Mediators of county-level racial and economic privilege in cancer screening

Association of county-level provider density and social vulnerability with colorectal cancer-related mortality

BACKGROUND

Health care providers play a crucial role in increasing overall awareness, screening, and treatment of cancer, leading to reduced cancer mortality. We sought to characterize the impact of provider density on colorectal cancer population-level mortality.

METHODS

County-level provider data, obtained from the Area Health Resource File between 2016 and 2018, were used to calculate provider density per county. These data were merged with county-level colorectal cancer mortality 2016-2020 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multivariable regression was performed to define the association between provider density and colorectal cancer mortality.

RESULTS

Among 2,863 counties included in the analytic cohort, 1,132 (39.5%) and 1,731 (60.5%) counties were categorized as urban and rural, respectively. The colorectal cancer-related crude mortality rate was higher in counties with low provider density versus counties with moderate or high provider density (low = 22.9, moderate = 21.6, high = 19.3 per 100,000 individuals; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, the odds of colorectal cancer mortality were lower in counties with moderate and high provider density versus counties with low provider density (moderate odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.94-0.99; high odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.86-0.91). High provider density remained associated with a lower likelihood of colorectal cancer mortality independent of social vulnerability index (low social vulnerability index and high provider density: odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.89; high social vulnerability index and high provider density: odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.89-0.98).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of social vulnerability index, high county-level provider density was associated with lower colorectal cancer-related mortality. Efforts to increase access to health care providers may improve health care equity, as well as long-term cancer outcomes.

Financial hardship and neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage in long-term childhood cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Long-term survivors of childhood cancer face elevated risk for financial hardship. We evaluate whether childhood cancer survivors live in areas of greater deprivation and the association with self-reported financial hardships.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study between 1970 and 1999 and self-reported financial information from 2017 to 2019. We measured neighborhood deprivation with the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) based on current zip code. Financial hardship was measured with validated surveys that captured behavioral, material and financial sacrifice, and psychological hardship. Bivariate analyses described neighborhood differences between survivors and siblings. Generalized linear models estimated effect sizes between ADI and financial hardship adjusting for clinical factors and personal socioeconomic status.

RESULTS

Analysis was restricted to 3475 long-term childhood cancer survivors and 923 sibling controls. Median ages at time of evaluation was 39 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 33-46 years and 47 years (IQR = 39-59 years), respectively. Survivors resided in areas with greater deprivation (ADI ≥ 50: 38.7% survivors vs 31.8% siblings; P < .001). One quintile increases in deprivation were associated with small increases in behavioral (second quintile, P = .017) and psychological financial hardship (second quintile, P = .009; third quintile, P = .014). Lower psychological financial hardship was associated with individual factors including greater household income (≥$60 000 income, P < .001) and being single (P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Childhood cancer survivors were more likely to live in areas with socioeconomic deprivation. Neighborhood-level disadvantage and personal socioeconomic circumstances should be evaluated when trying to assist childhood cancer survivors with financial hardships.

Association between social determinants of health and delayed postoperative adjuvant therapy among patients undergoing resection of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pancreatic cancer (PDAC) requires a multimodality approach. We sought to define the association between social determinants of health (SDOH) and delayed or nonreceipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT) among patients undergoing PDAC resection.

METHODS

Data on patients who underwent PDAC resection between 2014 and 2020 were identified from Medicare Standard Analytic Files and merged with the county-level social vulnerability index (SVI). Mediation analysis defined the association between SVI subthemes and aCT receipt.

RESULTS

Among 24 078 patients, 47.7% received timely aCT, 17.7% received delayed aCT, and 34.6% did not receive any aCT. High SVI was associated with delay (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.34) and nonreceipt of aCT (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.20-1.41) (both p < 0.05). 73.1% of the variation in timely aCT receipt was directly attributable to SVI, whereas 26.9% of the effect was due to indirect mediators including hospital volume (6.4%), length-of-stay (7.9%) and postoperative complications (12.6%). Socioeconomic status (delayed aCT: OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13-1.38; nonreceipt aCT: OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36) and household composition and disability (delayed aCT: OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17-1.43; nonreceipt aCT: OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09-1.29) were associated with receipt of aCT (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the disparities in receipt of aCT after PDAC surgery are driven by underlying SDOH such as SVI.

Association of Racial and Economic Privilege on Postoperative Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries

INTRODUCTION

Social determinants of health can play an important role in patient health. Privilege is a right, benefit, advantage, or opportunity that can positively affect all social determinants of health. We sought to assess variations in the prevalence of privilege among patient populations and define the association of privilege on postoperative surgical outcomes.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries who underwent elective coronary artery bypass grafting, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, colectomy, and lung resection were identified. The Index of Concentration of Extremes (ICE), a validated metric of both social spatial polarization and privilege was calculated and merged with county-level data obtained from the American Community Survey. Textbook outcome (TO) was defined as absence of postoperative complications, extended length of stay, 90-day mortality, and 90-day readmission. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between ICE and TO.

RESULTS

Among 1,885,889 Medicare beneficiaries who met inclusion criteria, 655,980 (34.8%) individuals resided in areas with the highest privilege (i.e., White, high-income homogeneity), whereas 221,314 (11.7%) individuals resided in areas of the lowest privilege (i.e., Black, low-income homogeneity). The overall incidence of TO was 66.2% (n = 1,247,558). On multivariable regression, residence in the most advantaged neighbourhoods was associated with a lower chance of surgical complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.91), a prolonged length of stay (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.79-82), 90-day readmission (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92-0.95), and 90-day mortality (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.68-0.74) (all P < 0.001). Residence in the most privileged areas was associated with 19% increased odds of achieving TO (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.18-1.21), as well as a 6% reduction in Medicare expenditures versus individuals in the least privileged counties (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.94-0.94) (both P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Privilege, based on the ICE joint measure of racial/ethnic and economic spatial concentration, was strongly associated with the likelihood to achieve an "optimal" TO following surgery. As healthcare is a basic human right, privilege should not be associated with disparities in surgical care.

Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening Rates Among Adults With and Without Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

BACKGROUND

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities may face barriers in accessing healthcare, including cancer screening and detection services. We sought to assess the association of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) with breast cancer screening rates.

METHODS

Data from 2018 to 2020 was used to identify screening-eligible individuals from Medicare Standard Analytic Files. Adults aged 65-79 years who did not have a previous diagnosis of breast cancer were included. Multivariable regression was used to analyze the differences in breast cancer screening rates among individuals with and without IDD.

RESULTS

Among 9,383,349 Medicare beneficiaries, 11,265 (0.1%) individuals met the criteria for IDD. Of note, individuals with IDD were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (90.5% vs. 87.3%), have a Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≤ 2 (66.2% vs. 85.5%), and reside in a low social vulnerability index neighborhood (35.7% vs. 34.4%). IDD was associated with reduced odds of undergoing breast cancer screening (odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.80; p < 0.001). Breast cancer screening rates in individuals with IDD were further influenced by social vulnerability and belonging to a racial/ethnic minority.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with IDD may face additional barriers to breast cancer screening. The combination of IDD and social vulnerability placed patients at particularly high risk of not being screened for breast cancer.

Impact of Community Privilege on Access to Care Among Patients Following Complex Cancer Surgery

OBJECTIVE

We sought to define the impact of community privilege on variations in travel patterns and access to care at high-volume hospitals for complex surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND

With increased emphasis on centralization of high-risk surgery, social determinants of health play a critical role in preventing equitable access to care. Privilege is a right, benefit, advantage, or opportunity that positively impacts all social determinants of health.

METHODS

The California Office of State-wide Health Planning Database identified patients who underwent esophagectomy (ES), pneumonectomy (PN), pancreatectomy (PA), or proctectomy (PR) for a malignant diagnosis between 2012 and 2016 and was merged using ZIP codes with the Index of Concentration of Extremes, a validated metric of both spatial polarization and privilege obtained from the American Community Survey. Clustered multivariable regression was performed to assess the probability of undergoing care at a high-volume center, bypassing the nearest and high-volume center, and total real driving time and travel distance.

RESULTS

Among 25,070 patients who underwent a complex oncologic operation (ES: n=1216, 4.9%; PN: n=13,247, 52.8%; PD: n=3559, 14.2%; PR: n=7048, 28.1%), 5019 (20.0%) individuals resided in areas with the highest privilege (i.e., White, high-income homogeneity), whereas 4994 (19.9%) individuals resided in areas of the lowest privilege (i.e., Black, low-income homogeneity). Median travel distance was 33.1 miles (interquartile range 14.4-72.2). Roughly, three-quarters of patients (overall: 74.8%, ES: 35.0%; PN: 74.3%; PD: 75.2%; PR: 82.2%) sought surgical care at a high-volume center. On multivariable regression, patients residing in the least advantaged communities were less likely to undergo surgery at a high-volume hospital (overall: odds ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.81). Of note, individuals in the least privileged areas had longer travel distances (28.5 miles, 95% CI 21.2-35.8) to reach the destination facility, as well as over 70% greater odds of bypassing a high-volume hospital to undergo surgical care at a low-volume center (odds ratio 1.74, 95% CI 1.29-2.34) versus individuals living in the highest privileged areas.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Privilege had a marked effect on access to complex oncologic surgical care at high-volume centers. These data highlight the need to focus on privilege as a key social determinant of health that influences patient access to and utilization of health care resources.