030 based on the growth and aging of the population alone. The 3 most prevalent cancers in 2019 are prostate (3,650,030), colon and rectum (776,120), and melanoma of the skin (684,470) among males, and breast (3,861,520), uterine corpus (807,860), and colon and rectum (768,650) among females. More than one-half (56%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and almost two-thirds (64%) are aged 65 years or older. People with a history of cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs that require proactive assessment and management by follow-up care providers. Although there are growing numbers of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based resources are needed to optimize care.

Changes in cancer incidence rates by stage during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to health care disruptions and declines in cancer diagnoses in the United States. However, the impact of the pandemic on cancer incidence rates by stage at diagnosis and race and ethnicity is unknown. This cross-sectional study calculated delay- and age-adjusted incidence rates, stratified by stage at diagnosis and race and ethnicity, and rate ratios (RRs) comparing changes in year-over-year incidence rates (eg, 2020 vs 2019) from 2016 to 2020 for 22 cancer types based on data obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 22-registry database. From 2019 to 2020, the incidence of local-stage disease statistically significantly declined for 19 of the 22 cancer types, ranging from 4% (RR = 0.96; 95%CI, 0.93-0.98) for urinary bladder cancer to 18% for colorectal (RR = 0.82; 95%CI, 0.81-0.84) and laryngeal (RR = 0.82; 95%CI, 0.78-0.88) cancers, deviating from pre-COVID stable year-over-year changes. Incidence during the corresponding period also declined for 16 cancer types for regional-stage and six cancer types for distant-stage disease. By race and ethnicity, the decline in local-stage incidence for screening-detectable cancers was generally greater in historically marginalized populations. The decline in cancer incidence rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic occurred mainly for local- and regional-stage diseases across racial and ethnic groups. Whether these declines will lead to increases in advanced-stage disease and mortality rates remain to be investigated with additional data years. Nevertheless, the findings reinforce the importance of strengthening the return to preventive care campaigns and outreach for detecting cancers at early and more treatable stages.

Cost-of-care discussions for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma: Findings from a large, population-based pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Costs of cancer care can result in patient financial hardship; many professional organizations recommend provider discussions about treatment costs as part of high-quality care. In this pilot study, the authors examined patient-provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma-cancers with recently approved, high-cost treatment options. METHODS: Individuals who were newly diagnosed in 2017-2018 with stage III/IV NSCLC (n = 1767) and in 2018 with stage III/IV melanoma (n = 689) from 12 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions were randomly selected for the National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Study. Documentation of cost discussions was abstracted from the medical record. The authors examined patient, treatment, and hospital factors associated with cost discussions in multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Cost discussions were documented in the medical records of 20.3% of patients with NSCLC and in 24.0% of those with melanoma. In adjusted analyses, privately insured (vs. publicly insured) patients were less likely to have documented cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80). Patients who did not receive systemic therapy or did not receive any cancer-directed treatment were less likely to have documented cost discussions than those who did receive systemic therapy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19-0.81] and 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.70], respectively), as were patients who were treated at hospitals without residency programs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Cost discussions were infrequently documented in the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and melanoma, which may hinder identifying patient needs and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. Efforts to increase cost-of-care discussions and relevant referrals, as well as their documentation, are warranted.

Employment and workdays lost among spouses of cancer survivors: Intersection with gender across cancer treatment status.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients and survivors have high care needs, often provided by a spouse or partner. The purpose of this study was to elucidate how employment and work loss patterns differed across cancer history/treatment status and gender. METHODS: Using nationally representative data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2011, 2016, and 2017), the authors linked data across married participants and categorized them by spouses' cancer treatment status (no cancer history, on treatment for cancer, off treatment for cancer). Multivariable logistic and zero-inflated negative binomial regressions were used to assess the associations among cancer history/treatment status, gender, and employment outcomes (employment status and workdays lost to care for self or others). RESULTS: For men, employment did not differ significantly by cancer history/treatment status (on treatment: odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-1.02, off treatment: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.62-1.14 vs. no cancer history). For women, employment was not significantly different when the spouse was on treatment for cancer compared to no cancer history (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.33-1.86]) but was significantly increased for women whose spouse was off treatment (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.05-1.84). Among employed participants, women whose spouse was on cancer treatment were nine times more likely to take days off work to provide care (OR, 9.52; 95% CI, 3.94-23.03) and took more than three times as many days off to care for others (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 2.07-4.97) as men whose spouse had no cancer history. CONCLUSIONS: Wives of cancer survivors are at increased risk of work loss, with implications for their financial and psychological well-being. Employers, policymakers, and clinicians have opportunities to support working caregivers.

Association of health insurance coverage disruptions and breast and colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance coverage is critical for ensuring access to recommended health care in the United States. This study investigated the associations of health insurance coverage disruptions, also known as coverage churn, and receipt of breast and colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Adults who were age-eligible and younger than 65 years (range, 50-64 years) for breast (n = 17,128 women) and colorectal (n = 32,562 individuals) cancer screening were identified from 5 years of the National Health Interview Survey. Adults were categorized into five groups based on insurance type at survey (private, public, none) and prior coverage disruptions within the past year. Screening outcomes included: (1) ever-screened, (2) past-year screening, and (3) guideline-concordant screening. Separate multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the associations between insurance coverage disruptions and cancer screening. RESULTS: Among adults who had coverage at the time of the survey, 3.1% with private insurance and 6.5% with public insurance reported prior coverage disruptions. Individuals without health insurance coverage had the lowest level of screening. Among individuals who had private coverage, prior disruptions were associated with lower guideline-concordant screening in adjusted analyses (breast cancer screening: adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.89; colorectal cancer screening: aPR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.86); among those who had public coverage, prior disruptions were also associated with lower guideline-concordant breast cancer screening (aPR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.89) and colorectal cancer screening (aPR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Health insurance coverage disruptions were associated with lower past-year and guideline-concordant breast and colorectal cancer screening. The current findings underscore the importance of stable health insurance coverage to improve cancer screening and early detection when treatment is most effective.

Health insurance literacy among patients receiving outpatient cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: This study examines patients' understanding of health insurance terms and concepts and quantifies health insurance literacy (HIL) levels by key sociodemographic factors. METHODS: This study included 393 adult patients with cancer (>18 years old) receiving treatment in two ambulatory infusion centers: Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona and the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. Respondents' perceptions of their HIL were assessed using the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM), a validated 21-item measure of a consumer's ability to select and use health insurance (HIL self-efficacy). Respondents' knowledge of health insurance concepts (HIL knowledge) was measured using 10 items created by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The number of correct answers was categorized into three levels: 0-4 (low knowledge), 5-6 (moderate knowledge), and 7-10 (high knowledge). Multivariable logistic regressions were used to compare correct answers to HIL knowledge questions by HIL self-efficacy. RESULTS: Nearly three-quarters of patients had high HIL self-efficacy and high HIL knowledge (70.5%), understanding basic insurance terms, such as premiums and deductibles. Relatively low percentages of patients correctly answered questions about the meaning of provider networks, health insurance formularies, and calculating out-of-pocket spending in scenarios when insurers pay a portion of allowed charges. Lower HIL knowledge was more common among patients with less educational attainment (

Health-related social needs, medical financial hardship, and mortality risk among cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors may face challenges affording food, housing, and other living necessities, which are known as health-related social needs (HRSNs). However, little is known about the associations of HRSNs and mortality risk among adult cancer survivors. METHODS: Adult cancer survivors were identified from the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and linked with the NHIS Mortality File with vital status through December 31, 2019. HRSNs, measured by food insecurity, and nonmedical financial worries (e.g., housing costs), was categorized as severe, moderate, and minor/none. Medical financial hardship, including material, psychological, and behavioral domains, was categorized as 2-3, 1, or 0 domains. Using age as the time scale, the associations of HRSNs and medical financial hardship and mortality risk were assessed with weighted adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among cancer survivors 18-64 years old (n = 5855), 25.5% and 18.3% reported moderate and severe levels of HRSNs, respectively; among survivors 65-79 years old (n = 5918), 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate and severe levels of HRSNs, respectively. Among cancer survivors 18-64 years old, severe HRSNs was associated with increased mortality risk (hazards ratio [HR], 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.93, p < .001; reference = minor/none) in adjusted analyses. Among cancer survivors 65-79 years old, 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship was associated with increased mortality risk (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.13-2.20, p = .007; reference = 0 domain). CONCLUSIONS: HSRNs and financial hardship are associated with increased mortality risk among cancer survivors; comprehensive assessment of HRSN and financial hardship connecting patients with relevant services can inform efforts to mitigate adverse consequences of cancer.

Financial hardship among siblings of long-term survivors of childhood cancer: A Childhood Cancer Survivor Study report.

BACKGROUND: Siblings of children with cancer may experience adverse household economic consequences, but their financial outcomes in adulthood are unknown. METHODS: A total of 880 siblings (aged 18-64 years) of adult-aged childhood cancer survivors were surveyed to estimate the prevalence of financial hardship by three established domains (behavioral, material, and psychological). For individual financial hardship items matching the contemporaneous National Health Interview Survey or Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, siblings were compared with the general population by calculating adjusted prevalence odds ratios (ORs) to sample-weighted responses. Multivariable logistic regression models examined associations between sibling characteristics and each hardship domain and between sibling hardship and survivors' cancer/treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Behavioral, material, and psychological hardship was reported by 24%, 35%, and 28%, respectively. Compared with national survey respondents, siblings were more likely to report worries about medical bills (OR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.22), difficulty affording nutritious foods (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.54-2.07), and forgoing needed medical care (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.73), prescription medications (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.99-3.20), and dental care (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.15-1.57) because of cost. Sibling characteristics associated with reporting financial hardship in one or more domains included female sex, older age, chronic health conditions, lower income, not having health insurance, high out-of-pocket medical expenditures, and nonmedical/nonhome debt. No survivor cancer/treatment characteristics were associated with sibling financial hardship. CONCLUSIONS: Adult siblings of childhood cancer survivors were more likely to experience financial hardship compared with the general population. Childhood cancer may adversely affect entire households, with potentially lasting implications.

Association of Family Member Incarceration During Childhood and Smoking and Unhealthy Drinking Behaviors, Access to Care, and Functional Status Among Adults in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: Incarceration can result in adverse socioeconomic and health consequences for individuals who have been incarcerated; these consequences extend to their children and may have impacts into later adulthood. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of family member incarceration (FMI) during childhood and smoking and unhealthy drinking behaviors, access to care, and functional status in later adulthood. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18-64 and ≥ 65 with and without FMI during childhood from 42 states and Washington DC from the 2019-2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. MAIN MEASURES: Having FMI history was defined as "living with anyone during childhood who served time or was sentenced to serve time in a prison, jail, or other correctional facility." Study outcomes included 1) smoking and unhealthy drinking behaviors, 2) access to care (health insurance coverage, care affordability, having a usual source of care, and use of preventive services), and 3) functional status (e.g., having difficulty walking or climbing stairs). KEY RESULTS: After adjusting for demographic characteristics and other adverse childhood experiences, compared to adults without FMI, adults aged 18-64 with FMI were more likely to report any history of smoking or unhealthy drinking (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.28), any access to care problems (AOR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.12-1.42), and any functional limitations (AOR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.10-1.28); adults aged ≥ 65 with FMI reported higher likelihood of reporting any smoking or unhealthy drinking behaviors (AOR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.05-1.43) and impaired functional status (AOR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.10-1.54). Associations were attenuated after additional adjustment for socioeconomic measures, especially educational attainment, but remained statically significant for multiple outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: FMI during childhood was associated with adverse health-related outcomes for adults of all ages. Developing programs to improve access to education and economic opportunities for adults with FMI may help mitigate the disparities.

Loneliness and Mortality Risk Among Cancer Survivors in the United States: A Retrospective, Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Loneliness, a subjective feeling of being isolated, is a prevalent concern for elderly people and more so among cancer survivors because a cancer diagnosis and its subsequent treatment may result in long-term adverse health effects. This study aimed to examine the association of loneliness and mortality risk among cancer survivors in the United States. METHODS: We identified a longitudinal cohort of cancer survivors aged ≥50 years from the nationally representative panel surveys of the 2008-2018 Health and Retirement Study. Follow-up for vital status was through 2020. Loneliness was measured using an 11-item abbreviated version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3), including questions about lacking companionship and feeling isolated from others. A score was assigned according to the responses to each question, with 1 for least lonely, 2 for moderately lonely, and 3 for the loneliest option. Items were summed to create total loneliness scores for each individual, which were categorized into 4 levels: 11-12 (low/no loneliness), 13-15 (mild loneliness), 16-19 (moderate loneliness), and 20-33 (severe loneliness) based on the sample distribution. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models with age as a time scale were used to examine the association of loneliness and survival among cancer survivors. RESULTS: A total of 3,447 cancer survivors with 5,808 person-years of observation were included, with 1,402 (24.3%), 1,445 (24.5%), 1,418 (23.6%), and 1,543 (27.6%) reporting low/no, mild, moderate, and severe loneliness, respectively. Compared with survivors reporting low/no loneliness, survivors reporting greater loneliness had a higher mortality risk, with the highest adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) among the loneliest group (aHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.25-2.23]; P=.004) following a dose-response association. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated loneliness was associated with a higher mortality risk among cancer survivors. Programs to screen for loneliness among cancer survivors and to provide resources and support are warranted, especially considering the widespread social distancing that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.