The Impact of Rideshare Transportation in Radiation Oncology

The impact of individual-level income predicted from the BRFSS on the association between insurance status and overall survival among adults with cancer from the SEER program

INTRODUCTION

Among patients with cancer in the United States, Medicaid insurance is associated with worse outcomes than private insurance and with similar outcomes as being uninsured. However, prior studies have not addressed the impact of individual-level socioeconomic status, which determines Medicaid eligibility, on the associations of Medicaid status and cancer outcomes. Our objective was to determine whether differences in cancer outcomes by insurance status persist after accounting for individual-level income.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was queried for 18-64 year-old individuals with cancer from 2014-2016. Individual-level income was imputed using a model trained on Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey participants including covariates also present in SEER. The association of 1-year overall survival and insurance status was estimated with and without adjustment for estimated individual-level income and other covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 416,784 cases in SEER were analyzed. The 1-yr OS for patients with private insurance, Medicaid insurance, and no insurance was 88.7%, 76.1%, and 73.7%, respectively. After adjusting for all covariates except individual-level income, 1-year OS differences were worse with Medicaid (-6.0%, 95% CI = -6.3 to -5.6) and no insurance (-6.7%, 95% CI = -7.3 to -6.0) versus private insurance. After also adjusting for estimated individual-level income, the survival difference for Medicaid patients was similar to privately insured (-0.4%, 95% CI = -1.9 to 1.1) and better than uninsured individuals (2.1%, 95% CI = 0.7 to 3.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Income, rather than Medicaid status, may drive poor cancer outcomes in the low-income and Medicaid-insured population. Medicaid insurance coverage may improve cancer outcomes for low-income individuals.

Barriers and Facilitators to Ophthalmology Visit Adherence in an Urban Hospital Setting

Purpose

To explore barriers and facilitators to completing scheduled outpatient appointments at an urban academic hospital-based ophthalmology department.

Methods

Potential participants were stratified by neighborhood Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) (range, 0-1.0, higher scores indicate greater vulnerability), and semistructured interviews were conducted with individuals 18 years and older with an SVI of greater than 0.61 (n = 17) and providers delivering care in the General Eye Clinic of the University of Illinois Chicago (n = 8). Qualitative analysis informed by human-centered design methods was conducted to classify barriers and facilitators into three domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of individuals.

Results

There were four main themes-transportation, time burden, social support, and economic situation-all of which were within the outer setting of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; transportation was most salient. Although providers perceived health literacy as a barrier affecting motivation, patients expressed a high motivation to attend visits and felt well-educated about their condition.

Conclusions

A lack of resources outside of the health system presents significant barriers for patients from neighborhoods with high SVI. Future efforts to improve adherence should focus on resource-related interventions in the outer setting. Improving access to eye care will require community-level interventions, particularly transportation.

Translational Relevance

Understanding the barriers and facilitators within the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research provides useful guidance for future interventions, specifically to focus future efforts to improve adherence on resource-related interventions.

A Survey of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network on Approaches Toward Addressing Patients' Transportation Insecurity

BACKGROUND

Addressing patients' social determinants of health is a national priority for cancer treatment centers. Transportation insecurity is one major challenge for patients undergoing active cancer treatment, and missing treatments can result in worse cancer treatment outcomes, including worse morbidity and mortality. How cancer treatment centers are addressing transportation insecurity is understudied.

METHODS

In January and February 2022, the NCCN Best Practices Committee conducted a survey of NCCN's 31 Member Institutions (currently 32 member institutions as of April 2022) to assess how centers were addressing patient transportation insecurity: how they screen for transportation insecurity, coordinate transportation, and fund transportation initiatives, and their plans to address transportation insecurity in the future.

RESULTS

A total of 25 of 31 (81%) NCCN Member Institutions responded to the survey, of which 24 (96%) reported supporting the transportation needs of their patients through screening, coordinating, and/or funding transportation. Patients' transportation needs were most often identified by social workers (96%), clinicians (83%), or patients self-declaring their needs (79%). Few centers (33%) used routine screening approaches (eg, universal screening of social risk factors) to systematically identify transportation needs, and 54% used the support of technology platforms or a vendor to coordinate transportation. Transportation was predominantly funded via some combination of philanthropy (88%), grants (63%), internal dollars (63%), and reimbursement from insurance companies (58%). Over the next 12 months, many centers were either going to continue their current transportation programs in their current state (60%) or expand existing programs (32%).

CONCLUSIONS

Many NCCN Member Institutions are addressing the transportation needs of their patients. Current efforts are heterogeneous. Few centers have systematic, routine screening approaches, and funding relies on philanthropy more so than institutional dollars or reimbursement from insurers. Opportunities exist to establish more structured, scalable, and sustainable programs for patients' transportation needs.

Out-of-Pocket Expenditures for Imaging Examinations: Perspectives From National Patient Surveys Over Two Decades

PURPOSE

Using national surveys, we longitudinally studied imaging costs-and specifically those paid out-of-pocket (OOP) by patients-over two decades.

METHODS

Using 2000 to 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data, we identified all imaging-focused encounters (mammography, radiography, ultrasonography, and CT and MR [surveyed together in Medical Expenditure Panel Survey]) and calculated mean overall and OOP encounter costs. Effects of sociodemographic, personal, and clinical factors were measured using logistic regression and generalized linear modeling.

RESULTS

We identified 102,717 patients (mean 45.6 years; 64.8% female; 58.8% White) undergoing 229,010 imaging-focused encounters. Between 2000 and 2019, mean costs of mammography, radiography, and ultrasonography increased 14.5%, 24.5%, and 40% and total mean cost of CT or MR decreased by 15.1%. OOP costs were incurred by 51%. Overall mean OOP costs increased 89.8% from 2000 to 2019. Mean OOP costs for mammography decreased by 32.9%; mean OOP costs for radiography, ultrasonography, and CT or MR increased 81%, 123.2%, and 61%, respectively. Patients were less likely to incur OOP costs when older, of racial and ethnic minorities, female, or recipients of public only (versus private) insurance. Among those with OOP costs, the presence of comorbidities, lack of insurance, younger age, and history of cancer significantly increased OOP costs.

CONCLUSION

Mean overall patient OOP costs for imaging examinations increased significantly and substantially over the last two decades. Lack of insurance, younger age, history of cancer, and other comorbidities were associated with higher OOP costs. As diagnostic imaging utilization increases, patient financial hardship considerations merit further attention.

An Analysis of Cancer Center-Provided Rideshare Utilization for Radiation Therapy

OBJECTIVES

The potential of rideshare services to facilitate timely radiation therapy (RT), especially for resource-limited patients, is understudied.

METHODS

Patients (n = 63) who received 73 courses of RT (1,513 fractions) and utilized free hospital-provided rideshare service (537 rides) were included in this retrospective study. A multidimensional analysis was conducted including a comparison of demographic, disease characteristics, and treatment completion data; a revenue analysis to evaluate the financial impact of rideshare services; and a geospatial analysis to evaluate community-level characteristics of patients.

RESULTS

Median age was 59; most were female (56%) and self-identified as Black or African American (56%), not working (91%), not partnered (83%), high school educated or less (78%), and insured with Medicaid (51%). Geospatial analysis revealed that patients lived in communities with significantly higher rates of resource deprivation. Median rideshare distance was 6.4 miles (interquartile range 3.4-11.2) with a median cost of $13.04 per rideshare (interquartile range 9-19). Of the rideshare-facilitated treatments, 100% were completed, with an overall course completion rate of 97.3% compared with 85.4% for those who did not use rideshare (P = .001); two patients discontinued RT for reasons unrelated to transportation. High rideshare utilization (n = 32), defined as utilization ≥ 45% of the treatment course, was associated with significantly shorter treatment courses and lower radiation doses compared with low rideshare utilization (P = .04). Total rideshare cost for high utilizers and whole cohort was $11,589 and $16,895, facilitating an estimated revenue of $401,952 and $1,175,119, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Free hospital-provided rideshare service is economically feasible and associated with high RT completion rates. It may help enhance quality radiation care for those who come from resource-limited communities.

Addressing Transportation Insecurity Among Patients With Cancer

Health-care-related transportation insecurity is common in the United States. Patients with cancer are especially vulnerable because cancer care is episodic in nature, occurs over a prolonged period, is marked by frequent clinical encounters, requires intense treatments, and results in substantial financial hardship. As a result of transportation insecurity, patients with cancer may forego, miss, delay, alter, and/or prematurely terminate necessary care. Limited data suggest that these alterations in care have the potential to increase the rates of cancer recurrence and mortality and exacerbate disparities in cancer incidence, severity, and outcomes. Transportation insecurity also negatively impacts at the informal caregiver, provider, health system, and societal levels. Recognizing that transportation is a critical determinant of outcomes for patients with cancer, there are ongoing efforts to develop evidence-based protocols to identify at-risk patients and address transportation insecurity at federal policy, health system, not-for-profit, and industry levels. In 2021, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine sponsored a series of webinars addressing key social determinants of health including food, housing, and transportation among patients with cancer. This commentary summarizes the formal presentations and discussions related to transportation insecurity and will 1) discuss the heterogeneous nature of transportation insecurity among patients with cancer; 2) characterize its prevalence along the cancer continuum; 3) examine its multilevel consequences; 4) discuss measurement and screening tools; 5) highlight ongoing efforts to address transportation insecurity; 6) suggest policy levers; and 7) outline a research agenda to address critical knowledge gaps.