ABSTRACT
Objective: Previous research found an association between California's Medicaid dental coverage and oral cancer detection. However, this relationship has yet to be explored in other states or by subgroup populations. Study Design: In addition to controlling for sociodemographic and tumor characteristics, this study implemented a traditional difference-in-differences design to compare distant-stage diagnosis trends in states restoring Medicaid dental benefits (California [CA] and Illinois [IL]) with trends in states with constant Medicaid dental benefits. Setting: This retrospective, observational study analyzed oral cavity and pharynx cancer case data from The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (2004-2017). Methods: The outcome was a binary variable indicating whether a patient was diagnosed at a distant stage. Subgroup analyses were conducted by state, race/ethnic group, sex, age, and county-level household income. Results: The sample included 109,997 adults diagnosed with cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx. Restoring Medicaid dental benefits was associated with a statistically significant 2.7%-point decline in the probability of a distant-stage oral cancer diagnosis. This estimate represented a 14% relative change from baseline rates. Results were consistent for CA and IL and by county-level median income. Estimates were significantly larger for adults under age 65, males, and adults identifying as Hispanic; non-Hispanic Black; American Indian; or Asian American or Pacific Islander. Conclusion: Restoring Medicaid dental coverage improved early detection in both CA and IL, with the greatest reductions in distant-stage diagnoses occurring in younger adults, males, and minoritized racial/ethnic groups. Future research should investigate whether earlier detection reduces oral cancer mortality disparities.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: By requiring specific measures, cancer endorsements (e.g., accreditations, designations, certifications) promote high-quality cancer care. While 'quality' is the defining feature, less is known about how these endorsements consider equity. Given the inequities in access to high-quality cancer care, we assessed the extent to which equity structures, processes, and outcomes were required for cancer center endorsements. METHODS: We performed a content analysis of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, and research hospital endorsements from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), respectively. We analyzed requirements for equity-focused content and compared how each endorsing body included equity as a requirement along three axes: structures, processes, and outcomes. RESULTS: ASCO guidelines centered on processes assessing financial, health literacy, and psychosocial barriers to care. ASTRO guidelines related to language needs and processes to address financial barriers. CoC equity-related guidelines focused on processes addressing financial and psychosocial concerns of survivors, and hospital-identified barriers to care. NCI guidelines considered equity related to cancer disparities research, inclusion of diverse groups in outreach and clinical trials, and diversification of investigators. None of the guidelines explicitly required measures of equitable care delivery or outcomes beyond clinical trial enrollment. CONCLUSION: Overall, equity requirements were limited. Leveraging the influence and infrastructure of cancer quality endorsements could enhance progress toward achieving cancer care equity. We recommend that endorsing organizations 1) require cancer centers to implement processes for measuring and tracking health equity outcomes and 2) engage diverse community stakeholders to develop strategies for addressing discrimination.
