Medicaid expansion and surgery for HPB/GI cancers: NCDB difference-in-difference analysis

Association between Medicaid Expansion and Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnosis and Outcomes: Does Where You Live Make a Difference?

BACKGROUND

Early detection and standardized treatment are crucial for enhancing outcomes for patients with cutaneous melanoma, the commonly diagnosed skin cancer. However, access to quality health care services remains a critical barrier for many patients, particularly the uninsured. Whereas Medicaid expansion (ME) has had a positive impact on some cancers, its specific influence on cutaneous melanoma remains understudied.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database identified 87,512 patients 40-64 years of age with a diagnosis of non-metastatic cutaneous melanoma between 2004 and 2017. In this study, patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment variables were analyzed, and ME status was determined based on state policies. Standard univariate statistics were used to compare patients with a diagnosis of non-metastatic cutaneous melanoma between ME and non-ME states. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) between ME and non-ME states. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to examine associations with OS.

RESULTS

Overall, 28.6 % (n = 25,031) of the overall cohort was in ME states. The patients in ME states were more likely to be insured, live in neighborhoods with higher median income quartiles, receive treatment at academic/research cancer centers, have lower stages of disease, and receive surgery than the patients in non-ME states. Kaplan-Meier analysis found enhanced 5-year OS for the patients in ME states across all stages. Cox regression showed improved survival in ME states for stage II (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84) and stage III (HR, 0.75) melanoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores the positive association between ME and improved diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes for patients with non-metastatic cutaneous melanoma. These findings advocate for continued efforts to enhance health care accessibility for vulnerable populations.

Medicaid expansion and palliative care for advanced-stage liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Medicaid expansion (ME) has contributed to transforming the United States healthcare system. However, its effect on palliative care of primary liver cancers remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the association between ME and the receipt of palliative treatment in advanced-stage liver cancer.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with stage IV hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma were identified from the National Cancer Database and divided into pre-expansion (2010-2013) and postexpansion (2015-2019) cohorts. Logistic regression identified predictors of palliative treatment. Difference-in-difference (DID) analysis assessed changes in palliative care use between patients living in ME states and patients living in non-ME states.

RESULTS

Among 12,516 patients, 4582 (36.6%) were diagnosed before expansion, and 7934 (63.6%) were diagnosed after expansion. Overall, rates of palliative treatment increased after ME (18.1% [pre-expansion] vs 22.3% [postexpansion]; P < .001) and are more pronounced among ME states. Before expansion, only cancer type and education attainment were associated with the receipt of palliative treatment. Conversely, after expansion, race, insurance, location, cancer type, and ME status (odds ratio [OR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.44; P = .018) were all associated with palliative care. Interestingly, the odds were higher if treatment involved receipt of pain management (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-2.43; P = .006). Adjusted DID analysis confirmed increased rates of palliative treatment among patients living in ME states relative to non-ME states (DID, 4.4%; 95% CI, 1.2-7.7; P = .008); however, racial disparities persist (White, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.4-9.8; P = .009; minority, 2.6; 95% CI, -2.5 to 7.6; P = .333).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of ME contributed to increased rates of palliative treatment for patients residing in ME states after expansion. However, racial disparities persist even after ME, resulting in inequitable access to palliative care.

Impact of Medicaid expansion on the multimodal treatment of biliary tract cancer

INTRODUCTION

The impact of Medicaid expansion (ME) on the treatment of patients with cancer remains controversial, especially individuals requiring complex multidisciplinary care. We sought to evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion (ME) on receipt of multimodal care, including surgical resection, for Stage I-III biliary tract cancer (BTC).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with BTC between 40 and 65 years of age were identified from the National Cancer Database and divided into pre- (2008-2012) and post- (2015-2018) ME cohorts. Difference-in-difference (DID) analysis was used to determine the impact of ME on the utilization of surgery and multimodal chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy treatment for BTC.

RESULTS

Among 12,415 patients with BTC (extrahepatic, n = 5622, 45.3%; intrahepatic, n = 4352, 35.1%; gallbladder, n = 1944, 15.7%; overlapping, n = 497, 4.0%), 5835 (47.0%) and 6580 (53.0%) patients were diagnosed before versus after ME, respectively. Overall utilization of surgery (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.26) and multimodality therapy (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.27) increased in states that adopted ME. Utilization of surgery among uninsured/Medicaid patients in ME states increased relative to patients living in non-ME states (∆+10.1%, p = 0.01). Similarly, the use of multimodal treatment increased among uninsured/Medicaid patients living in ME versus non-ME states (∆+6.4%, p = 0.04); in contrast, there were no difference among patients with other insurance statuses (overall: ∆+1.5%, private: ∆-2.0%, other: ∆+3.9%, all p > 0.5). Uninsured/Medicaid patients with BTC who lived in a ME state had a lower risk of long-term death in the post-ME era (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of ME positively impacted survival among patients who underwent surgical and multimodal treatment for Stage I-III BTC.

Association Between Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities and Hospital Performance in Treatment and Outcomes for Patients with Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Disparities in colon cancer care and outcomes by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and insurance are well recognized; however, the extent to which inequalities are driven by patient factors versus variation in hospital performance remains unclear. We sought to compare disparities in care delivery and outcomes at low- and high-performing hospitals.

METHODS

We identified patients with stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma from the 2012-2017 National Cancer Database. Adequate lymphadenectomy and timely adjuvant chemotherapy administration defined hospital performance. Multilevel regression models evaluated disparities by race/ethnicity, SES, and insurance at the lowest- and highest-performance quartile hospitals.

RESULTS

Of 92,573 patients from 704 hospitals, 45,982 (49.7%) were treated at 404 low-performing hospitals and 46,591 (50.3%) were treated at 300 high-performing hospitals. Low-performing hospitals treated more non-Hispanic (NH) Black, Hispanic, low SES, and Medicaid patients (all p < 0.01). Among low-performing hospitals, patients with low versus high SES (odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.92), and Medicare (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.96) and Medicaid (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96) versus private insurance, had decreased odds of receiving high-quality care. At high-performing hospitals, NH Black versus NH White patients (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.95) had decreased odds of receiving high-quality care. Low SES, Medicare, Medicaid, and uninsured patients had worse overall survival at low- and high-performing hospitals (all p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Disparities in receipt of high-quality colon cancer care occurred by SES and insurance at low-performing hospitals, and by race at high-performing hospitals. However, survival disparities by SES and insurance exist irrespective of hospital performance. Future steps include improving low-performing hospitals and identifying mechanisms affecting survival disparities.

The Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Early-Stage Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma at High- Versus Low-Volume Facilities

INTRODUCTION

While Medicaid Expansion (ME) has improved healthcare access, disparities in outcomes after volume-dependent surgical care persist. We sought to characterize the impact of ME on postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at high-volume (HVF) versus low-volume (LVF) facilities.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection for PDAC were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB; 2011-2018). HVF was defined as ≥20 resections/year. Patients were divided into pre- and post-ME cohorts, and the primary outcome was textbook oncologic outcomes (TOO). Difference-in-difference (DID) analysis was used to assess changes in TOO achievement among patients living in ME versus non-ME states.

RESULTS

Among 33,764 patients who underwent resection of PDAC, 19.1% (n = 6461) were treated at HVF. Rates of TOO achievement were higher at HVF (HVF: 45.7% vs. LVF: 32.8%; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, undergoing surgery at HVF was associated with higher odds of achieving TOO (odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49-1.72) and improved overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.99]. Compared with patients living in non-ME states, individuals living in ME states were more likely to achieve TOO on adjusted DID analysis (5.4%, p = 0.041). Although rates of TOO achievement did not improve after ME at HVF (3.7%, p = 0.574), ME contributed to markedly higher rates of TOO among patients treated at LVF (6.7%, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Although outcomes for PDAC remain volume-dependent, ME has contributed to significant improvement in TOO achievement among patients treated at LVF. These data highlight the impact of ME on reducing disparities in surgical outcomes relative to site of care.

The Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma Care

INTRODUCTION

The impact of Medicaid expansion (ME) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial, and heterogeneous effects on care processes may relate to sociodemographic factors. We sought to evaluate the association between ME and receipt of surgery in early-stage HCC.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with early-stage HCC between 40 and 64 years of age were identified from the National Cancer Database and divided into pre- (2004-2012) and post- (2015-2017) expansion cohorts. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of surgical treatment. Difference-in-difference (DID) analysis assessed changes in surgical treatment between patients living in ME and non-ME states.

RESULTS

Among 19,745 patients, 12,220 (61.9%) were diagnosed before ME and 7525 (38.1%) after. Although overall utilization of surgery decreased after expansion (ME, pre-expansion: 62.2% versus post-expansion: 51.6%; non-ME, pre-expansion: 62.1% versus post-expansion: 50.8%, p < 0.001), this trend varied relative to insurance status. Notably, receipt of surgery increased among uninsured/Medicaid patients living in ME states after expansion (pre-expansion: 48.1%, post-expansion: 52.3%, p < 0.001). Moreover, treatment at academic or high-volume facilities increased the likelihood of undergoing surgery before expansion. After expansion, treatment at an academic facility and living in an ME state (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.54, p < 0.01) were predictors of surgical treatment. DID analysis demonstrated increased utilization of surgery for uninsured/Medicaid patients living in ME states relative to non-ME states (uninsured/Medicaid: 6.4%, p < 0.05), although no differences were noted among patients with other insurance statuses (overall: 0.7%, private: -2.0%, other: 0.3%, all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of ME heterogeneously impacted utilization of care in early-stage HCC. Notably, uninsured/Medicaid patients residing in ME states demonstrated increased utilization of surgical treatment after expansion.

Understanding Factors Leading to Surgical Attrition for "Resectable" Gastric Cancer

OBJECTIVES

We used a novel combined analysis to evaluate various factors associated with failure to surgical resection in non-metastatic gastric cancer.

METHODS

We identified factors associated with the receipt of surgery in publicly available clinical trial data for gastric cancer and in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients with stages I-III gastric adenocarcinoma. Next, we evaluated variable importance in predicting the receipt of surgery in the NCDB.

RESULTS

In published clinical trial data, 10% of patients in surgery-first arms did not undergo surgery, mostly due to disease progression and 15% of patients in neoadjuvant therapy arms failed to reach surgery. Effects related to neoadjuvant administration explained the increased attrition (5%). In the NCDB, 61.7% of patients underwent definitive surgery. In a subset of NCDB patients resembling those enrolled in clinical trials (younger, healthier, and privately insured patients treated at high-volume and academic centers) the rate of surgery was 79.2%. Decreased likelihood of surgery was associated with advanced age (OR 0.97, p < 0.01), Charlson-Deyo score of 2+ (OR 0.90, p < 0.01), T4 tumors (OR 0.39, p < 0.01), N+ disease (OR 0.84, p < 0.01), low socioeconomic status (OR 0.86, p = 0.01), uninsured or on Medicaid (OR 0.58 and 0.69, respectively, p < 0.01), low facility volume (OR 0.64, p < 0.01), and non-academic cancer programs (OR 0.79, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Review of clinical trials shows attrition due to unavoidable tumor and treatment factors (~ 15%). The NCDB indicates non-medical patient and provider characteristics (i.e., age, insurance status, facility volume) associated with attrition. This combined analysis highlights specific opportunities for improving potentially curative surgery rates.