Does increasing insurance improve outcomes for US cancer patients
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
Check access options
Check access options
AuthorsSmith, Jillian K.
Ng, Sing Chau
Carroll, James E. Jr.
McDade, Theodore P.
Shah, Shimul A.
Tseng, Jennifer F.
UMass Chan AffiliationsSurgical Outcomes Analysis and Research, Department of Surgery
Document TypeJournal Article
*Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Proportional Hazards Models
Health and Medical Administration
Health Services Administration
Health Services Research
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractBACKGROUND: Although debate continues on US healthcare and insurance reform, data are lacking on the effect of insurance on community-level cancer outcomes. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to examine the association of insurance and cancer outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The US Census Bureau Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (2000) were used for the rates of uninsurance. Counties were divided into tertiles according to the uninsurance rates. The data were compared with the cancer incidence and survival for patients residing in counties captured by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2000-2006). Aggregate patient data were collected of US adults (aged >/=18 y) diagnosed with the following cancers: pancreatic, esophageal, liver or bile duct, lung or bronchial, ovarian, colorectal, breast, prostate, melanoma, and thyroid. The outcomes included the stage at diagnosis, surgery, and survival. Univariate tests and proportional hazards were calculated. RESULTS: The US uninsurance rate was 14.2%, and the range for the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results counties was 8.3%-24.1%. Overall, patients from lower uninsurance rate counties demonstrated longer median survival. Adjusting for patient characteristics and cancer stage (for each cancer), the patients in the higher uninsurance rate counties demonstrated greater mortality (8%-15% increased risk on proportional hazards). The county uninsurance rate was associated with the stage at diagnosis for all cancers, except pancreatic and esophageal, and was also associated with the likelihood of being recommended for cancer-directed surgery (for all cancers). CONCLUSIONS: Health insurance coverage at a community level appears to influence survival for patients with cancer. Additional investigations are needed to examine whether individual versus community associations exist and how best to surmount barriers to cancer care.
Smith JK, Ng SC, Zhou Z, Carroll JE, McDade TP, Shah SA, Tseng JF. Does increasing insurance improve outcomes for US cancer patients? J Surg Res. 2013 Nov;185(1):15-20. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.05.058. Link to article on publisher's site
Permanent Link to this Itemhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/30136
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Policy Brief: Addressing Social Determinants of Health through Community Health Workers: A Call to ActionLondon, Katharine; Damio, Grace; Ferrazo, Meredith; Perez-Escamalla, Rafael; Wiggins, Noelle (2018-01-30)This technical report was compiled by the Hispanic Health Council in partnership with Southwestern AHEC and a panel of Community Health Worker Policy Research Experts which included our Katharine London from the Center for Health Law and Economics. The report offers a number of policy recommendations for community health workers for communities that might benefit from community-based services. The report offers recommendations on; payment of community health workers; community health worker caseloads; community health worker recruitment; community health worker training; reflective and trauma-informed mentoring and supportive supervision of community health workers; integration of community health workers into care teams; documenting the effect of community heal worker services on social determination of health. The Hispanic Health Council believes a service design that effectively supports community health workers would incorporate the seven areas of policy recommendation included in this report.
A Public Health Framework for the State Mental Health Authority: A Call for Action by Massachusetts Consumers and Family MembersDelman, Jonathan (2006-01-01)During the Spring of 2006, Consumer Quality Initiatives (CQI) conducted 20 focus groups across the state, 12 with adults with mental illness, 3 with parents of youth with serious emotional disorder, 2 with youth with SED, 1 with family members of adult consumers, and 2 with youth in transition. Supported by a contract with Massachusetts Department of Mental Health (DMH), the goal was to assist DMH in framing the criteria for its upcoming reprocurement. Our findings reveal a frustration with an approach to health care delivery that focuses primarily on the provision of psychiatric care (egs, medication, therapy, hospitalization). We reviewed the focus group reports to identify the most significant themes, which clustered within eight broad categories.
Making the Case for Sustainable Funding for Community Health Worker Services: Talking to Payers and ProvidersLondon, Katharine (2018-01-27)In this presentation, Katharine London of the Center for Health Law and Economics makes her case for offering sustainable funding for community health worker services. Research has shown community health workers can have a distinct impact on health systems, helping them improve population health and contain costs, while also promoting health equity and community engagement. This presentation was designed to assist CHWs and other advocates in engaging with policymakers and payers to support CHW sustainability and develop a financial plan for their CHW work. It was presented as part of a CHW Sustainability event held at the Families USA’s annual conference, Health Action 2018: Staying Strong for America’s Families, in Washington, DC. See Katharine London's blog post on payment delivery methods for community health workers here.