Catastrophic health expenditures, insurance churn, and nonemployment among gynecologic cancer patients in the United States.
Affordable Care Act
catastrophic health expenditures
financial toxicity
gynecologic cancer
health reform
nonemployment
uninsurance
Journal
American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1097-6868
Titre abrégé: Am J Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370476
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2022
03 2022
Historique:
received:
11
06
2021
revised:
23
09
2021
accepted:
23
09
2021
pubmed:
2
10
2021
medline:
27
4
2022
entrez:
1
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the financial burden of severe illness, including associations with higher rates of nonemployment, uninsurance, and catastrophic out-of-pocket health spending. Patients with gynecologic cancer often require expensive and prolonged treatments, potentially disrupting employment and insurance coverage access, and putting patients and their families at risk for catastrophic health expenditures. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of insurance churn, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures among nonelderly patients with gynecologic cancer in the United States, to compare within subgroups and to other populations and assess for changes associated with the Affordable Care Act. We identified respondents aged 18 to 64 years from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006 to 2017, who reported care related to gynecologic cancer in a given year, and a propensity-matched cohort of patients without cancer and patients with cancers of other sites, as comparison groups. We applied survey weights to extrapolate to the US population, and we described patterns of insurance churn (any uninsurance or insurance loss or change), catastrophic health expenditures (>10% annual family income), and nonemployment. Characteristics and outcomes between groups were compared with the adjusted Wald test. We identified 683 respondents reporting care related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis from 2006 to 2017, representing an estimated annual population of 532,400 patients (95% confidence interval, 462,000-502,700). More than 64% of patients reported at least 1 of 3 primary negative outcomes of any uninsurance, part-year nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, with 22.4% reporting at least 2 of 3 outcomes. Catastrophic health spending was uncommon without nonemployment or uninsurance reported during that year (1.2% of the population). Compared with patients with other cancers, patients with gynecologic cancer were younger and more likely with low education and low family income (≤250% federal poverty level). They reported higher annual risks of insurance loss (8.8% vs 4.8%; P=.03), any uninsurance (22.6% vs 14.0%; P=.002), and part-year nonemployment (55.3% vs 44.6%; P=.005) but similar risks of catastrophic spending (12.6% vs 12.2%; P=.84). Patients with gynecologic cancer from low-income families faced a higher risk of catastrophic expenditures than those of higher icomes (24.4% vs 2.9%; P<.001). Among the patients from low-income families, Medicaid coverage was associated with a lower risk of catastrophic spending than private insurance. After the Affordable Care Act implementation, we observed reductions in the risk of uninsurance, but there was no significant change in the risk of catastrophic spending among patients with gynecologic cancer. Patients with gynecologic cancer faced high risks of uninsurance, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among patients from low-income families. Catastrophic spending was uncommon in the absence of either nonemployment or uninsurance in a given year.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the financial burden of severe illness, including associations with higher rates of nonemployment, uninsurance, and catastrophic out-of-pocket health spending. Patients with gynecologic cancer often require expensive and prolonged treatments, potentially disrupting employment and insurance coverage access, and putting patients and their families at risk for catastrophic health expenditures.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to describe the prevalence of insurance churn, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures among nonelderly patients with gynecologic cancer in the United States, to compare within subgroups and to other populations and assess for changes associated with the Affordable Care Act.
STUDY DESIGN
We identified respondents aged 18 to 64 years from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006 to 2017, who reported care related to gynecologic cancer in a given year, and a propensity-matched cohort of patients without cancer and patients with cancers of other sites, as comparison groups. We applied survey weights to extrapolate to the US population, and we described patterns of insurance churn (any uninsurance or insurance loss or change), catastrophic health expenditures (>10% annual family income), and nonemployment. Characteristics and outcomes between groups were compared with the adjusted Wald test.
RESULTS
We identified 683 respondents reporting care related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis from 2006 to 2017, representing an estimated annual population of 532,400 patients (95% confidence interval, 462,000-502,700). More than 64% of patients reported at least 1 of 3 primary negative outcomes of any uninsurance, part-year nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, with 22.4% reporting at least 2 of 3 outcomes. Catastrophic health spending was uncommon without nonemployment or uninsurance reported during that year (1.2% of the population). Compared with patients with other cancers, patients with gynecologic cancer were younger and more likely with low education and low family income (≤250% federal poverty level). They reported higher annual risks of insurance loss (8.8% vs 4.8%; P=.03), any uninsurance (22.6% vs 14.0%; P=.002), and part-year nonemployment (55.3% vs 44.6%; P=.005) but similar risks of catastrophic spending (12.6% vs 12.2%; P=.84). Patients with gynecologic cancer from low-income families faced a higher risk of catastrophic expenditures than those of higher icomes (24.4% vs 2.9%; P<.001). Among the patients from low-income families, Medicaid coverage was associated with a lower risk of catastrophic spending than private insurance. After the Affordable Care Act implementation, we observed reductions in the risk of uninsurance, but there was no significant change in the risk of catastrophic spending among patients with gynecologic cancer.
CONCLUSION
Patients with gynecologic cancer faced high risks of uninsurance, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among patients from low-income families. Catastrophic spending was uncommon in the absence of either nonemployment or uninsurance in a given year.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34597606
pii: S0002-9378(21)01084-X
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.09.034
pmc: PMC10016333
mid: NIHMS1831451
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
384.e1-384.e13Subventions
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : K12 HD043446
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Pharm Stat. 2011 Mar-Apr;10(2):150-61
pubmed: 20925139
Cancer. 2016 Apr 15;122(8):283-9
pubmed: 26991528
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Oct 1;17(10):1184-1192
pubmed: 31590147
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Feb;156(2):271-277
pubmed: 31771866
N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 22;383(17):1603-1606
pubmed: 32813967
Cancer. 2017 Feb 1;123(3):476-484
pubmed: 27716900
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 28;353(4):382-91
pubmed: 16049210
Cancer. 2014 Oct 15;120(20):3245-53
pubmed: 24954526
Med Care. 2009 Jul;47(7 Suppl 1):S44-50
pubmed: 19536015
Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Jan;160(1):199-205
pubmed: 33183765
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Sep 1;3(9):e2017696
pubmed: 32970154
Am J Manag Care. 2015 Sep;21(9):607-15
pubmed: 26618364
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Jun;32(6):1143-52
pubmed: 23676531
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Mar 20;34(9):980-6
pubmed: 26811521
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Jun 1;178(6):820-829
pubmed: 29710177
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Jan;39(1):85-93
pubmed: 31905055
Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Apr;27(4):1240-1257
pubmed: 27460539
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020 Jan;88(1):51-58
pubmed: 31524838
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jul;154(1):8-12
pubmed: 31053404
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):963-969
pubmed: 32101659
J Cancer Surviv. 2020 Apr;14(2):135-150
pubmed: 32162193
BMJ. 2020 Feb 05;368:m40
pubmed: 32024637
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Jul 06;10:195
pubmed: 20604965
J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jul;120(1):85-92
pubmed: 30650186
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Oct 20;31(30):3749-57
pubmed: 24043731
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;6(8):1295-1297
pubmed: 32672809
Am J Med. 2018 Oct;131(10):1187-1199.e5
pubmed: 29906429
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Apr 1;36(4):598-606
pubmed: 28373324
J Surg Oncol. 2019 Sep;120(3):397-406
pubmed: 31236957
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 20;35(18):1978-1981
pubmed: 28437163
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Mar;224(3):323-325
pubmed: 33221294
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 1;112(8):779-791
pubmed: 32277814
J Oncol Pract. 2018 Feb;14(2):e122-e129
pubmed: 29272200
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Dec 11;108(5):
pubmed: 26657336
Gynecol Oncol. 2021 May;161(2):477-482
pubmed: 33546868