Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Managed Care June 2014
Comparison Between Guideline-Preferred and Nonpreferred First-Line HIV Antiretroviral Therapy
Stephen S. Johnston, MA; Timothy Juday, PhD; Amanda M. Farr, MPH; Bong-Chul Chu, PhD; and Tony Hebden, PhD
The Value of Specialty Pharmaceuticals - A Systematic Review
Martin Zalesak, MD, PhD; Joyce S. Greenbaum, BA; Joshua T. Cohen, PhD; Fotios Kokkotos, PhD; Adam Lustig, MS; Peter J. Neumann, ScD; Daryl Pritchard, PhD; Jeffrey Stewart, BA; and Robert W. Dubois, MD
Currently Reading
Health Insurance and Breast-Conserving Surgery With Radiation Treatment
Askal Ayalew Ali, MA; Hong Xiao, PhD; and Gebre-Egziabher Kiros, PhD
Impact of a Patient Incentive Program on Receipt of Preventive Care
Ateev Mehrotra, MD; Ruopeng An, PhD; Deepak N. Patel, MBBS; and Roland Sturm, PhD
Novel Predictive Models for Metabolic Syndrome Risk: A "Big Data" Analytic Approach
Gregory B. Steinberg, MB, BCh; Bruce W. Church, PhD; Carol J. McCall, FSA, MAAA; Adam B. Scott, MBA; and Brian P. Kalis, MBA
Primary Care Diabetes Bundle Management: 3-Year Outcomes for Microvascular and Macrovascular Events
Frederick J. Bloom Jr, MD; Xiaowei Yan, PhD; Walter F. Stewart, PhD; Thomas R. Graf, MD; Tammy Anderer, PhD; Duane E. Davis, MD; Steven B. Pierdon, MD; James Pitcavage, MS; and Glenn D. Steele Jr, MD
Association of Electronic Health Records With Cost Savings in a National Sample
Abby Swanson Kazley, PhD; Annie N. Simpson, PhD; Kit N. Simpson, DPH; and Ron Teufel, MD
Learning About 30-Day Readmissions From Patients With Repeated Hospitalizations
Jeanne T. Black, PhD, MBA
Removing a Constraint on Hospital Utilization: A Natural Experiment in Maryland
Noah S. Kalman, MD; Bradley G. Hammill, MS; Robert B. Murray, MA, MBA; and Kevin A. Schulman, MD
Using Clinically Nuanced Cost Sharing to Enhance Consumer Access to Specialty Medications
Jason Buxbaum, MHSA; Jonas de Souza, MD; and A. Mark Fendrick, MD
Real-World Impact of Comparative Effectiveness Research Findings on Clinical Practice
Teresa B. Gibson, PhD; Emily D. Ehrlich, MPH; Jennifer Graff, PharmD; Robert Dubois, MD; Amanda M. Farr, MPH; Michael Chernew, PhD; and A. Mark Fendrick, MD
A Systematic Review of Value-Based Insurance Design in Chronic Diseases
Karen L. Tang, MD; Lianne Barnieh, PhD; Bikaramjit Mann, MD; Fiona Clement, PhD; David J.T. Campbell, MD, MSc; Brenda R. Hemmelgarn, MD, PhD; Marcello Tonelli, MD, SM; Diane Lorenzetti, MLS; and Braden J. Manns, MD, MSc

Health Insurance and Breast-Conserving Surgery With Radiation Treatment

Askal Ayalew Ali, MA; Hong Xiao, PhD; and Gebre-Egziabher Kiros, PhD
Type of health insurance plays a significant role in the likelihood of receiving the recommended treatment among women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.
The program was designed to identify cases not seen in any hospital or other facility, such as a radiation center owned by a hospital, and provides a reporting mechanism for centers to report to FCDS. It is also possible that some of the patients seen in free-standing centers for an initial course of therapy may have been reported by a hospital or another reporting facility without mention of the RT. In addition, there is a possibility that some women may have obtained treatment in other states and their information is not reported in the FCDS. However, the problem of underreporting in the FCDS is likely to affect all cases randomly and there is no reason to believe that it affects a certain group with respect to health insurance in a systematic way. In addition, the FCDS is a nationally recognized cancer registry system that is regularly enhanced. It is unlikely that this limitation will seriously affect the findings and conclusions of the study.

Second, our analysis does not cover the period after 2002 because the data was not available to us. With the rapid advancement of medical technology and new innovations, it is reasonable to assume that patterns of earlystage breast cancer treatment may have changed since then. Third, some key variables were not available in the data. For example, census tract-level high school completion rate was used as a proxy for education. Data availability hampers the inclusion of other variables that are desirable, such as comorbidity that interferes with cancer treatment and distance to a radiation treatment center. More importantly, this study was unable to capture the influence of patient’s breast size, patient’s preference, physician- patient interactions, family support, patient fear of genetic or recurrence risk, and other psychological factors that contribute to treatment choice. Fourth, type of facility and quality of care where treatment was received were not included in this study due to lack of data availability.

Another limitation was that the categories of health insurance type used were general. For instance, our study did not distinguish between normal Medicare and fee-forservice Medicare.

Policy Implications

Despite these limitations, this study was able to document the influence of health insurance and other variables on decisions related to receiving BCS with RT using a large data set from a statewide population-based cancer registry system. More importantly, we found common and unique factors that influence women’s decisions on receiving BCS with RT among women who had the same health insurance.

Our findings reveal that the choice of receiving BCS with RT varied not only between women with different health insurance types but also among women with the same health insurance. Overall, being unmarried (that is, single, divorced, or widowed) was a risk factor for not receiving the recommended treatment. This finding was also true among women insured either by Medicare or private insurance. Smaller tumor size and higher levels of education, measured by the percentage of the population with at least a high school education at census tract level, were the only common predictors that were associated with receiving the recommended treatment in all of our models, regardless of type of health insurance.

Hence, some of the policy implications of the study include: (1) uninsured women were less likely to use the recommended treatment, so increasing access to healthcare for women would prove especially beneficial; (2) initiating and implementing policy programs that aim to improve the education level of the general population is warranted, as having a higher percentage of high school educated individuals at the census tract level has a strong positive effect on people's willingness to use healthcare, regardless of type of health insurance; (3) increase awareness to minimize fear and misperceptions about radiation recurrence among women and educate patients about the importance of being compliant with the whole radiation treatment schedule; (4) develop public health programs that reach out to unmarried women by disseminating timely and accurate information about the benefits of treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study provide better understanding regarding the type of surgical treatments provided to women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer from 1997 to 2002, and the impact of type of health insurance in the receipt of recommended treatment in Florida. We found that access to healthcare has a substantial impact in the likelihood of receiving the recommended treatment among women diagnosed with localized breast cancer. Specifically, there was significant variation in the use of RT after BCS by type of health insurance. In addition, marital status, age, tumor size, year of diagnosis, and education level were significant predictors. Race/ethnicity was not significantly related to the use of RT after BCS. However, non-Hispanic black women were significantly associated with higher likelihood of receiving RT after BCS among Medicaid-insured than were non-Hispanic white women. Poverty was also significantly associated with higher likelihood of receiving radiation after BCS only among Medicaid-insured women. BCS with radiation is the recommended treatment for women with localized breast cancer with its usage having increased over time. The results must be interpreted with caution with the limitations of the study in mind. Our study calls for more inquiry into why non-Hispanic black women insured by Medicaid are more likely to use BCS with RT than non-Hispanic white women, and why single women with private insurance are less likely to use BCS with RT than married women. These observed differences require further study.

Author Affiliations: College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Division of Economic, Social, and Administrative Pharmacy, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Tallahassee, FL (AA, HX); Institute of Public Health, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Tallahassee, FL (G-EK)

Source of Funding: None reported.

Author Disclosures: The authors report no relationship or financial interest with any entity that would pose a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article.

Authorship Information: Concept and design (AAA, HX, G-EK); acquisition of data (AAA, HX); analysis and interpretation of data (AAA, G-EK); drafting of the manuscript (AAA, G-EK); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (AAA, HX); statistical analysis (AAA, G-EK); supervision (HX).

Address correspondence to: Gebre-Egziabher Kiros, PhD, Institute of Public Health, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, FSH Science Research Center, Rm #209-B, Tallahassee, Florida 32307. E-mail: ge.kiros@famu .edu.
1. Cancer facts & figures, 2010; American Cancer Society website. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/ document/acspc-024113.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2010.

2. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER), fast status. National Cancer Institute website. http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ selections.php?#Output. Accessed November 3, 2010.

3. Breast cancer: what you need to know. CDC website. http://www .cdc.gov/cancer/breast/pdf/BreastCancerFactSheet.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2010.

4. Gorin SS, Heck JE, Cheng B, et al. Delays in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment by racial/ethnic groups. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(20): 2244-2252.

5. Jackson K, Foes CD, Higginbotham JC. Discrepancy in breast cancer treatment: race and locale as risk factors for women in Alabama. The University of Alabama McNair Journal. http://graduate.ua.edu/mcnair/ journals/2010/Jackson.pdf. Published 2010. Accessed November 1, 2010.

6. Bradley CJ, Given CW, Roberts C. Race, socioeconomic status, and breast cancer treatment and survival. Journal Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94(7):490-496.

7. Bradley CJ, Neumark D, Shickleet LM, Farrell N. Differences in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment: experiences of insured and uninsured patients in a safety net setting. University of California Irvine School of Social Sciences website. http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/Safety_ net.pdf. Published May 2007. Accessed November 18, 2010.

8. Bradley CJ, Gardiner J, Given CW et al. Cancer, Medicaid enrollment, and survival disparities. Cancer. 2005;103(8):1712-1718.

9. Wright P, Wong J, Morgan J, et al. Time from diagnosis to surgical treatment of breast cancer: factors influencing delays in initiating treatment. Am Surg. 2010;76(10):1119-1122.

10. Breast cancer survival rates by stage. American Cancer Society website. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/ breast-cancer-survival-by-stage. Revised January 31, 2014. Accessed May 28, 2014.

11. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for Patients, version 2.2011. http://www.nccn.com/images/patient-guidelines/pdf/ breast.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2010.

12. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice Guidelines in Oncology Breast Cancer, version 2.2011. http://www.nccn.org/ professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2010.

13. Ganz PA, Kwan L, Stanton AL. Quality of life at the end of primary treatment of breast cancer: first results from the moving beyond cancer randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(5):376-387.

14. vanDongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92(14):1143-1150.

15. Yang R, Cheung CC, Franceschi D, et al. African American and lowsocioeconomic status patients have a worse prognosis for invasive ductal and lobular breast carcinoma: do screening criteria need to change? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(5):853-868.

16. HHS, National Institutes of Health Consensus Development. Treatment of Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Conference Statement. http:// consensus.nih.gov/1990/1990EarlyStageBreastCancer081html.htm. Published 1990. Accessed November 26, 2010.

17. Morrow M, Harris JR. More Mastectomies: is this what patients really want. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(25):4038-4040.

18. Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman A, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009; 302(14):1551-1556.

19. Morrow M, White J, Moughan J, et al. Factors predicting the use of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II breast carcinoma. J Clin Onc. 2001;19(8):2254-2262.

20. Voti L, Richardson LC, Reis I, et al. The effect of race/ethnicity and insurance in the administration of standard therapy for local breast cancer in Florida. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;95(1):89-95.

21. Michalski TA, Nattinger AB. The influence of black race and socioeconomic status on the use of breast-conserving surgery for Medicare beneficiaries. Cancer.1997;79(2):314-319.

22. Beaulieu JE, Massey CS, Tucker TC, et al. Rural-urban variation in breast-conserving surgery in Kentucky. J Ky Med Assoc. 2003;101(10): 455-459.

23. Du XL, Gor BJ. Racial disparities and trends in radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer in women, 1992 to 2002. Ethn Dis. 2007;17(1):122-128.

24. Bickell NA, Aufses AH, Chassin MR. The quality of early-stage breast cancer care. Ann Surg. 2000;232(2):220-224.

25. Janz NK, Champion VL, Strecher VJ. The health belief model. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass; 2002.

26. Kroeger A. Anthropological and socio-medical healthcare research in developing countries. Soc Sci Med. 1983;17(3):147-161.

27. Bellon JR, Harris EE, Arthur DW, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria conservative surgery and radiation—stage I and II breast carcinoma: expert panel on radiation oncology: breast. Breast J. 2011;17(5):448-455.

28. Koehlmoos, TL. Racial disparities in breast cancer surgical treatment and radiation therapy use [dissertation]. Tampa: University of South Florida; 2005.

29. Hiotis K, Ye W, Sposto R, Skinner KA. Predictors of breast conserving therapy: size is not all that matters. Cancer. 2005;103(5):892-899.

30. McGuire KP, Santillan AA, Kaur P, et al. Are mastectomies on the rise? a 13-year trend analysis of the selection of mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy in 5865 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16:2682-2690.

31. Coburn N, Fulton J, Pearlman DN, et al. Treatment variation by insurance status for breast cancer patients. Breast J. 2008;14(2):128-134.

32. Shavers VL, Harlan LC, and Stevens JL. Racial/ethnic variation in clinical presentation, treatment, and survival among breast cancer patients under age 35. Cancer. 2003;97(1):134-147.

33. Adepoju L, Wanjiku S, Brown M, et al. Effect of insurance payer status on the surgical treatment of early stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(6):570-572.

34. Gold HT, Dick AW. Variation in treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ in elderly women. Med Care. 2004;42(3):267-275.

35. Silliman RA, Troyan SL, Guadagnoli E, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S. The impact of age, marital status, and physician-patient interactions on the care of older women with breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1997;80(7): 1326-1334.

36. Morris C, Cohen R, Schlag R, Wright WE. Increasing trends in the use of breast-conserving surgery in California. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(2):281-284.

37. Kimmick G, Camacho F, Foley KL. Racial differences in patterns of care among Medicaid-enrolled patients with breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2006;2(5):205-213.

38. Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Florida Department of Health. http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Family/cancer/bcc/ index.html. Accessed August 28, 2013.

39. Wheeler SB, Wu Y, Meyer AM, et al. Use and timelines of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery in low-income women with early stage breast cancer. Cancer Invest. 2012;30(4):258-267.

40. Morrow M, Harris JR. More mastectomies: is this what patients really want? J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(25):4038-4040.
PDF
 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2019 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up