"It's just not easy to understand": A mixed methods study of health insurance literacy and insurance plan decision-making in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Understanding cancer survivors' health insurance decision-making is needed to improve insurance choice, potentially resulting in reduced financial hardship. METHODS: This explanatory mixed methods study assessed health insurance decision-making in cancer survivors. Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM) captured HIL. Quantitative eye-tracking data collected from two simulated health insurance plan choice sets gauged dwell time (seconds), or interest, in benefits. Dwell time differences by HIL were estimated using adjusted linear models. Qualitative interviews explored survivors' insurance decision-making choices. RESULTS: Cancer survivors (N = 80; 38% breast cancer) had a median age of 43 at diagnosis (IQR 34-52). When comparing traditional and high-deductible health plans, survivors were most interested in drug costs (median dwell time 58 s, IQR 34-109). When comparing health maintenance organization and preferred provider organization plans, survivors were most interested in test/imaging costs (40s, IQR 14-67). Survivors with low versus high HIL had more interest in deductible (ß = 19 s, 95% CI 2-38) and hospitalization costs (ß = 14 s, 95% CI 1-27) in adjusted models. Survivors with low versus high HIL more often ranked out-of-pocket (OOP) maximums and coinsurance as the most important and confusing benefits, respectively. Interviews (n = 20) revealed survivors felt alone "to do their own research" about insurance choices. OOP maximums were cited as the deciding factor since it is "how much money is going to be taken out of my pocket." Coinsurance was considered "rather than a benefit, it's a hindrance." CONCLUSION: Interventions to aid in health insurance understanding and choice are needed to optimize plan choice and potentially reduce cancer-related financial hardship.

Awareness of Alcohol as a Carcinogen and Support for Alcohol Control Policies.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol use increases cancer risk, yet awareness of this association is low. Alcohol control policies have the potential to reduce alcohol-caused cancer morbidity and mortality. Research outside the U.S. has found awareness of the alcohol-cancer link to be associated with support for alcohol control policies. The purpose of this study is to estimate the prevalence of support for 3 communication-focused alcohol policies and examine how awareness of the alcohol-cancer link and drinking status are associated with policy support among U.S. residents. METHODS: Investigators analyzed data from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4. Analyses were performed in 2021. The proportion of Americans who supported banning outdoor alcohol advertising and adding warning labels and drinking guidelines to alcohol containers was estimated. Weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to examine how awareness of the alcohol-cancer link and drinking status were associated with policy support. RESULTS: Most Americans supported adding warning labels (65.1%) and drinking guidelines (63.9%), whereas only 34.4% supported banning outdoor alcohol advertising. Americans reporting that alcohol had no effect/decreased cancer risk had lower odds of support for advertising ban (OR=0.56), warning labels (OR=0.43), and guidelines (OR=0.46) than Americans aware of the alcohol-cancer link. Moreover, heavier drinkers had lower odds of support for advertising ban (OR=0.41), warning labels (OR=0.59), and guidelines (OR=0.60) than nondrinkers. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was associated with policy support. Increasing public awareness of the alcohol-cancer link may increase support for alcohol control policies.

Smoke-free signage in public parks: impacts on smoking behaviour.

OBJECTIVE: Behavioural interventions, such as smoke-free signage, are used to support air quality in public outdoor spaces that are not protected by a smoke-free policy, such as states with preemptive clause legislation. However, there is little evidence of the effectiveness of these interventions. This paper is an evaluation of whether smoke-free signage posted in public parks altered smoking behaviours of park patrons. METHODS: A time-series quasi-experimental design was used. Cigarette butts were collected at the same day and time every week in ten amenities within four parks in 2011. Each park completed a baseline period until a stable trend emerged at six weeks, then received smoke-free signage for the six week intervention period. There were 1684 cigarette butts collected during baseline and 1008 collected during the intervention phase. FINDINGS: Wilcoxon signed-rank test demonstrated that smoking at seven out of ten amenities decreased and the overall decrease was significant at p=0.028. Individual parks and amenities grouped by type did not experience a statistically significant change. A neighbourhood median income trend was visually discovered, revealing that as income increased, there was a greater decrease in cigarette butts. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence on the impact of smoke-free signage not supported by local ordinance in public parks using a reproducible measure. States, especially those with a preemptive clause legislation, may benefit from incorporating smoke-free signage in public areas to protect community members from exposure to tobacco smoke, reduce littering, and denormalise smoking.