Impact of insurance type and timing of Medicaid enrollment on survival among adolescents and young adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with public or no insurance experience later stage at diagnosis and worse overall survival compared with those with private insurance. However, prior studies have not distinguished the survival impact of continuous Medicaid coverage prior to diagnosis compared with gaining Medicaid coverage at diagnosis. METHODS: We linked a cohort of AYAs aged 15-39 who were diagnosed with 13 common cancers from 2005 to 2014 in the California Cancer Registry with California Medicaid enrollment files to ascertain Medicaid enrollment, with other insurance determined from registry data. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate the impact of insurance on survival, adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among 62 218 AYAs, over 65% had private/military insurance, 10% received Medicaid at diagnosis, 13.2% had continuous Medicaid, 4.1% had discontinuous Medicaid, 1.7% had other public insurance, 3% were uninsured, and 2.6% had unknown insurance. Compared with those with private/military insurance, individuals with Medicaid insurance had significantly worse survival regardless of when coverage began (received Medicaid at diagnosis: hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.51 [1.42-1.61]; continuously Medicaid insured: 1.42 [1.33-1.52]; discontinuous Medicaid: 1.64 [1.49, 1.80]). Analyses of those with Medicaid insurance only demonstrated slightly worse cancer-specific survival among those with discontinuous Medicaid or enrollment at diagnosis compared with those with continuous enrollment, but results were not significant stratified by cancer site. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: AYAs with Medicaid insurance experience worse cancer-specific survival compared with those with private/military insurance, yet continuous enrollment demonstrates slight survival improvements, providing potential opportunities for future policy intervention.

Second primary malignancy risk after Hodgkin lymphoma treatment among HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected survivors.

We compared secondary primary malignancy risk (SPM) in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors. We used data from the California Cancer Registry on patients diagnosed with HL from 1990 to 2015 (all ages included), and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and multivariable competing risk models for analyses. Of 19,667 survivors, 735 were HIV-infected. Compared with the general population, the risk of SPM was increased by 2.66-fold in HIV-infected and 1.92-fold in HIV-uninfected survivors. Among HIV-infected survivors, median time to development of SPM was shorter (5.4 years) than in HIV-uninfected patients (8.1 years). Additionally, the highest risk of SPM was observed <2 years after diagnosis in HIV-infected survivors (SIR = 4.47), whereas risk was highest ≥20 years after diagnosis (SIR = 2.39) in HIV-uninfected survivors. The risk of SPMs persisted for decades and was higher among HIV-infected survivors, suggesting that these patients should benefit from long-term surveillance and cancer prevention practices.

Emergency department use by recently diagnosed cancer patients in California.

BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of cancer care and reducing preventable health system use are goals of increasing importance to health practitioners and policy makers. Emergency department (ED) visits are often cited as a source of preventable health system use, however, few studies have described the incidence of ED use by recently diagnosed cancer patients in population-based samples, and no study has addressed the full spectrum of cancer types. OBJECTIVE: To describe ED use by recently diagnosed cancer patients. METHODS: California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development data and the California Cancer Registry were used to describe ED use in the year after a cancer diagnosis (2009-2010). The incidence of ED use was tabulated by cancer type. Logistic regression and recycled predictions were used to examine ED use adjusting for confounding factors. RESULTS: Most ED visits (68%) occurred within 180 days of diagnosis. The incidence of ED use for all cancer types examined was 17% within 30 days, 35% within 180 days and 44% within 365 days of diagnosis. ED use varied by cancer type (5%-39% within 30 days of diagnosis; 14% -62% within 180 days; and 22%-69% within 365 days). Patterns of ED use by cancer type remained similar after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic factors. LIMITATIONS: Those common to administrative and registry datasets. Specifically, we were unable to account for ED visits in relation to cancer treatment dates and comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients use EDs at higher rates than previously reported, with considerable variability by cancer type. Future research should examine reasons for ED visits by cancer type and identify predictors of ED use, including treatment and comorbid conditions.