Comparisons of financial hardship in cancer care by family structure and among those with and without minor children using nationally representative data.

INTRODUCTION: While demographic risk factors of cancer-related financial hardships have been studied, having minor children or being single have rarely been assessed in the context of healthcare-related financial hardships. METHODS: Using data from the 2015 to 2018 National Health Interview Survey, we assessed financial hardship (material and psychological hardship; behavioral coping due to costs: delaying/foregoing care, reducing prescription costs, or skipping specialists or follow-up care) among adults aged 18-59 years with cancer (N = 2844) by minor child parenting status and family structure. In a secondary analysis, we compared this group with individuals without cancer. Using logistic regression models, we compared those with and without children aged <18 years, further distinguishing between those who were single versus one of two or more adults in the family. RESULTS: Compared to individuals from families with two or more adults/without children, single adults with children more often reported cancer-related financial hardships, for example material hardship (45.9% vs. 38.8%), and reducing prescription costs, (50.7% vs. 34.4%, adjusted OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.07-2.28). Single adults without minor children and those from families with two or more adults/with minor children also reported greater financial hardships on some dimensions. Associations were similar among those without cancer, but the overall magnitude of financial hardships was lower compared to those with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that having minor children, and being a single adult are risk factors for cancer-related financial hardship. Financial vulnerability associated with family structure should be taken into consideration in healthcare, and especially cancer care.

Health Care Contact Days Among Older Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Health care contact days-days spent receiving health care outside the home-represent an intuitive, practical, and person-centered measure of time consumed by health care. METHODS: We linked 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and traditional Medicare claims data for community-dwelling older adults with a history of cancer. We identified contact days (ie, spent in a hospital, emergency department, skilled nursing facility, or inpatient hospice or receiving ambulatory care including an office visit, procedure, treatment, imaging, or test) and described patterns of total and ambulatory contact days. Using weighted Poisson regression models, we identified factors associated with contact days. RESULTS: We included 1,168 older adults representing 4.51 million cancer survivors (median age, 76.4 years, 52.8% women). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis was 65 (27-126) months. In 2019, these adults had mean (standard deviation) total contact days of 28.4 (27.6) and ambulatory contact days of 24.2 (23.6). These included days for tests (8.0 [8.8]), imaging (3.6 [4.1]), visits with any clinicians (12.4 [11.5]), and visits with primary care clinicians (4.4 [4.7]), and nononcology specialists (7.1 [9.4]) specifically. Sixty-four percent of days with a nonvisit ambulatory service (eg, a test) were not on the same day as a clinician visit. Factors associated with more total contact days included younger age, lower income, more chronic conditions, poor self-rated health, and tendency to "go to doctor as soon as feel bad." CONCLUSION: Older adult cancer survivors spent nearly 1 month of the year receiving health care outside the home. This care was largely ambulatory, often delivered by nononcologists, and varied by factors beyond clinical characteristics. These results highlight the need to recognize patient burdens and improve survivorship care delivery, including through care coordination.

Postacute Care for Medicare Advantage Enrollees Who Switched to Traditional Medicare Compared With Those Who Remained in Medicare Advantage.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans receive capitated per enrollee payments that create financial incentives to provide care more efficiently than traditional Medicare (TM); however, incentives could be associated with MA plans reducing use of beneficial services. Postacute care can improve functional status, but it is costly, and thus may be provided differently to Medicare beneficiaries by MA plans compared with TM. Objective: To estimate the association of MA compared with TM enrollment with postacute care use and postdischarge outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cohort study using Medicare data on 4613 hospitalizations among retired Ohio state employees and 2 comparison groups in 2015 and 2016. The study investigated the association of a policy change with use of postacute care and outcomes. The policy changed state retiree health benefits in Ohio from a mandatory MA plan to subsidies for either supplemental TM coverage or an MA plan. After policy implementation, approximately 75% of retired Ohio state employees switched to TM. Hospitalizations for 3 high-volume conditions that usually require postacute rehabilitation were assessed. Data from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files were used to identify all hospitalizations in short-term acute care hospitals. Difference-in-difference regressions were used to estimate changes for retired Ohio state employees compared with other 2015 MA enrollees in Ohio and with Kentucky public retirees who were continuously offered a mandatory MA plan. Data analyses were performed from September 1, 2019, to November 30, 2023. Exposures: Enrollment in Ohio state retiree health benefits in 2015, after which most members shifted to TM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Received care in an inpatient rehabilitation facility, skilled nursing facility, or home health, or any postacute care; the occurrence of any hospital readmission; the number of days in the community during the 30 days after hospital discharge; and mortality. Results: The study sample included 2373 hospitalizations for Ohio public retirees, 1651 hospitalizations for other Humana MA enrollees in Ohio, and 589 hospitalizations for public retirees in Kentucky. After the 2016 policy implementation, the percentage of hospitalizations covered by MA decreased by 70.1 (95% CI, -74.2 to -65.9) percentage points (pp), inpatient rehabilitation facility admissions increased by 9.7 (95% CI, 4.7 to 14.7) pp, use of only home health or skilled nursing facility care fell by 8.6 (95% CI, -14.6 to -2.6) pp, and days in the community fell by 1.6 (95% CI, -2.9 to -0.3) days for Ohio public retirees compared with other Humana MA enrollees in Ohio. There was no change in 30-day mortality or hospital readmissions; similar results were found by comparisons using Kentucky public retirees as a control group. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study indicate that after a change in retiree health benefits, most Ohio public retirees shifted from MA to TM and received more intensive postacute care with no significant change in measured short-term postdischarge outcomes. Future work should consider additional measures of postacute functional status over a longer follow-up period.

Long-term multimorbidity trajectories in older adults: The role of cancer, demographics, and health behaviors.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is associated with premature mortality and excess health care costs. The burden of multimorbidity is highest among patients with cancer, yet trends and determinants of multimorbidity over time are poorly understood. METHODS: Via Medicare claims linked to Cancer Prevention Study II data, group-based trajectory modeling was used to compare National Cancer Institute comorbidity index score trends for cancer survivors and older adults without a cancer history. Among cancer survivors, multinomial logistic regression analyses evaluated associations between demographics, health behaviors, and comorbidity trajectories. RESULTS: In 82,754 participants (mean age, 71.6 years [SD, 5.1 years]; 56.9% female), cancer survivors (n = 11,265) were more likely than older adults without a cancer history to experience the riskiest comorbidity trajectories: (1) steady, high comorbidity scores (remain high; odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.29-1.45), and (2) high scores that increased over time (start high and increase; OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.38-1.65). Cancer survivors who were physically active postdiagnosis were less likely to fall into these two trajectories (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84, remain high; OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.33-0.53, start high and increase) compared to inactive survivors. Cancer survivors with obesity were more likely to have a trajectory that started high and increased (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 2.32-3.45 vs. normal weight), although being physically active offset some obesity-related risk. Cancer survivors who smoked postdiagnosis were also six times more likely to have trajectories that started high and increased (OR, 6.86; 95% CI, 4.41-10.66 vs. never smokers). CONCLUSIONS: Older cancer survivors are more likely to have multiple comorbidities accumulated at a faster pace than older adults without a history of cancer. Weight management, physical activity, and smoking avoidance postdiagnosis may attenuate that trend.

Impact of Specialized Treatment Setting on Survival in Adolescent and Young Adult ALL.

PURPOSE: Unlike children with ALL who receive cancer care primarily at specialized cancer centers (SCCs; National Cancer Institute and/or Children's Oncology Group centers), adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15-39 years) receive care in a variety of settings. Using population-based data, we describe where AYAs with ALL receive treatment and determine associations with overall survival (OS). METHODS: Data from the 2004 to 2018 California (CA, n = 2,283), New York (NY, n = 795), and Texas (TX, n = 955) state cancer registries were used to identify treatment setting of AYAs with newly diagnosed ALL. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models evaluated associations with OS. RESULTS: Seventy percent were older than 18 years, and 65% were male. A majority in CA (63%) and TX (64%) were Hispanic while most in NY were non-Hispanic White (50%). Treatment at an SCC occurred in 48.2% (CA), 44.4% (NY), and 19.5% (TX). Across states, AYAs who were older or uninsured were less likely to receive treatment at an SCC. Treatment at an SCC was associated with superior OS in CA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.85) and TX (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.83); a nonsignificant association was seen in NY (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.08). CONCLUSION: Only 20%-50% of AYA patients with ALL received frontline treatment at SCCs. Treatment of ALL at an SCC was associated with superior survival, highlighting the importance of policy efforts to improve access and reduce inequities in AYA ALL care.

Evaluation of the Completeness of Managed Care Data to Identify Cancer Diagnoses and Treatments for Patients in the SEER-Medicare Data.

BACKGROUND: The utility of codes on Medicare Advantage (MA) data to capture cancer diagnoses and treatment for cancer patients is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study compared cancer diagnoses and treatments on MA encounter data (MA data) with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER) data. SUBJECTS: Subjects were patients enrolled in either MA or Medicare fee-for-service (MFFS) when diagnosed with incident breast, colorectal, prostate, or lung cancer, 2015-2017, in a SEER cancer registry. MEASURES: MA data, from 2 months before to 12 months following SEER diagnosis, were reviewed to identify cancer diagnoses, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy (RT). MA data were compared with SEER to determine their sensitivity to capture cancer diagnoses and sensitivity/specificity to identify surgeries. The agreement between SEER and Medicare data regarding receipt of chemotherapy and RT was measured by Kappa statistics. A similar comparison to SEER diagnoses/treatments was made using MFFS claims to provide context for the SEER-MA comparison. RESULTS: The study included 186,449 patients, 38% in MA. MA data had 92%+ sensitivity to identify SEER cancer diagnosis and 90%+ sensitivity for cancer surgery. Specificity for surgery was >84%, except for breast cancer (52%). Kappa statistics for agreement between SEER and MA data regarding chemotherapy varied by cancer, 0.61-0.82, and for receipt of RT exceeded 0.75 for all cancers. Results observed for MFFS claims were similar to those in MA data. CONCLUSION: For 4 common cancers, MA data included most cancer diagnoses and general types of cancer treatment reported in the SEER data. More research is needed to assess additional cancers and detailed treatments.

Health Care Contact Days Experienced by Decedents With Advanced GI Cancer.

PURPOSE: Frequent visits to health care facilities can be time intensive and all-consuming for people with cancer. We measured health care contact days (days with healthcare contact outside the home) among decedents with advanced GI cancer and examined sources of contact days, their associations with demographic and clinical factors, and their temporal patterns over the course of illness. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a tumor registry and electronic medical record data for decedents with stage IV GI cancer between 2011 and 2019 in a large health care network in MN. We determined contact days from diagnosis to death using chart review. Using multivariable beta regression adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics offset by survival, we calculated adjusted estimates of contact days and determined patient-level factors associated with percentage of contact days. RESULTS: We identified 809 patients eligible for analysis (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 65 [56-73] years). The median (IQR) overall survival was 175 (56-459) days. Patients spent a median (IQR) of 25.8% (17.4%-39.1%) of these as contact days. Of these days, 83.6% were spent on outpatient visits. In the multivariable analysis, older age, Black race, and never receiving systemic cancer-directed treatment were associated with a higher percentage of contact days. The percentage of contact days was highest in the first month after diagnosis (39.6%) and before death (32.2%), with a more moderate middle phase (U-shaped curve). CONCLUSION: Decedents with advanced GI cancer spend 1 in 4 days alive with health care contact, despite a median survival of under 6 months. This is even higher immediately postdiagnosis and near death. These findings highlight the need to understand sources of variation, benchmark appropriate care, and deliver more efficient care for this vulnerable population with limited time.

Nutrition as prevention for improved cancer health outcomes: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Among adults with cancer, malnutrition is associated with decreased treatment completion, more treatment harms and use of health care, and worse short-term survival. To inform the National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention workshop, "Nutrition as Prevention for Improved Cancer Health Outcomes," this systematic review examined the evidence for the effectiveness of providing nutrition interventions before or during cancer therapy to improve outcomes of cancer treatment. METHODS: We identified randomized controlled trials enrolling at least 50 participants published from 2000 through July 2022. We provide a detailed evidence map for included studies and grouped studies by broad intervention and cancer types. We conducted risk of bias (RoB) and qualitative descriptions of outcomes for intervention and cancer types with a larger volume of literature. RESULTS: From 9798 unique references, 206 randomized controlled trials from 219 publications met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily focused on nonvitamin or mineral dietary supplements, nutrition support, and route or timing of inpatient nutrition interventions for gastrointestinal or head and neck cancers. Most studies evaluated changes in body weight or composition, adverse events from cancer treatment, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Few studies were conducted within the United States. Among intervention and cancer types with a high volume of literature (n = 114), 49% (n = 56) were assessed as high RoB. Higher-quality studies (low or medium RoB) reported mixed results on the effect of nutrition interventions across cancer and treatment-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological limitations of nutrition intervention studies surrounding cancer treatment impair translation of findings into clinical practice or guidelines.

Cost of Cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States: Results of the 2021 Report by Deloitte Access Economics, Commissioned by Teen Cancer America.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report, commissioned by Teen Cancer America and performed by Deloitte Access Economics in 2021, was to estimate the total costs incurred by adolescent and young adults (AYAs) after cancer diagnosis in the United States (US) over their life course. METHODS: The incidence of cancer in 2019 among AYAs age 15-39 years was estimated from the US Cancer Statistics Public Use Database, and relative survival was projected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cost domains included health system, productivity, and well-being costs. Components were estimated with published literature and pooled data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2008 to 2012 and inflated to 2019 dollars. RESULTS: The economic and human costs of cancer in AYAs are substantial-$23.5 billion overall, corresponding to $259,324 per person over the lifetime. The majority of costs are borne by AYA cancer survivors themselves in the form of lost productivity, loss of well-being, and loss of life. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the need to address the burden of cancer in AYAs through targeted programs for AYAs, such as financial navigation and health insurance literacy interventions, as well as local and national policy initiatives to address access to and enhanced coverage for clinical trials participation, fertility services, and survivorship care.

Fracture Risk Among Older Cancer Survivors Compared With Older Adults Without a History of Cancer.

Importance: The number of cancer survivors living in the US is projected to be 26.1 million by 2040. Cancer survivors may be at increased risk of bone fractures, but research is limited in several important ways. Objective: To investigate the associations of cancer diagnoses, including time since diagnosis and stage at diagnosis, with risks of pelvic, radial, and vertebral fractures (separately and combined) among older cancer survivors and compared with fracture risk among older adults without a history of cancer. Secondarily, to examine differences in risk of fracture stratified by modifiable behaviors, treatment, and cancer type. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal cohort study used data from 92 431 older adults in the US Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort linked with 1999 to 2017 Medicare claims. Data were analyzed from July 15, 2021, to May 3, 2022. Exposures: Cancer history, time since cancer diagnosis, and stage at cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the risk of pelvic, radial, vertebral, and total frailty-related fractures were estimated using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. Stratification was used for secondary aims. Results: Among 92 431 participants (mean [SD] age, was 69.4 [6.0] years, 51 820 [56%] women, and 90 458 [97.9%] White], 12 943 participants experienced a frailty-related bone fracture. Compared with participants without a history of cancer, cancer survivors who were diagnosed 1 to less than 5 years earlier with advanced stage cancer had higher risk of fracture (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.75-2.58). The higher fracture risk in cancer survivors with recent advanced stage diagnosis (vs no cancer) was driven largely by vertebral (HR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.93-3.13) and pelvic (HR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.84-3.29) fracture sites. Compared with cancer survivors who did not receive chemotherapy, survivors who received chemotherapy were more likely to have a fracture; this association was stronger within 5 years of diagnosis (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.09-1.57) than 5 or more years after diagnosis (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.99-1.51). Although the HR for risk of fracture was lower among physically active cancer survivors 5 or more years after diagnosis (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.07), this result was not statistically significant, whereas current smoking was significantly associated with higher risk of fracture (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.55-3.33). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this cohort study suggest that older adults with a history of cancer may benefit from clinical guidance on prevention of frailty-related fractures. If study findings are replicated, fracture prevention programs for survivors might include referrals for physical activity with cancer exercise professionals and smoking cessation programs.

Development and use of a novel tool for assessing and improving researcher embeddedness in learning health systems and applied system improvements.

This paper outlines the development, deployment and use, and testing of a tool for measuring and improving healthcare researcher embeddedness - i.e., being connected to and engaged with key leverage points and stakeholders in a health system. Despite the widely acknowledged importance of embeddedness for learning health systems and late-stage translational research, we were not aware of useful tools for addressing and improving embeddedness in scholar training programs. We developed the MN-LHS Embeddedness Tool covering connections to committees, working groups, leadership, and other points of contact across four domains: patients and caregivers; local practice (e.g., operations and workflows); local institutional research (e.g., research committees and agenda- or initiative-setting groups); and national (strategic connections within professional groups, conferences, etc.). We used qualitative patterns and narrative findings from 11 learning health system training program scholars to explore variation in scholar trajectories and the embeddedness tool's usefulness in scholar professional development. Tool characteristics showed moderate evidence of construct validity; secondarily, we found significant differences in embeddedness, as a score, from baseline through program completion. The tool has demonstrated simple, practical utility in making embeddedness an explicit (rather than hidden) part of applied and learning health system researcher training, alongside emerging evidence for validity.

HPV vaccination coverage for pediatric, adolescent and young adult patients receiving care in a childhood cancer survivor program.

Pediatric, adolescent and young adult patients undergoing cancer treatment and/or hematopoietic stem cell transplant are at increased risk for developing a secondary human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated malignancy. The objective of this study was to determine HPV vaccination coverage among individuals participating in a childhood cancer survivor program (CCSP). A retrospective cohort study was conducted among CCSP patients age 11-26 years attending a CCSP visit between 2014 and 2019. Survivors were age-, sex-, and race-matched 1:2 with controls without cancer. Data were abstracted from the electronic health record and state-based vaccination registry. Analysis was limited to Minnesota residents to minimize missing vaccination data. Survivorship care plans (SCPs) were reviewed for vaccine recommendations. 592 patients were included in the analyses (200 CCSP patients; 392 controls). By study design, mean age (18.4 years), race (72 % white), and sex (49 % female) were similar in the two groups. Among CCSP patients 22 % resided in a rural area compared to 3.8 % of controls. Vaccination coverage among CCSP patients was not statistically significantly different from controls [60.0 % vs 66.3 %, OR = 0.82, 95 % CI: (0.55, 1.23), p = 0.35]. Completion of 3 doses was not different between groups even though 3 doses is recommended for all CCSP patients regardless of age at initiation (28.5 % vs 30.1 %, p = 0.09). Only 8.0 % of SCPs recommended HPV vaccination. Although patients participating in a CCSP did not have significantly different HPV vaccination coverage compared to controls, HPV vaccination initiation and 3-dose series completion are still suboptimal in a patient population at high-risk of a secondary HPV-associated cancer.

Opportunities for personalizing colorectal cancer care: an analysis of SEER-medicare data.

United States clinical practice guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer recommend use of medications impacted by genetic variants but do not recommend testing. We analyzed real-world treatment using a cancer registry and claims dataset to explore pharmacogenomic (PGx) medication treatment patterns and characterize exposure. In a cohort of 6957 patients, most (86.9%) were exposed to at least one chemotherapy medication with PGx guidelines. In a cohort of 2223 patients with retail pharmacy claims available, most (79.2%) were treated with at least one non-chemotherapy (79.2%) medication with PGx guidelines. PGx-associated chemotherapy exposure was associated with age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and rurality. PGx-associated non-chemotherapy exposure was associated with medication use and comorbidities. The potential impact of PGx testing is large and policies aimed at increasing PGx testing at diagnosis may impact treatment decisions for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as most patients are exposed to medications with pharmacogenomics implications during treatment.

Perception of Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Survivors of Gynecologic Cancer.

Our objective was to assess gynecologic cancer survivor preferences for telehealth cancer care. Gynecologic cancer survivors participating in a prospective cohort study were invited to complete a cross-sectional survey regarding their experience with and preferences for telehealth. Of 188 participants, 48.9% had undergone a telehealth visit since March 2020, and 53.7% reported a preference for exclusively in-person visits for their cancer care and surveillance. Furthermore, 80.5% of participants were satisfied with the telehealth care they received and 54.8% would recommend telehealth services to patients with similar conditions. Most participants thought a physical examination was critical to detecting recurrence, and concern that their provider may miss something during telehealth visits was greater among those who preferred in-person visits. With many gynecologic cancer survivors preferring in-person care, building a future care model that includes telehealth elements will require adaptations, careful evaluation of patient concerns, as well as patient education on telehealth.

Forgoing physician visits due to cost: regional clustering among cancer survivors by age, sex, and race/ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: Innovative treatments have improved cancer survival but also increased financial hardship for patients. While demographic factors associated with financial hardship among cancer survivors are known in the USA, the role of geography is less clear. METHODS: We evaluated prevalence of forgoing care due to cost within 12 months by US Census region (Northeast, North Central/Midwest [NCMW], South, West) by demographic factors (age, sex, race/ethnicity) among 217,981 cancer survivors aged 18 to 82 years from the 2015-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey. We summarized region- and group-specific prevalence of forgoing physician visits due to cost and used multilevel logistic regression models to compare regions. RESULTS: The prevalence of forgoing physician visits due to cost was highest in the South (aged < 65 years: 19-38%; aged ≥ 65: 4-21%; adjusted odds ratios [OR], NCMW versus South, OR: 0.63 [0.56-0.71]; Northeast versus South, OR: 0.63 [0.55-0.73]; West versus South, OR: 0.73 [0.64-0.84]). Across the USA, including regions with broad Medicaid expansion, younger, female, and persons of color most often reported cost-related forgoing physician visits. CONCLUSION: Forgoing physician visits due to cost among cancer survivors is regionally clustered, raising concerns for concentrated poor long-term cancer outcomes. Underlying factors likely include variation in regional population compositions and contextual factors, such as Medicaid expansion and social policies. Disproportionate cost burden among survivors of color in all regions highlight systemic barriers, underscoring the need to improve access to the entire spectrum of care for cancer survivors, and especially for those most vulnerable.

Trends in Patch Testing in the Medicare Part B Fee-for-Service Population.

BACKGROUND: Patch testing is a vital component of the workup for allergic contact dermatitis. There are limited data on changes of patch testing use among Medicare providers, as well as patch testing reimbursement rates. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate trends in the use of patch testing among various Medicare providers and Medicare patch testing reimbursement. DESIGN: A longitudinal analysis of patch testing claims was performed with the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary files from 2010 to 2018. The primary outcomes were the total number and change in the number of submitted patch testing services from 2010 to 2018 by 3 provider groups: dermatology physicians, nondermatology physicians, and nonphysician providers. Secondary outcome measures included Medicare reimbursement amounts and changes in reimbursement amounts for patch test services (total and per 1000 enrollees) from 2010 to 2018 for the 3 provider groups, as well as per patch test service. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2018, submitted patch testing services per 1000 enrollees grew by 89.0%. The annual trend estimate for submitted services relative to 2010 was +10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.1 to 12.0) for physicians and +34.1% (95% CI = 32.1 to 36.0) for nonphysician providers (physician assistants and nurse practitioners). Among physicians, the annual trend estimate for submitted services was +5.1% (95% CI = -11.3 to 21.5) for dermatologists and +31.40% (95% CI = 15.00 to 47.81) for allergists. CONCLUSIONS: Patch testing increased in the US Medicare population from 2010 to 2018, and this increase was largely driven by nonphysician providers and allergists.

Financial Burden of Drugs Prescribed for Cancer-Associated Symptoms.

PURPOSE: The financial toxicity of anticancer drugs is well-documented, but little is known about the costs of drugs used to manage cancer-associated symptoms. METHODS: We reviewed relevant guidelines and compiled drugs used to manage seven cancer-associated symptoms (anorexia and cachexia, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, constipation, diarrhea, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, cancer-associated fatigue, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). Using GoodRx website, we identified the retail price (cash price at retail pharmacies) and lowest price (discounted, best-case scenario of out-of-pocket costs) for patients without insurance for each drug or formulation for a typical fill. We describe lowest prices here. RESULTS: For anorexia and cachexia, costs ranged from $5 US dollars (USD; generic olanzapine or mirtazapine tablets) to $1,156 USD (brand-name dronabinol solution) and varied widely by formulation of the same drug or dosage: for olanzapine 5 mg, $5 USD (generic tablet) to $239 USD (brand-name orally disintegrating tablet). For chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, costs of duloxetine varied from $12 USD (generic) to $529 USD (brand-name). For constipation, the cost of sennosides or polyethylene glycol was <$15 USD, whereas newer agents such as methylnaltrexone were expensive ($1,001 USD). For diarrhea, the cost of generic loperamide or diphenoxylate-atropine tablets was <$15 USD. For exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, only brand-name formulations were available, range of cost, $1,072 USD-$1,514 USD. For cancer-associated fatigue, the cost of generic dexamethasone or dexmethylphenidate was <$15 USD, whereas brand-name modafinil was more costly ($1,284 USD). For a 4-drug nausea and vomiting prophylaxis regimen, costs ranged from $181 USD to $1,430 USD. CONCLUSION: We highlight the high costs of many symptom control drugs and the wide variation in the costs of these drugs. These findings can guide patient-clinician discussions about cost-effectively managing symptoms, while promoting the use of less expensive formulations when possible.

Telehealth in cancer care during COVID-19: disparities by age, race/ethnicity, and residential status.

PURPOSE: Telehealth may remain an integral part of cancer survivorship care after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While telehealth may reduce travel/waiting times and costs for many patients, it may also create new barriers that could exacerbate care disparities in historically underserved populations, manifesting as differences in overall care participation, and in differential video versus phone use for telehealth. METHODS: We reviewed visits by cancer survivors between January and December 2020 at a designated cancer center in Minnesota. We used descriptive statistics, data visualization, and generalized estimating equation logistic regression models to compare visit modalities and trends over time by age, urban/rural status, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 159,301 visits, including 33,242 telehealth visits, older and rural-dwelling individuals were underrepresented in telehealth compared with in-person care. Non-Hispanic White individuals, those aged 18-69 years, and urban residents used video for > 50% of their telehealth visits. In contrast, those aged ≥ 70 years, rural residents, and most patient groups of color used video for only 33-43% of their telehealth visits. Video use increased with time for everyone, but relative differences in telehealth modalities persisted. Visits of Black/African American patients temporarily fell in spring/summer 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore reduced uptake of telehealth, especially video, among potentially vulnerable patient populations. Future research should evaluate reasons for differential telehealth utilization and whether visit modality (in-person versus video versus phone) affects cancer outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: A long-term cancer care model with integrated telehealth elements needs to account for specific barriers for vulnerable populations.