The effect of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on smoking status, quit attempts, and receipt of cessation support among adults with cancer: Results from nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

A review of movement disorders in chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity.

Chemotherapy agents used in the standard treatments for many types of cancer are neurotoxic and can lead to lasting sensory and motor symptoms that compromise day-to-day movement functions in cancer survivors. To date, the details of movement disorders associated with chemotherapy are known largely through self-reported symptoms and functional limitations. There are few quantitative studies of specific movement deficits, limiting our understanding of dysfunction, as well as effective assessments and interventions. The aim of this narrative review is to consolidate the current understanding of sensorimotor disabilities based on quantitative measures in cancer survivors who received chemotherapy. We performed literature searches on PubMed and found 32 relevant movement studies. We categorized these studies into three themes based on the movement deficits investigated: (1) balance and postural control; (2) gait function; (3) upper limb function. This literature suggests that cancer survivors have increased postural sway, more conservative gait patterns, and suboptimal hand function compared to healthy individuals. More studies are needed that use objective measures of sensorimotor function to better characterize movement disabilities and investigate the underlying causes, as required for developing targeted assessments and interventions. By updating our understanding of movement impairments in this population, we identify significant gaps in knowledge that will help guide the direction of future research.

Telemedicine in Oncology and Reimbursement Policy During COVID-19 and Beyond.

The first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. As of September 17, 2020, there were more than 6.6 million confirmed cases and 196,277 deaths. Limited data are available on outcomes of immunocompromised patients, but early published reports from China indicate that those with cancer have a 3.5 times higher risk of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death than those without cancer. Because of the uncertain behavior of COVID-19, it has become imperative for practices to limit exposure to vulnerable patients. Telemedicine has been one of the cornerstones of caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of reimbursement policy by public and private payers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, describes implications in cancer care, and offers considerations for future reimbursement policy.

Comparison of Cancer Burden and Nonprofit Organization Funding Reveals Disparities in Funding Across Cancer Types.

BACKGROUND: Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in oncology are vital for patient advocacy and funding research for rare cancers, young investigators, and innovative projects. However, some cancers may be underfunded relative to their burden. This study examined the alignment of cancer burden by histology with NPO funding for each histology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This nationwide, cross-sectional study conducted from October 2017 through February 2018 included all oncology NPOs with >$5 million in annual revenue. Total revenue from NPOs supporting individual cancer types with the incidence, mortality, and person-years of life lost (PYLL) for each cancer type was compared using scatter plots and Pearson correlation coefficients. Correlation of expenditure types (eg, fundraising, patient education) with revenue was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Effect of disease association with a stigmatized behavior (eg, lung cancer and smoking) was evaluated using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 119 cancer-related NPOs were included, generating approximately $6 billion in annual revenue in 2015. Cancers with the largest revenue were breast cancer ($460 million; 33.2%), leukemia ($201 million; 14.5%), pediatric cancers ($177 million; 12.8%), and lymphoma ($145 million; 10.5%). Breast cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, and pediatric cancers were all well funded compared with their incidence, mortality, and PYLL. Gastrointestinal (colorectal, pancreas, and hepatobiliary), gynecologic (ovarian, cervical, and endometrial), brain, and lung cancers were poorly funded in all 3 metrics. All cancers associated with a stigmatized behavior were poorly funded in at least 2 metrics. Increased spending on fundraising, administrative costs, patient education, and treatment was highly correlated with increased revenue (Pearson correlation coefficients all >0.92). CONCLUSIONS: NPO funding by cancer type is not proportionate with individual cancer burden on society. Disease stigma negatively impacts funding. A significant need exists to increase awareness and funding for many undersupported but common and highly lethal cancers.

The Parity Paradigm: Can Legislation Help Reduce the Cost Burden of Oral Anticancer Medications?

Over the last decade, there has been increased development and use of oral anticancer medications, which sometimes leads to high cost sharing for patients. Drug parity laws require insurance plans to cover oral anticancer medications with the same cost sharing as intravenous/injected chemotherapy or have a capped limit on out-of-pocket costs. There are currently 36 enacted state laws (plus the District of Columbia) addressing drug parity, but no federal laws. In this policy perspective piece, we discuss the history, opportunities, and limitations of drug parity laws in oncology. We also discuss the implications of provisions of the Affordable Care Act and other proposed policy reforms on financing oral chemotherapy.

Cost estimates and economic implications of expanded RAS testing in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In colorectal cancer (CRC), evidence shows that expanding RAS testing to analyze more mutations may better predict benefit from anti-EGFR therapy. The economic implications of expanding RAS testing for metastatic CRC were analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Estimates of standard KRAS exon 2 testing were based on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2014 Diagnostic Laboratory Fee Schedule, and expanded RAS testing was estimated using a sensitivity analysis done with various potential cost scenarios (1, 2, 10, and 30 times the cost of the standard KRAS test). The cost estimates for cetuximab and panitumumab were based on the CMS payment allowance limits for Medicare Part B. RESULTS: A total of 28,692 patients with metastatic CRC were estimated to be eligible annually for RAS testing. For cetuximab, the societal cost of standard KRAS testing plus the drug versus expanded testing plus the drug would be $1.16 billion versus $816 million if the cost of the tests were the same. If the cost of the expanded RAS test were 30 times the cost of the standard test, then the societal cost of standard KRAS testing plus the drug versus expanded testing plus the drug would be $1.16 billion versus $980 million, a continued savings of more than $184 million annually. Similar savings were seen with panitumumab. CONCLUSION: The increased societal cost of expanded RAS testing versus standard approved KRAS exon 2 testing was inconsequential when compared with the amount of money saved by not treating the additional 18% of patients who harbor additional RAS mutations (beyond exon 2) with anti-EGFR therapy.

Impact of Medicare Part D on out-of-pocket drug costs and medical use for patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Part D was designed to reduce out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for Medicare beneficiaries, but to the authors' knowledge the extent to which this occurred for patients with cancer has not been measured to date. The objective of the current study was to examine the impact of Medicare Part D eligibility on OOP cost for prescription drugs and use of medical services among patients with cancer. METHODS: Using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) for the years 2002 through 2010, a differences-in-differences analysis estimated the effects of Medicare Part D eligibility on OOP pharmaceutical costs and medical use. The authors compared per capita OOP cost and use between Medicare beneficiaries (aged ≥65 years) with cancer to near-elderly patients aged 55 years to 64 years with cancer. Statistical weights were used to generate nationally representative estimates. RESULTS: A total of 1878 near-elderly and 4729 individuals with Medicare were included (total of 6607 individuals). The mean OOP pharmaceutical cost for Medicare beneficiaries before the enactment of Part D was $1158 (standard error, ±$52) and decreased to $501 (standard error, ±$30), a decline of 43%. Compared with changes in OOP pharmaceutical costs for nonelderly patients with cancer over the same period, the implementation of Medicare Part D was associated with a further reduction of $356 per person. Medicare Part D appeared to have no significant impact on the use of medications, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits, but was associated with a reduction of 1.55 in outpatient visits. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare D has reduced OOP prescription drug costs and outpatient visits for seniors with cancer beyond trends observed for younger patients, with no major impact on the use of other medical services noted.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Colon Cancer: More Than Just an Optical Illusion.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.

Advancing survivorship at a comprehensive cancer center: integrating clinical care, education and research initiatives at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The unprecedented and growing number of cancer survivors requires comprehensive quality care that includes cancer surveillance, symptom management, and health promotion to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve quality of life. However, coordinated and sustainable survivorship care has been challenged by barriers at multiple levels. We outline the survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center that have evolved over two decades. Our current survivorship clinics comprise STAR (Survivors Taking Action and Responsibility) for adult survivors of childhood cancers; Adult Specialty Survivorship for survivors of breast, colorectal and testicular cancers, lymphomas, and leukemias; and Gynecologic Oncology Survivorship. Care provision models align with general, disease/treatment-specific, and integrated survivorship models, respectively. Reimbursement for survivorship services has been bolstered by institutional budget allocations. We have standardized survivor education, counseling, and referrals through electronic health record (EHR)-integrated survivorship care plan (SCP) templates that incorporate partial auto-population. We developed EHR-integrated data collection tools (e.g., dashboards; SmartForm, and registry) to facilitate data analytics, personalized patient referrals, and reports to the Commission on Cancer (CoC). We report to the CoC on SCP delivery, dietitian encounters, and DEXA scans. For the last decade, our Cancer Survivorship Institute has aligned the efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators. The institute promotes evidence-based care, high-impact research, and state-of-the-science educational programs for professionals, survivors, and the community. Future plans include expansion of clinical services and funding for applied research centered on the unique needs of post-treatment cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center underscore the imperative for comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable survivorship care to address the needs of increasing numbers of cancer survivors, with a focus on evidence-based clinical practices, associated research, and educational initiatives.

Challenges and Solutions to Support Oncology Professionals Serving Underserved Populations With Cancer in the United States: Results From the ASCO Serving the Underserved Task Force.

PURPOSE: Little data exist regarding approaches to support oncology professionals who deliver cancer care for underserved populations. In response, ASCO developed the Serving the Underserved Task Force to learn from and support oncology professionals serving underserved populations. METHODS: The Task Force developed a 28-question survey to assess oncology professionals' experiences and strategies to support their work caring for underserved populations. The survey was deployed via an online link to 600 oncology professionals and assessed respondent and patient demographic characteristics, clinic-based processes to coordinate health-related social services, and strategies for professional society support and engagement. We used chi-square tests to evaluate whether there were associations between percent full-time equivalent (FTE) effort serving underserved populations (<50% FTE v ≥50% FTE) with responses. RESULTS: Of 462 respondents who completed the survey (77% response rate), 79 (17.1%) were Asian; 30 (6.5%) Black; 43 (9.3%) Hispanic or Latino/Latina; and 277 (60%) White. The majority (n = 366, 79.2%) had a medical doctor degree (MD). A total of 174 (37.7%) had <25% FTE, 151 (32.7%) had 25%-50% FTE, and 121 (26.2%) had ≥50% FTE effort serving underserved populations. Most best guessed patients' sociodemographic characteristics (n = 388; 84%), while 42 (9.2%) used data collected by the clinic. Social workers coordinated most health-related social services. However, in clinical settings with high proportions of underserved patients, there was greater reliance on nonclinical personnel, such as navigators (odds ratio [OR], 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.33]) or no individual (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.14 to 5.72]) for addressing mental health needs and greater reliance on physicians or advance practice practitioners (OR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.11 to 5.81]) or no individual (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.09 to 3.35]) for addressing childcare or eldercare needs compared with social workers. Prioritization of solutions, which did not differ by FTE effort serving underserved populations, included a return-on-investment model to support personnel, integrated health-related social needs screening, and collaboration with the professional society on advocacy and policy. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight crucial strategies that professional societies can implement to support oncology clinicians serving underserved populations with cancer.

Exploring the Relationship Among Financial Hardship, Anxiety, and Depression in Patients With Cancer: A Longitudinal Study.

PURPOSE: Financial hardship (FH) is a complex issue in cancer care, affecting material conditions, well-being, and coping behaviors. This study aimed to longitudinally examine FH, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and their associations while incorporating social determinants of health and health care cost covariates in a sample of patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study analyzed data from 2,305 participants from the Northwestern University Improving the Management of Symptoms during and following Cancer Treatment trial. Outcomes assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postbaseline included depressive symptoms, anxiety, and FH. Analysis involved random intercept cross-lagged panel models to explore between- and within-person effects, incorporating factors such as age, sex, insurance status, neighborhood area deprivation, health care charges, out-of-pocket costs, and health literacy. RESULTS: The cohort had a mean age of 60.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 12.7) years and was mostly female (64.9%) and White (86.2%). Correlations were found between FH and depressive symptoms (r = 0.310) and anxiety (r = 0.289). A predictive relationship was observed between FH and depressive symptoms, with baseline and 6-month depressive symptom levels predicting later FH (baseline ß = .079, P = .070; 6-month ß = .072, P = .081) and 9-month FH significantly predicting 12-month depressive symptoms (ß = .083, P = .025), even after accounting for health care charges and out-of-pocket costs. Baseline and 9-month anxiety showed a predictive relationship with subsequent FH (baseline ß = .097, P = .023; 9-month ß = .071, P = .068). CONCLUSION: FH emerged as a prominent issue, with nearly half of participants experiencing some level of FH. Depressive symptoms and anxiety were related to FH. These findings underscore the need for a comprehensive approach in cancer care that concurrently addresses anxiety, depressive symptoms, and FH, recognizing their interconnected impact.

Quality of Life in Patients and Their Spouses and Cohabitating Partners in the Year Following a Cancer Biopsy (the Couples Cope Study): Protocol for a Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Receiving a diagnosis of cancer is a profound and often very stressful experience. Few studies have prospectively recruited patients prior to receiving a new diagnosis of cancer and included spouses or partners. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Couples Cope Study is to understand the impact of undergoing a diagnostic biopsy and receiving a new cancer diagnosis on quality of life (QoL) in both patients and their spouses or partners, as well as on the quality of their relationship. This protocol paper describes the study design and assesses the feasibility of recruitment and retention. METHODS: Study staff reviewed the schedules of collaborating physicians using specific encounter codes to identify patients scheduled for breast or prostate biopsies. Potential participants were prescreened via the electronic health record and sent a recruitment letter at least 2 to 3 weeks prior to their biopsy procedure. Patients subsequently underwent a phone screening to determine eligibility. Patients who enrolled provided study staff with contact information for their spouses or partners. All consent forms were completed online. Surveys were completed online prior to receiving the biopsy results (baseline), and at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after the biopsy. Study staff engaged in ongoing, personalized contact with participants and sent assessment completion reminders via phone and email. RESULTS: A total of 2294 patients undergoing a breast or prostate biopsy were identified and 69% (n=1582) were eligible for phone screening following electronic health record prescreening. Of the 431 patients who underwent phone screening, 75% (n=321) were eligible to participate. Of the eligible patients, 72% (n=231) enrolled and 82% (n=190) of enrolled patients had an accompanying partner or spouse who also enrolled. A total of 77% (34/44) of patients who received a cancer diagnosis and 72% (26/36) of their spouses or partners were retained through 9 months, while 80% (53/66) of patients who received a benign diagnosis and 68% (42/62) of their partners were retained. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective recruitment of patients undergoing diagnostic biopsy and their partners is feasible and requires both strategic collaboration with providers and concerted prescreening and recruitment efforts by study staff. Importantly, this study was able to conduct all study activities online without disrupting clinical workflow and without requiring patients and their spouses or partners to come into the laboratory. Consideration should be given to the ratio of biopsies to cancer diagnoses, which can vary significantly by cancer type. Prospective studies are needed and can inform our ability to provide effective support earlier to couples facing a possible cancer diagnosis. Future studies should examine other tumor types that have received less attention in QoL studies, include behavioral and neurobiological assessments beyond self-report measures, and follow couples beyond 9 months in order to examine long-term effects on QoL. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52361.

Financial Hardship Among Patients With Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: The degree of cancer patients' financial hardship is dynamic and can change over time. Objective: To assess longitudinal changes in financial hardship among patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective longitudinal cohort study, English-speaking adult patients with a new diagnosis of stage I to III colorectal cancer being treated with curative intent at National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices between May 2018 and July 2020 and who had not started chemotherapy and/or radiation were included. Data analysis was conducted from March to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients completed surveys at baseline as well as at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after enrollment. Cost-related care nonadherence and material hardship, as adopted by Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, were measured. Factors associated with financial hardship were assessed using longitudinal multivariable logistic regression models with time interaction. Results: A total of 451 patients completed baseline questions, with 217 (48.1%) completing the 24-month follow-up. Mean (SD) age was 61.0 (12.0) years (210 [46.6%] female; 33 [7.3%] Black, 380 [84.3%] White, and 33 [7.3%] American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, multiracial, or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals or those who did not report race or who had unknown race). Among 217 patients with data at baseline and 24 months, 19 (8.8%) reported cost-related care nonadherence at baseline vs 20 (9.2%) at 24 months (P = .84), and 125 (57.6%) reported material hardship at baseline vs 76 (35.0%) at 24 months (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, lower financial worry (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), higher education (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.77), and older age (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98) were associated with lower nonadherence. Receipt of chemotherapy was associated with higher material hardship (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.15-6.29), while lower financial worry was associated with lower material hardship (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96). Over 24 months, female sex was associated with lower nonadherence (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96), while higher education was associated with higher nonadherence (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17). Being employed was associated with lower material hardship (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93), while receipt of care at safety-net hospitals was associated with higher hardship (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with early-stage colorectal cancer, material hardship was more common than cost-related cancer care nonadherence and decreased over time, while nonadherence remained unchanged. Early and longitudinal financial screening and referral to intervention are recommended to mitigate financial hardship.

Adverse COVID-19 experiences and health-related quality of life in cancer survivors: indirect effects of COVID-19-related depression and financial burden.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are at greater risk for poor health outcomes due to COVID-19. However, the pandemic's impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is not well known. This study hypothesized that cancer survivors' adverse COVID-19 experiences would be associated with worse HRQoL. Further, this association would be moderated by psychosocial resiliency factors (perceived social support, benefits, and ability to manage stress) and mediated by psychosocial risk factors (anxiety, depression; health, financial and social concerns). METHODS: 1,043 cancer survivors receiving care at Northwestern Medicine completed a cross-sectional survey on COVID-19 practical and psychosocial concerns from 6/2021 to 3/2022. Participants reported on 21 adverse COVID-19 experiences (e.g., COVID-19 hospitalization, death of family/friends, loss of income, medical delays). The survey assessed 9 psychosocial factors related to COVID-19: anxiety, depression; health care, financial, and social disruptions; health care satisfaction; social support, perceived benefits, and stress management skills. The FACT-G7 assessed HRQoL. Hypotheses were tested in a structural equation model. The number of reported adverse COVID-19 experiences was the primary (observed) independent variable. The dependent variable of HRQoL, and the proposed mediating and moderating factors, were entered as latent variables indicated by their respective survey items. Latent interaction terms between the independent variable and each resiliency factor tested moderation effects. Analyses were adjusted for demographic and COVID-specific variables. RESULTS: Participants were, on average, aged 58 years and diagnosed with cancer 4.9 years prior. They were majority female (73.3%), White (89.6%), non-Hispanic/Latino (94.5%), college-educated (81.7%), and vaccinated for COVID-19 (95.5%). An average of 3.8 adverse COVID-19 experiences were reported. Results of structural equation modeling demonstrated that the association between adverse COVID-19 experiences and HRQoL was explained by indirect effects through COVID-19-related depression (ß = - 0.10, percentile bootstrap 95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.07) and financial concerns (ß = - 0.04, percentile bootstrap 95% CI - 0.07 to - 0.01). Hypotheses testing moderation by resiliency factors were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse COVID-19 experiences were associated with higher depression symptoms and financial concerns about COVID-19, and in turn, worse HRQoL. Oncology clinics should be cognizant of the experience of adverse COVID-19 events when allocating depression and financial support resources.

We conducted an online survey of cancer survivors receiving treatment at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois. Participants responded to a list of 21 adverse experiences related to the pandemic, such as COVID-19 hospitalization, death of family/friends, loss of income, and medical delays. They also responded to questionnaires measuring their degree of anxiety, depression, daily disruptions, health disruptions, financial disruptions, social support, perceived benefits, and ability to manage stress during the pandemic. Lastly, they responded to a questionnaire on health-related quality of life, capturing their physical symptoms, emotional symptoms, and satisfaction with life. Our survey found that people who had a greater number of adverse COVID-19 experiences had higher levels of depression and financial burden, which in turn was associated with worse health-related quality of life.

Perspectives of private payers on multicancer early-detection tests: informing research, implementation, and policy.

Emerging blood-based multicancer early-detection (MCED) tests may redefine cancer screening, reduce mortality, and address health disparities if their benefit is demonstrated. U.S. payers' coverage policies will impact MCED test adoption and access; thus, their perspectives must be understood. We examined views, coverage barriers, and evidentiary needs for MCED from 19 private payers collectively covering 150 000 000 enrollees. Most saw an MCED test's potential merit for cancers without current screening (84%), but fewer saw its merit for cancers with existing screening (37%). The largest coverage barriers were inclusion of cancers without demonstrated benefits of early diagnosis (73%), a high false-negative rate (53%), and lack of care protocols for MCED-detected but unconfirmed cancers (53%). The majority (58%) would not require mortality evidence and would accept surrogate endpoints. Most payers (64%) would accept rigorous real-world evidence in the absence of a large randomized controlled trial. The majority (74%) did not expect MCED to reduce disparities due to potential harm from overtreatment resulting from an MCED and barriers to downstream care. Payers' perspectives and evidentiary needs may inform MCED test developers, researchers producing evidence, and health systems framing MCED screening programs. Private payers should be stakeholders of a national MCED policy and equity agenda.

Resource and Reimbursement Barriers to Comprehensive Cancer Care Delivery: An Analysis of Association of Community Cancer Centers Survey Data.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive cancer care (CCC) delivery is recommended in guidelines and considered essential for high-quality cancer management. Barriers, such as insufficient reimbursement, prevent consistent access to and delivery of CCC. Association of Community Cancer Centers conducted a national survey to elucidate capacity and barriers to CCC delivery to inform policy and value-based payment reform. METHODS: Survey methodology included item generation with expert review, iterative piloting, and cognitive validity testing. In the final instrument, 27 supportive oncology services were assessed for availability, reasons not offered, and coverage/reimbursement. RESULTS: 204 of 704 member programs completed survey questions. Despite most services being reported as offered, a minority were funded through insurance reimbursement. The services least likely to obtain reimbursement were those that address practical and family/childcare needs (0.7%), caregiver support (1.5%), advanced care directives (1.7%), spiritual services (1.8%), and navigation (2.7%). These findings did not vary by region or practice type. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of sufficient reimbursement, staffing, and budget to provide CCC across the United States. Care models and reimbursement policies must include CCC services to optimize delivery of cancer care.