Factors that influence minority use of high-volume hospitals for colorectal cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that minorities cluster in low-quality hospitals despite living close to better performing hospitals. This may contribute to persistent disparities in cancer outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to examine how travel distance, insurance status, and neighborhood socioeconomic factors influenced minority underuse of high-volume hospitals for colorectal cancer. DESIGN: The study was a retrospective, cross-sectional, population-based study. SETTINGS: All hospitals in California from 1996 to 2006 were included. PATIENTS: Patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed and treated in California between 1996 and 2006 were identified using California Cancer Registry data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Multivariable logistic regression models predicting high-volume hospital use were adjusted for age, sex, race, stage, comorbidities, insurance status, and neighborhood socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: A total of 79,231 patients treated in 417 hospitals were included in the study. High-volume hospitals were independently associated with an 8% decrease in the hazard of death compared with other settings. A lower proportion of minorities used high-volume hospitals despite a higher proportion living nearby. Although insurance status and socioeconomic factors were independently associated with high-volume hospital use, only socioeconomic factors attenuated differences in high-volume hospital use of black and Hispanic patients compared with white patients. LIMITATIONS: The use of cross-sectional data and racial and ethnic misclassifications were limitations in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Minority patients do not use high-volume hospitals despite improved outcomes and geographic access. Low socioeconomic status predicts low use of high-volume settings in select minority groups. Our results provide a roadmap for developing interventions to increase the use of and access to higher quality care and outcomes. Increasing minority use of high-volume hospitals may require community outreach programs and changes in physician referral practices.

What factors influence minority use of National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers?

BACKGROUND: National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers provide high-quality care and are associated with better outcomes. However, racial and ethnic minority populations tend not to use these settings. The current study sought to understand what factors influence minority use of NCI cancer centers. METHODS: A data set containing California Cancer Registry (CCR) data linked to patient discharge abstracts identified all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who were treated from 1996 through 2006. Multivariable models were generated to predict the use of NCI settings by race. Geographic proximity to an NCI center and patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were assessed. RESULTS: Approximately 5% of all identified patients with CRC (n = 79,231) were treated in NCI settings. The median travel distance for treatment for all patients in all hospitals was ≤ 5 miles. A higher percentage of minorities lived near an NCI cancer center compared with whites. A baseline multivariable model predicting use showed a negative association between Hispanic ethnicity and NCI center use (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.79). Asian/Pacific Islander patients were more likely to use NCI centers (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.54). There was no difference in use noted among black patients. Increasing living distance from an NCI cancer center was found to be predictive of lower odds of use for all populations. Medicare and Medicaid insurance statuses were positively associated with NCI center use. Neighborhood-level education was found to be a more powerful predictor of NCI use than poverty or unemployment. CONCLUSIONS: Select minority groups underuse NCI cancer centers for CRC treatment. Sociodemographic factors and proximity to NCI centers are important predictors of use. Interventions to address these factors may improve minority attendance to NCI cancer centers for care.

Adequacy of lymph node examination in colorectal surgery: contribution of the hospital versus the surgeon.

BACKGROUND: Examination of at least 12 lymph nodes (LNs) in the staging of colon cancer (CC) was recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network in 2000; however, rates of an adequate examination remain low. This study compares the impact of the hospital contextual variance against that of the operating surgeon on delivery of an adequate LN examination. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of California Cancer Registry data for all CC operations (2001-2006). Hierarchical models predicted the adequacy of LN examination as a function of patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics. Models were created using penalized quasi-likelihood approximation with second order Taylor linearization as implemented in MLwiN 2.15. RESULTS: A total of 25,606 resections involving 3376 surgeons operating in 346 hospitals were analyzed. Half of cases had an adequate examination. Hierarchical models showed the median odds of an adequate examination associated with the hospital context [(MORhosp 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-2.2) was much higher than that associated with the surgeon (MORsurg 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.4)]. Hospital characteristics teaching and high volume predicted higher odds of an adequate examination. There was no association with hospital revenue. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of patients undergoing surgery for CC received an adequate LN examination. Hospital contextual factors had a stronger association with receipt of an adequate examination than surgeon factors. Our results suggest that quality improvement initiatives and incentives should be targeted at the hospital level to achieve the highest impact. Furthermore, we have identified nonteaching and low volume settings as rational targets for these efforts.

Racial and ethnic differences in lymph node examination after colon cancer resection do not completely explain disparities in mortality.

BACKGROUND: In 1999, a multidisciplinary panel of experts in colorectal cancer reviewed the relevant medical literature and issued a consensus recommendation for a 12-lymph node (LN) minimum examination after resection for colon cancer. Some authors have shown racial/ethnic differences in receipt of this evidence-based care. To date, however, none has investigated the correlation between disparities in LN examination and disparities in outcomes after colon cancer treatment. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used California Cancer Registry linked to California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development discharge data (1996-2006). Chi-square analysis, logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazard models predicted disparities in receipt of an adequate examination and the effect of an inadequate exam on mortality and disparities. Patients with stage I and II colon cancers undergoing surgery in California were included; patients with stage III and IV disease were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 37,911 records were analyzed. Adequate staging occurred in fewer than half of cases. An inadequate examination (<12 LNs) was associated with higher mortality rates. Hispanics had the lowest odds of receiving an adequate exam; however, blacks, not Hispanics, had the highest risk of mortality compared with whites. This disparity was not completely explained by inadequate LN examination. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate LN exam occurs often and is associated with increased mortality. There are disparities in receipt of the minimum exam, but this only explains a small part of the observed disparity in mortality. Improving the quality of LN examination alone is unlikely to correct colon cancer disparities.

Do hospitals that serve a high percentage of Medicaid patients perform well on evidence-based guidelines for colon cancer care?

BACKGROUND: Previous work suggests hospitals serving high percentages of patients with Medicaid are associated with worse colon cancer survival. It is unclear if practice patterns in these settings explain differential outcomes. HYPOTHESIS: High Medicaid hospitals (HMH) have lower compliance with evidence-based care processes (examining 12 or more lymph nodes (LN) during surgical staging and providing appropriate chemo-therapy). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of stage I-III colon cancers from California Cancer Registry (1996-2006) linked to discharge abstracts and hospital profiles predicted hospital compliance with guidelines and trends in compliance over time. RESULTS: Cases (N=60,000) in 439 hospitals analyzed. High Medicaid hospital settings had lower odds of compliance with the 12 LN exam (OR(HMH)0.91, CI(HMH)[0.85, 0.98]) and with the delivery of appropriate chemotherapy (OR(HMH)0.76, CI(HMH)[0.67, 0.86]). CONCLUSIONS: High Medicaid hospital status is associated with poor performance on evidence-based colon cancer care. Policies to improve the quality of colon cancer care should target these settings.