Benefits, challenges, and strategies related to using presumptive recommendations for HPV vaccination: A qualitative study with rural and non-rural-serving primary care professionals.

HPV vaccination coverage remains far below the national target of 80% among US adolescents, particularly in rural areas, which have vaccine uptake rates that are 10% points lower than non-rural areas on average. Primary care professionals (PCPs) can increase coverage by using presumptive recommendations to introduce HPV vaccination in a way that assumes parents want to vaccinate. Through semi-structured interviews, we explored PCPs' experiences and perceptions of using presumptive recommendations in rural- and non-rural-serving primary care clinics in North Carolina. Thematic analysis revealed that most PCPs in rural and non-rural contexts used presumptive recommendations and felt the strategy was an effective and concise way to introduce the topic of HPV vaccination to parents. At the same time, some PCPs raised concerns about presumptive recommendations potentially straining relationships with certain parents, including those who had previously declined HPV vaccine or who distrust medical authority due to their past experiences with the healthcare system. PCPs dealt with these challenges by using a more open-ended approach when introducing HPV vaccination to parents. In conclusion, our findings suggest that PCPs in both rural and non-rural settings see value in using presumptive recommendations to introduce HPV vaccination, but to adequately address concerns and ensure increased HPV vaccine uptake, PCPs can use simple and culturally sensitive language to ensure fully informed consent and to maintain parental trust. And to further strengthen HPV vaccine discussions, PCPs can utilize other effective HPV communication techniques, like the Announcement Approach, in discussing HPV vaccinations with hesitant parents.

LGBTQ+ cancer: priority or lip service? A qualitative content analysis of LGBTQ+ considerations in U.S. state, jurisdiction, and tribal comprehensive cancer control plans.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded program, supports cancer coalitions across the United States (US) in efforts to prevent and control cancer including development of comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans. CCC plans often focus health equity within their priorities, but it is unclear to what extent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus (LGBTQ+) populations are considered in CCC plans. We qualitatively examined to what extent LGBTQ+ populations were referenced in 64 U.S. state, jurisdiction, tribes, and tribal organization CCC plans. A total of 55% of CCC plans mentioned LGBTQ+ populations, however, only one in three CCC plans mentioned any kind of LGBTQ+ inequity or LGBTQ+ specific recommendations. Even fewer plans included mention of LGBTQ+ specific resources, organizations, or citations. At the same time almost three fourths of plans conflated sex and gender throughout their CCC plans. The findings of this study highlight the lack of prioritization of LGBTQ+ populations in CCC plans broadly while highlighting exemplar plans that can serve as a roadmap to more inclusive future CCC plans. Comprehensive cancer control plans can serve as a key policy and advocacy structure to promote a focus on LGBTQ+ cancer prevention and control.

Area Vulnerability and Disparities in Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: Area-level measures of sociodemographic disadvantage may be associated with racial and ethnic disparities with respect to receipt of treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but have not been investigated previously, to our knowledge. Objective: To assess the association between area-level measures of social vulnerability and racial and ethnic disparities in the treatment of US Medicare beneficiaries with mRCC from 2015 through 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who were diagnosed with mRCC from January 2015 through December 2019 and were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 1 year before through 1 year after presumed diagnosis or until death. Data were analyzed from November 22, 2022, through January 26, 2024. Exposures: Five different county-level measures of disadvantage and 4 zip code-level measures of vulnerability or deprivation and segregation were used to dichotomize whether an individual resided in the most vulnerable quartile according to each metric. Patient-level factors included age, race and ethnicity, sex, diagnosis year, comorbidities, frailty, Medicare and Medicaid dual enrollment eligibility, and Medicare Part D low-income subsidy (LIS). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were receipt and type of systemic therapy (oral anticancer agent or immunotherapy from 2 months before to 1 year after diagnosis of mRCC) as a function of patient and area-level characteristics. Multivariable regression analyses were used to adjust for patient factors, and odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression and relative risk ratios (RRRs) from multinomial logistic regression are reported. Results: The sample included 15 407 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [6.8] years), of whom 9360 (60.8%) were men; 6931 (45.0%), older than 75 years; 93 (0.6%), American Indian or Alaska Native; 257 (1.7%), Asian or Pacific Islander; 757 (4.9%), Hispanic; 1017 (6.6%), non-Hispanic Black; 12 966 (84.2%), non-Hispanic White; 121 (0.8%), other; and 196 (1.3%), unknown. Overall, 8317 patients (54.0%) received some type of systemic therapy. After adjusting for individual factors, no county or zip code-level measures of social vulnerability, deprivation, or segregation were associated with disparities in treatment. In contrast, patient-level factors, including female sex (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84) and LIS (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), were associated with lack of treatment, with particularly limited access to immunotherapy for patients with LIS (RRR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.43). Associations between individual-level factors and treatment in multivariable analysis were not mediated by the addition of area-level metrics. Disparities by race and ethnicity were consistently and only observed within the most vulnerable areas, as indicated by the top quartile of each vulnerability deprivation index. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of older Medicare patients diagnosed with mRCC, individual-level demographics, including race and ethnicity, sex, and income, were associated with receipt of systemic therapy, whereas area-level measures were not. However, individual-level racial and ethnic disparities were largely limited to socially vulnerable areas, suggesting that efforts to improve racial and ethnic disparities may be most effective when targeted to socially vulnerable areas.

An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of population genetic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia in US patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Familial hypercholesterolemia is an underdiagnosed genetic metabolic condition limiting the clearance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increasing lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease. Population genetic screening in unselected individuals could quickly identify cases of familial hypercholesterolemia and enable early prevention, but the economic impact of widespread screening on patients has not been studied. METHODS: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of population genetic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia in 20 and 35-year-old adults in the United States from the perspective of patients. We developed a decision tree Markov hybrid model to examine diagnoses, cardiovascular disease, cardiac events, quality of life, and costs under population genetic screening compared to family-based cascade testing. RESULTS: While population genetic screening increased diagnoses and reduced incidence of cardiovascular disease, population genetic screening was not cost-effective compared to cascade testing at current levels of willingness to pay. Lower genetic testing costs, combined screening with other genetic conditions, and support to maintain lipid-lowering therapy use over time could improve the cost-effectiveness of population genetic screening. CONCLUSIONS: Future research is needed to examine how cost-sharing strategies may affect the cost-effectiveness of screening to patients and how families and providers experience the clinical and economic outcomes of population screening.

Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening by Sexual Orientation Among Low-Income Women in North Carolina.

We sought to examine cervical cancer screening barriers by sexual orientation among low-income women in North Carolina. The MyBodyMyTest-3 Trial recruited low-income women (< 250% of federal poverty level) aged 25-64 years who were 1+ year overdue for cervical cancer screening. We compared perceptions of cervical cancer screening among those who self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer (LGBQ; n = 70) to straight/heterosexual women (n = 683). For both LGBQ and straight respondents, the greatest barriers to screening were lack of health insurance (63% and 66%) and cost (49% and 50%). LGBQ respondents were more likely than straight respondents to report forgetting to screen (16% vs. 8%, p = .05), transportation barriers (10% vs. 2%, p = .001), and competing mental or physical health problems (39% vs. 27%, p = .10). Addressing access remains important for improving cervical cancer screening among those under-screened. For LGBQ women, additional attention may be needed for reminders, co-occurring health needs, and transportation barriers.

Characterizing Cancer Burden in the American Indian Population in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: The American Indian (AI) population in North Carolina has limited access to the Indian Health Service. Consequently, cancer burden and disparities may differ from national estimates. We describe the AI cancer population and examine AI-White disparities in cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS: We identified cancer cases diagnosed among adult AI and White populations between 2014 and 2018 from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. We estimated incidence and mortality rate ratios (IRR and MRR) by race. In addition, between the AI and White populations, we estimated the ratio of relative frequency differences [RRF, with 95% confidence limits (CL)] of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Finally, we evaluated the geographic distribution of incident diagnoses among AI populations. RESULTS: Our analytic sample included 2,161 AI and 204,613 White individuals with cancer. Compared with the White population, the AI population was more likely to live in rural areas (48% vs. 25%; RRF, 1.89; 95% CL, 1.81-1.97) and to have Medicaid (18% vs. 7%; RRF, 2.49; 95% CL, 2.27-2.71). Among the AI population, the highest age-standardized incidence rates were female breast, followed by prostate and lung and bronchus. Liver cancer incidence was significantly higher among the AI population than White population (IRR, 1.27; 95% CL, 1.01-1.59). AI patients had higher mortality rates for prostate (MRR, 1.72; CL, 1.09-2.70), stomach (MRR, 1.82; 95% CL, 1.15-2.86), and liver (MRR, 1.70; 95% CL, 1.25-2.33) cancers compared with White patients. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce prostate, stomach, and liver cancer disparities among AI populations in North Carolina, multi-modal interventions targeting risk factors and increasing screening and treatment are needed. IMPACT: This study identifies cancer disparities that can inform targeted interventions to improve outcomes among AI populations in North Carolina.

Inclusion of marginalized populations in HPV vaccine modeling: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Models simulating the potential impacts of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine have been used globally to guide vaccination policies and programs. We sought to understand how and why marginalized populations have been incorporated into HPV vaccine simulation models. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase to identify studies using simulation models of HPV vaccination incorporating one or more marginalized population through stratification or subgroup analysis. We extracted data on study characteristics and described these overall and by included marginalized groups. RESULTS: We identified 36 studies that met inclusion criteria, which modeled vaccination in 21 countries. Models included men who have sex with men (MSM; k = 16), stratification by HIV status (k = 9), race/ethnicity (k = 6), poverty (k = 5), rurality (k = 4), and female sex workers (k = 1). When evaluating for a marginalized group (k = 10), HPV vaccination was generally found to be cost-effective, including for MSM, individuals living with HIV, and rural populations. In studies evaluating equity in cancer prevention (k = 9), HPV vaccination generally advanced equity, but this was sensitive to differences in HPV vaccine uptake and use of absolute or relative measures of inequities. Only one study assessed the impact of an intervention promoting HPV vaccine uptake. DISCUSSION: Incorporating marginalized populations into decision models can provide valuable insights to guide decision making and improve equity in cancer prevention. More research is needed to understand the equity impact of HPV vaccination on cancer outcomes among marginalized groups. Research should emphasize implementation - including identifying and evaluating specific interventions to increase HPV vaccine uptake.

Financial burden among metastatic breast cancer patients: a qualitative inquiry of costs, financial assistance, health insurance, and financial coping behaviors.

PURPOSE: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients often face substantial financial burden due to prolonged and expensive therapy. However, in-depth experiences of financial burden among MBC patients are not well understood. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted to describe the experiences of financial burden for MBC patients, focusing on the drivers of financial burden, their experience using their health insurance, accessing financial assistance, and any resulting cost-coping behaviors. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a descriptive phenomenological approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of n = 11 MBC patients or caregiver representatives participated in the study. MBC patients were on average 50.2 years of age (range: 28-65) and 72.7% non-Hispanic White. MBC patients were diagnosed as metastatic an average of 3.1 years (range: 1-9) before participating in the study. Qualitative analysis resulted in four themes including (1) causes of financial burden, (2) financial assistance mechanisms, (3) health insurance and financial burden, and (4) cost-coping behaviors. Both medical and non-medical costs drove financial burden among participants. All participants reported challenges navigating their health insurance and applying for financial assistance. Regardless of gaining access to assistance, financial burden persisted for nearly all patients and resulted in cost-coping behaviors. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that current systems for health insurance and financial assistance are complex and difficult to meet patient needs. Even when MBC patients accessed assistance, excess financial burden persisted necessitating use of financial coping-behaviors such as altering medication use, maintaining employment, and taking on debt.

Economic Evaluation of a Nonmedical Financial Assistance Program on Missed Treatment Appointments Among Adults With Cancer.

PURPOSE: We retrospectively evaluated the clinical and economic impact of a program providing nonmedical financial assistance on missed treatment appointments among patients receiving cancer treatment at a large, Southeastern public hospital system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used patient electronic health records, program records, and cancer registry data to examine the impact of the program on rates of missed (or no-show) radiation therapy and infusion chemotherapy/immunotherapy appointments in the 180 days after treatment initiation. We used propensity weighting to estimate the effect of the program, stratified by treatment appointment type (radiation therapy, infusion chemotherapy/immunotherapy). We developed a decision tree-based economic model to conduct a cost-consequence analysis from the health system perspective in a hypothetical cohort over a 6-month time horizon. RESULTS: Of 1,347 patients receiving radiation therapy between 2015 and 2019, 53% (n = 715) had ≥1 no-shows and 28% (n = 378) received program assistance. Receipt of any assistance was associated with a 2.1 percentage point (95% CI, 0.6 to 3.5) decrease in the proportion of no-shows, corresponding to a 51% decrease in the overall mean no-show proportion. Under the current funding model, the program is estimated to save the health system $153 in US dollars per missed appointment averted, relative to not providing nonmedical financial assistance. Of the 1,641 patients receiving infusion chemotherapy/immunotherapy, 33% (n = 541) received program assistance, and only 14% (n = 223) had ≥1 no-shows. The financial assistance program did not have a significant effect on no-show proportions among infusion visits. CONCLUSION: This study used a novel approach to retrospectively evaluate a nonmedical financial assistance program for patients undergoing active cancer treatment. Findings support investment in programs that address patients' nonmedical financial needs, particularly for those undergoing intensive radiation therapy.

Assessing the pre-implementation context for financial navigation in rural and non-rural oncology clinics.

Background: Financial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based intervention designed to address financial toxicity for cancer patients. FN's success depends on organizations' readiness to implement and other factors that may hinder or support implementation. Tailored implementation strategies can support practice change but must be matched to the implementation context. We assessed perceptions of readiness and perceived barriers and facilitators to successful implementation among staff at nine cancer care organizations (5 rural, 4 non-rural) recruited to participate in the scale-up of a FN intervention. To understand differences in the pre-implementation context and inform modifications to implementation strategies, we compared findings between rural and non-rural organizations. Methods: We conducted surveys (n = 78) and in-depth interviews (n = 73) with staff at each organization. We assessed perceptions of readiness using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale. In-depth interviews elicited perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing FN in each context. We used descriptive statistics to analyze ORIC results and deductive thematic analysis, employing a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to synthesize themes in barriers and facilitators across sites, and by rurality. Results: Results from the ORIC scale indicated strong perceptions of organizational readiness across all sites. Staff from rural areas reported greater confidence in their ability to manage the politics of change (87% rural, 76% non-rural) and in their organization's ability to support staff adjusting to the change (96% rural, 75% non-rural). Staff at both rural and non-rural sites highlighted factors reflective of the Intervention Characteristics (relative advantage) and Implementation Climate (compatibility and tension for change) domains as facilitators. Although few barriers to implementation were reported, differences arose between rural and non-rural sites in these perceived barriers, with non-rural staff more often raising concerns about resistance to change and compatibility with existing work processes and rural staff more often raising concerns about competing time demands and limited resources. Conclusions: Staff across both rural and non-rural settings identified few, but different, barriers to implementing a novel FN intervention that they perceived as important and responsive to patients' needs. These findings can inform how strategies are tailored to support FN in diverse oncology practices.

A Cost Analysis of Rethink the Strip: De-implementing a Low-value Practice in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Routine self-monitoring of blood glucose is a low-value practice that provides limited benefit for patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVES: We estimated the costs of Rethink the Strip (RTS), a multistrategy approach to the de-implementation of self-monitoring of blood glucose in primary care. RESEARCH DESIGN: RTS was conducted among 20 primary care clinics in North Carolina. We estimated the non-site-based and site-based costs of the 5 RTS strategies (practice facilitation, audit and feedback, provider champions, educational meetings, and educational materials) from the analytic perspective of an integrated health care system for 12 and 27-month time horizons. Material costs were tracked through project records, and personnel costs were assessed using activity-based costing. We used nationally based wage estimates. RESULTS: Total RTS costs equaled $68,941 for 12 months. Specifically, non-site-based costs comprised $16,560. Most non-site-based costs ($11,822) were from the foundational programming and coding updates to the electronic health record data to develop the audit and feedback reports. The non-site-based costs of educational meetings, practice facilitation, and educational materials were substantially lower, ranging between ~$400 and $1000. Total 12-month site-based costs equaled $2569 for a single clinic (or $52,381 for 20 clinics). Educational meetings were the most expensive strategy, averaging $1401 per clinic. The site-based costs for the 4 other implementation strategies were markedly lower, ranging between $51 for educational materials and $555 for practice facilitation per clinic. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides detailed cost information for implementation strategies used to support evidence-based programs in primary care clinics.

Financial burden and recommended multilevel solutions among caregivers of pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The healthcare costs of patients who receive hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are substantial. At the same time, the increasing use of pediatric HSCT leaves more caregivers of pediatric HSCT recipients at risk for financial burden-an understudied area of research. METHODS: Financial burden experienced by caregivers of recipients who received autologous or allogeneic transplants was assessed using an explanatory mixed-methods design including a one-time survey and semi-structured interviews. Financial burden was assessed through an adapted COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) as well as questions about the types of out-of-pocket costs and cost-coping behaviors. Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests were used to assess differences in costs incurred and coping behaviors by financial toxicity and financial toxicity by demographic factors. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Of 99 survey participants, 64% experienced high financial toxicity (COST  ≤ $ \le \;$ 22). Caregivers with high financial toxicity were more likely to report costs related to transportation and diet. High financial toxicity was associated with nearly all cost-coping behaviors (e.g., borrowed money). High financial toxicity was also associated with increased use of hospital financial support and transportation assistance. Qualitative analysis resulted in four categories that were integrated with quantitative findings: (1) care-related out-of-pocket costs incurred, (2) cost-coping behaviors, (3) financial support resources used, and (4) multilevel recommendations for reducing financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the substantial, long-term financial burden among pediatric HSCT patients and their caregivers, this population would benefit from adapted and tailored financial burden interventions.

Relative Burden of Cancer and Noncancer Mortality Among Long-Term Survivors of Breast, Prostate, and Colorectal Cancer in the US.

Importance: Improvements in cancer outcomes have led to a need to better understand long-term oncologic and nononcologic outcomes and quantify cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality risks among long-term survivors. Objective: To assess absolute and relative cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality rates among long-term survivors of cancer, as well as associated risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 627 702 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer who received a diagnosis between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2014, who received definitive treatment for localized disease and who were alive 5 years after their initial diagnosis (ie, long-term survivors of cancer). Statistical analysis was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival time ratios (TRs) were calculated using accelerated failure time models, and the primary outcome of interest examined was death from index cancer vs alternative (nonindex cancer) mortality across breast, prostate, colon, and rectal cancer cohorts. Secondary outcomes included subgroup mortality in cancer-specific risk groups, categorized based on prognostic factors, and proportion of deaths due to cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific causes. Independent variables included age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, residence, stage, grade, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, prostate-specific antigen level, and Gleason score. Follow-up ended in 2019. Results: The study included 627 702 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.1 [12.3] years; 434 848 women [69.3%]): 364 230 with breast cancer, 118 839 with prostate cancer, and 144 633 with colorectal cancer who survived 5 years or more from an initial diagnosis of early-stage cancer. Factors associated with shorter median cancer-specific survival included stage III disease for breast cancer (TR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.53-0.55) and colorectal cancer (colon: TR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.62; rectal: TR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74), as well as a Gleason score of 8 or higher for prostate cancer (TR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.63). For all cancer cohorts, patients at low risk had at least a 3-fold higher noncancer-specific mortality compared with cancer-specific mortality at 10 years of diagnosis. Patients at high risk had a higher cumulative incidence of cancer-specific mortality than noncancer-specific mortality in all cancer cohorts except prostate. Conclusions and Relevance: This study is the first to date to examine competing oncologic and nononcologic risks focusing on long-term adult survivors of cancer. Knowledge of the relative risks facing long-term survivors may help provide pragmatic guidance to patients and clinicians regarding the importance of ongoing primary and oncologic-focused care.

Association of patient-reported financial barriers with healthcare utilization among Medicare beneficiaries with a history of cancer.

PURPOSE: We examined characteristics associated with financial barriers to healthcare and the association of financial barriers with adverse healthcare events among US adult cancer survivors enrolled in Medicare. METHODS: We used nationally representative Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data (2011-2013, 2015-2017) to identify adults with a history of non-skin cancer. We defined financial barriers as cost-related trouble accessing and/or delayed care in the prior year. Using propensity-weighted multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between financial barriers and adverse healthcare events (any ED visits, any inpatient hospitalizations). RESULTS: Overall, 11.0% of adult Medicare beneficiaries with a history of cancer reported financial barriers in the prior year, with higher burden among beneficiaries < 65 years of age vs. ≥ 65 (32.5% vs. 8.2%, p < 0.0001) and with annual income < $25,000 vs. ≥ $25,000 (18.1% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.0001). In bivariate models, financial barriers were associated with a 7.8 percentage point (95% CI: 1.5-14.0) increase in the probability of ED visits. In propensity-weighted models, this association was not statistically significant. The association between financial barriers and hospitalizations was not significant in the overall population; however, financial barriers were associated with a decreased probability of hospitalization among Black/African American beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Despite Medicare coverage, beneficiaries with a history of cancer are at risk for experiencing financial barriers to healthcare. In the overall population, financial barriers were not associated with ED visits or hospitalizations. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Policies limiting Medicare patient out-of-pocket spending and care models addressing health-related social needs are needed to reduce financial barriers experienced.

Multidimensional financial hardship among uninsured and insured young adult patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the heterogeneous nature of financial hardship in younger patients with metastatic disease and the extent to which insurance protects against it. We examine the association between insurance status and multidimensional indicators of financial hardship in a national sample of women with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a national, retrospective online survey in partnership with the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network. Eligible participants were ≥18 years, diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, and able to respond in English. We estimated multivariate generalized linear models predicting two distinct dimensions of financial hardship-financial insecurity (the ability to afford care and living costs) and financial distress (the extent of emotional/psychological distress experienced due to costs)-as a function of insurance status. RESULTS: Participants responded from 41 states (N = 1054; median age: 44 years). Overall, 30% were uninsured. Financial insecurity was more frequently reported by uninsured respondents. In adjusted analyses, uninsured participants were more likely than insured participants to report contact by debt collectors (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]: 2.38 [2.06, 2.76]) and being unable to meet monthly expenses (aRR: 2.11 [1.68, 2.66]). Financial distress was reported more frequently by insured participants. For example, insured participants were more likely to worry about future financial problems due to cancer and distress about lack of cost transparency. After adjustment, uninsured participants remained about half as likely as insured participants to report financial distress. CONCLUSIONS: Young adult women with metastatic cancer reported a high burden of financial toxicity. Importantly, insurance does not protect against financial distress; however, the uninsured are the most materially vulnerable.

Facing financial barriers to healthcare: patient-informed adaptation of a conceptual framework for adults with a history of cancer.

Background: Cancer-related financial hardship is associated with negative clinical outcomes, which may be partially explained by cost-related delayed or forgone care in response to financial barriers. We sought to understand patient experiences facing financial barriers to medical care following a cancer diagnosis. Methods: We conducted virtual, semi-structured interviews in Fall 2022 with 20 adults with a history of cancer who had experienced cancer-related financial hardship in the prior year. We used template analysis within a pragmatic paradigm, combining constructivist and critical realist theoretical perspectives, to analyze interview transcripts and adapt an existing conceptual framework of financial barriers to care. Results: The majority of interviewees identified as women (70%), non-Hispanic white (60%), and reported an annual household income of <$48,000 (60%). As interviewees sought to overcome financial barriers, they described substantial frustration at the limitations and complexities of United States health and social care systems, resulting in a reliance on a fragmented, uncertain resource landscape. The administrative burden resulting from bureaucratic systems and the advocacy responsibilities required to navigate them ultimately fell on interviewees and their caregivers. Thus, participants described their ability to overcome financial barriers as being influenced by individual and interpersonal factors, such as social support, comfort asking for help, time, prior experience navigating resources, and physical and mental health. However, participants noted health system organizational factors, such as whether all new patients proactively met with a social worker or financial navigator, as having the potential to lessen the administrative and financial burden experienced. Conclusion: We present an adapted conceptual framework outlining multi-level factors influencing patient experiences coping with financial barriers to medical care. In addition to influencing whether a patient ultimately delays or forgoes care due to cost, financial barriers also have the potential to independently affect patient mental, physical, and financial health.

Disparities in immune and targeted therapy utilization for older US patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Disparities in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) outcomes persist in the era of oral anticancer agents (OAAs) and immunotherapies (IOs). We examined variation in the utilization of mRCC systemic therapies among US Medicare beneficiaries from 2015 to 2019. Logistic regression models evaluated the association between therapy receipt and demographic covariates including patient race, ethnicity, and sex. In total, 15 407 patients met study criteria. After multivariable adjustment, non-Hispanic Black race and ethnicity was associated with reduced IO (adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR] = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61 to 0.95; P = .015) and OAA receipt (aRRR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.90; P = .002) compared with non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity. Female sex was associated with reduced IO (aRRR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.81; P < .001) and OAA receipt (aRRR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.81; P < .001) compared with male sex. Thus, disparities by race, ethnicity, and sex were observed in mRCC systemic therapy utilization for Medicare beneficiaries from 2015 to 2019.

Effect of HPV self-collection kits on cervical cancer screening uptake among under-screened women from low-income US backgrounds (MBMT-3): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most cervical cancer in the USA occurs in under-screened women. The My Body, My Test-3 (MBMT-3) trial sought to assess the efficacy of mailed human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection kits with appointment-scheduling assistance to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening among under-screened women from low-income backgrounds compared with scheduling assistance alone. METHODS: MBMT-3 is a phase 3, open-label, two-arm, randomised controlled trial. Participants were recruited from 22 counties in North Carolina state, USA, and we partnered with 21 clinics across these counties. Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 25-64 years, had an intact cervix, were uninsured or enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare, had an income of 250% or less of the US Federal Poverty Level, were living within the catchment area of a trial-associated clinic, and were overdue for screening (ie, Papanicolaou test ≥4 years ago or high-risk HPV test ≥6 years ago). Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a mailed HPV self-collection kit and assistance for scheduling a free screening appointment (intervention group) or to receive scheduling assistance alone (control group). Randomisation was conducted by county using permuted blocks of nine patients and assignment to group was not masked. Participants in the intervention group were mailed HPV self-collection kits to collect a cervical-vaginal sample and return it by mail for testing. Samples were tested with the Aptima HPV assay (Hologic, San Diego, CA, USA), and participants were informed of high-risk HPV results by telephone call. Trial staff made up to three telephone call attempts to provide scheduling assistance for in-clinic screening for all participants. The primary outcome was cervical cancer screening uptake (ie, attending an in-clinic screening appointment or testing negative for high-risk HPV with a returned self-collected sample) within 6 months of enrolment in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02651883, and has been completed. FINDINGS: Recruitment occurred between April 11, 2016, and Dec 16, 2019. 4256 women contacted the trial to participate, of whom 899 (21%) were eligible for inclusion and 697 (78%) returned consent forms. Of those who consented, 461 (66%) women were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 236 (34%) women were randomly assigned to the control group. We excluded 32 ineligible women post-randomisation, leaving 665 for primary analysis. Screening uptake was higher in the intervention group (317 [72%] of 438) than control group (85 [37%] of 227; risk ratio 1·93, 95% CI 1·62-2·31). Among intervention participants, 341 (78%) of 438 returned a self-collection kit. Three participants reported hurt or injury when using the self-collection kit; no participants withdrew due to adverse effects. INTERPRETATION: Among under-screened women from low-income backgrounds, mailed HPV self-collection kits with scheduling assistance led to greater uptake of cervical cancer screening than scheduling assistance alone. At-home HPV self-collection testing has the potential to increase screening uptake among under-screened women. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Cost-effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Self-collection Intervention on Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake among Underscreened U.S. Persons with a Cervix.

BACKGROUND: We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection (followed by scheduling assistance for those who were HPV+ or inconclusive) compared with scheduling assistance only and usual care among underscreened persons with a cervix (PWAC). METHODS: A decision tree analysis was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), or the cost per additional PWAC screened, from the Medicaid/state and clinic perspectives. A hypothetical cohort represented 90,807 low-income, underscreened individuals. Costs and health outcomes were derived from the MyBodyMyTest-3 randomized trial except the usual care health outcomes were derived from literature. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to evaluate model uncertainty. RESULTS: Screening uptake was highest in the self-collection alternative (n = 65,721), followed by the scheduling assistance alternative (n = 34,003) and usual care (n = 18,161). The self-collection alternative costs less and was more effective than the scheduling assistance alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective. Comparing the self-collection alternative with usual care, the ICERs were $284 per additional PWAC screened from the Medicaid/state perspective and $298 per additional PWAC screened from the clinic perspective. PSAs demonstrated that the self-collection alternative was cost-effective compared with usual care at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $300 per additional PWAC screened in 66% of simulations from the Medicaid/state perspective and 58% of simulations from the clinic perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care and scheduling assistance, mailing HPV self-collection kits to underscreened individuals appears to be cost-effective in increasing screening uptake. IMPACT: This is the first analysis to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of mailed self-collection in the United States.

Barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake among resource-limited adults diagnosed with chronic illness.

Background: Despite the use of interventions (e.g., monetary incentives, educational campaigns, on-site workplace vaccination) to increase COVID-19 vaccination, differences in uptake persist by poverty level, insurance status, geography, race, and ethnicity, suggesting that these interventions may not be adequately addressing the barriers faced by these populations. Among a sample of resource-limited individuals with chronic illnesses, we (1) described the prevalence of different types of barriers to the COVID-19 vaccination and (2) identified associations between patients' sociodemographic characteristics and barriers to vaccination. Methods: We surveyed a national sample of patients with chronic illness and demonstrated healthcare affordability and/or access challenges about barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in July 2021. We categorized participant responses into cost, transportation, informational, and attitudinal barrier domains and assessed the prevalence of each domain, both overall and by self-reported vaccination status. Using logistic regression models, we examined unadjusted and adjusted associations between respondent characteristics (sociodemographic, geographic, and healthcare access) and self-reported barriers to vaccination. Results: Of 1,342 respondents in the analytic sample, 20% (264/1,342) reported informational barriers and 9% (126/1,342) reported attitudinal barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Transportation and cost barriers were reported much less commonly, by only 1.1% (15/1,342) and 0.7% (10/1,342) of the sample, respectively. Controlling for all other characteristics, respondents with either a specialist as their usual source of care or no usual source of care had an 8.4 (95% CI: 1.7-15.1) and 18.1 (95% CI: 4.3-32.0) percentage point higher predicted probability, respectively, of reporting informational barriers to care. Compared to females, males had an 8.4% point (95% CI: 5.5-11.4) lower predicted probability of reporting attitudinal barriers. Only attitudinal barriers were associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Conclusion: Among a sample of adults with chronic illnesses who had received financial assistance and case management services from a national non-profit, informational and attitudinal barriers were more commonly reported than logistical or structural access barriers (i.e., transportation and cost barriers). Interventions should target attitudinal barriers among patients with chronic illness, who may have particular concerns about the interaction of the vaccine with ongoing medical care. Additionally, interventions targeting informational barriers are particularly needed among individuals without a usual source of care.