Breast Cancer Care in California and Ontario: Primary Care Protections Greatest Among the Most Socioeconomically Vulnerable Women Living in the Most Underserved Places

Background: Better health care among Canada’s socioeconomically vulnerable versus America’s has not been fully explained. We examined the effects of poverty, health insurance and the supply of primary care physicians on breast cancer care. Methods: We analyzed breast cancer data in Ontario (n = 950) and California (n = 6300) between 1996 and 2000 and followed until 2014. We obtained socioeconomic data from censuses, oversampling the poor. We obtained data on the supply of physicians, primary care and specialists. The optimal care criterion was being diagnosed early with node negative disease and received breast conserving surgery followed by adjuvant radiation therapy. Results: Women in Ontario received more optimal care in communities well supplied by primary care physicians. They were particularly advantaged in the most disadvantaged places: high poverty neighborhoods (rate ratio = 1.65) and communities lacking specialist physicians (rate ratio = 1.33). Canadian advantages were explained by better health insurance coverage and greater primary care access. Conclusions: Policy makers ought to ensure that the newly insured are adequately insured. The Medicaid program should be expanded, as intended, across all 50 states. Strengthening America’s system of primary care will probably be the best way to ensure that the Affordable Care Act’s full benefits are realized

The supply of physicians and care for breast cancer in Ontario and California, 1998 to 2006

INTRODUCTION: We examined the differential effects of the supply of physicians on care for breast cancer in Ontario and California. We then used criteria for optimum care for breast cancer to estimate the regional needs for the supply of physicians. METHODS: Ontario and California registries provided 951 and 984 instances of breast cancer diagnosed between 1998 and 2000 and followed until 2006. These cohorts were joined with the supply of county-level primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists in cancer care and compared on care for breast cancer. RESULTS: Significant protective PCP thresholds (7.75 to = 8.25 PCPs per 10 000 inhabitants) were observed for breast cancer diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.62), receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy (OR 1.64) and 5-year survival (OR 1.87) in Ontario, but not in California. The number of physicians seemed adequate to optimize care for breast cancer across diverse places in California and in most Ontario locations. However, there was an estimated need for 550 more PCPs and 200 more obstetrician-gynecologists in Ontario\u27s rural and small urban areas. We estimated gross physician surpluses for Ontario\u27s 2 largest cities. CONCLUSION: Policies are needed to functionally redistribute primary care and specialist physicians. Merely increasing the supply of physicians is unlikely to positively affect the health of Ontarians

Gender differences on the interacting effects of marital status and health insurance on long-term colon cancer survival in California, 1995-2014

Objectives. Long-term colon cancer survival is not well explained by main effects. We explored the interaction of age, gender, marital status, health insurance and poverty on 10-year colon cancer survival. Methods. California registry data were analyzed for 5,776 people diagnosed from 1995 to 2000; followed until 2014. Census data classified neighborhood poverty. We tested interactions with regressions and described them with standardized rates and rate ratios (RR). Results. The 5-way interaction was significant, suggesting larger 4-way disadvantages among non-Medicare-eligible people. A significant 4-way interaction was a 3-way interaction in non-high poverty neighborhoods only. Private insurance was protective for unmarried men (RR = 1.60) but not women, while it was protective for married women (RR = 1.22) but not men. This pattern seemed explained by lower-incomes of certain groups of unmarried women and married men and more prevalent underinsuring of unmarried men. Conclusions. Structural inequities related to the institutions of marriage and health care seem to affect women and men quite differently. Policy makers ought to be cognizant of such structural imbalances as future reforms of American health care are considered

Disparities among Minority Women with Breast Cancer Living in Impoverished Areas of California

Background: Interaction effects of poverty and health care insurance coverage on overall survival rates of breast cancer among women of color and non-Hispanic white women were explored. Methods: We analyzed California registry data for 2,024 women of color (black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, or other ethnicity) and 4,276 non-Hispanic white women (Anglo-European ancestries and no Hispanic-Latin ethnic backgrounds) diagnosed with breast cancer between the years 1996 and 2000 who were then followed until 2011. The 2000 US census categorized rates of neighborhood poverty. Health care insurance coverage was either private, Medicare, Medicaid, or none. Cox regression was used to model rates of survival. Results: A 3-way interaction between ethnicity, health care insurance coverage, and poverty was observed. Women of color inadequately insured and living in poor or near-poor neighborhoods in California were the most disadvantaged. Women of color adequately insured and who lived in such neighborhoods in California were also disadvantaged. The incomes of such women of color were typically lower than the incomes of non-Hispanic white women. Conclusions: Women of color with or without insurance coverage are disadvantaged in poor and near-poor neighborhoods of California. Such women may be less able to bare the indirect, direct, or uncovered costs of health care for breast cancer treatment

Mediation of the effects of living in extremely poor neighborhoods by health insurance: breast cancer care and survival in California, 1996 to 2011

Background: We examined the mediating effect of health insurance on poverty-breast cancer care and survival relationships and the moderating effect of poverty on health insurance-breast cancer care and survival relationships in California. Methods: Registry data for 6,300 women with breast cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2000 and followed until 2011 on stage at diagnosis, surgeries, adjuvant treatments and survival were analyzed. Socioeconomic data were obtained for residences from the 2000 census to categorize neighborhoods: high poverty (30% or more poor), middle poverty (5%-29% poor) and low poverty (less than 5% poor). Primary payers or health insurers were Medicaid, Medicare, private or uninsured. Results: Evidence of survival mediation was observed for women with node negative breast cancer. The apparent effect of poverty disappeared in the presence of Medicare or private health insurance. Women who were so insured were advantaged on 8-year survival compared to the uninsured or those insured by Medicaid (OR = 1.89). Evidence of payer moderation by poverty was also observed for women with node negative breast cancer. The survival advantaging effect of Medicare or private insurance was stronger in low poverty (OR = 1.81) than it was in middle poverty (OR = 1.57) or in high poverty neighborhoods (OR = 1.16). This same pattern of mediated and moderated effects was also observed for early stage at diagnosis, shorter waits for adjuvant radiation therapy and for the receipt of sentinel lymph node biopsies. These findings are consistent with the theory that more facilitative social and economic capital is available in low poverty neighborhoods, where women with breast cancer may be better able to absorb the indirect and direct, but uncovered, costs of care. As for treatments, main protective effects as well as moderator effects indicative of protection, particularly in high poverty neighborhoods were observed for women with private health insurance. Conclusions: America’s multi-tiered health insurance system mediates the quality of breast cancer care. The system is inequitable and unjust as it advantages the well insured and the well to do. Recent health care reforms ought to be enacted in ways that are consistent with their federal legislative intent, that high quality health care be truly available to all

Breast Cancer among Women Living in Poverty: Better Care in Canada than in the United States

This historical study estimated the protective effects of a universally accessible, single-payer health care system versus a multipayer system that leaves many uninsured or underinsured by comparing breast cancer care of women living in high-poverty neighborhoods in Ontario and California between 1996 and 2011. Women in Canada experienced better care, particularly as compared with women who were inadequately insured in the United States. Women in Canada were diagnosed earlier (rate ratio [RR] = 1.12) and enjoyed better access to breast conserving surgery (RR = 1.48), radiation (RR = 1.60), and hormone therapies (RR = 1.78). Women living in high-poverty Canadian neighborhoods even experienced shorter waits for surgery (RR = 0.58) and radiation therapy (RR = 0.44) than did such women in the United States. Consequently, women in Canada were much more likely to survive longer. Regression analyses indicated that health insurance could explain most of the better care and better outcomes in Canada. Over this study’s 15-year time frame 31,500 late diagnoses, 94,500 suboptimum treatment plans, and 103,500 early deaths were estimated in high-poverty U.S. neighborhoods due to relatively inadequate health insurance coverage. Implications for social work practice, including advocacy for future reforms of U.S. health care, are discussed

Effects of socioeconomic status on colon cancer treatment accessibility and survival in Toronto, Ontario, and San Francisco, California, 1996-2006

OBJECTIVES: We examined the differential effects of socioeconomic status on colon cancer care and survival in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and San Francisco, California. METHODS: We analyzed registry data for colon cancer patients from Ontario (n = 930) and California (n = 1014), diagnosed between 1996 and 2000 and followed until 2006, on stage, surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival. We obtained socioeconomic data for individuals\u27 residences from population censuses. RESULTS: Income was directly associated with lymph node evaluation, chemotherapy, and survival in San Francisco but not in Toronto. High-income persons had better survival rates in San Francisco than in Toronto. After adjustment for stage, survival was better for low-income residents of Toronto than for those of San Francisco. Middle- to low-income patients were more likely to receive indicated chemotherapy in Toronto than in San Francisco. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic factors appear to mediate colon cancer care in urban areas of the United States but not in Canada. Improvements are needed in screening, diagnostic investigations, and treatment access among low-income Americans

Colon cancer care and survival: income and insurance are more predictive in the USA, community primary care physician supply more so in Canada

Background: Our research group advanced a health insurance theory to explain Canada’s cancer care advantages over America. The late Barbara Starfield theorized that Canada’s greater primary care-orientation also plays a critically protective role. We tested the resultant Starfield-Gorey theory by examining the effects of poverty, health insurance and physician supplies, primary care and specialists, on colon cancer care in Ontario and California. Methods: We analyzed registry data for people with non-metastasized colon cancer from Ontario (n = 2,060) and California (n = 4,574) diagnosed between 1996 and 2000 and followed to 2010. We obtained census tract-based socioeconomic data from population censuses and data on county-level physician supplies from national repositories: primary care physicians, gastroenterologists and other specialists. High poverty neighborhoods were oversampled and the criterion was 10 year survival. Hypotheses were explored with standardized rate ratios (RR) and tested with logistic regression models. Results: Significant inverse associations of poverty (RR = 0.79) and inadequate health insurance (RR = 0.80) with survival were observed in the California, while they were non-significant or non-existent in Ontario. The direct associations of primary care physician (RRs of 1.32 versus 1.11) and gastroenterologist (RRs of 1.56 versus 1.15) supplies with survival were both stronger in Ontario than California. The supply of primary care physicians took precedence. Probably mediated through the initial course of treatment, it largely explained the Canadian advantage. Conclusions: Poverty and health insurance were more predictive in the USA, community physician supplies more so in Canada. Canada’s primary care protections were greatest among the most socioeconomically vulnerable. The protective effects of Canadian health care prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) clearly suggested the following. Notwithstanding the importance of insuring all, strengthening America’s system of primary care will probably be the best way to ensure that the ACA’s full benefits are realized. Finally, Canada’s strong primary care system ought to be maintained

Colon cancer care and survival: income and insurance are more predictive in the USA, community primary care physician supply more so in Canada

Background: Our research group advanced a health insurance theory to explain Canada’s cancer care advantages over America. The late Barbara Starfield theorized that Canada’s greater primary care-orientation also plays a critically protective role. We tested the resultant Starfield-Gorey theory by examining the effects of poverty, health insurance and physician supplies, primary care and specialists, on colon cancer care in Ontario and California. Methods: We analyzed registry data for people with non-metastasized colon cancer from Ontario (n = 2,060) and California (n = 4,574) diagnosed between 1996 and 2000 and followed to 2010. We obtained census tract-based socioeconomic data from population censuses and data on county-level physician supplies from national repositories: primary care physicians, gastroenterologists and other specialists. High poverty neighborhoods were oversampled and the criterion was 10 year survival. Hypotheses were explored with standardized rate ratios (RR) and tested with logistic regression models. Results: Significant inverse associations of poverty (RR = 0.79) and inadequate health insurance (RR = 0.80) with survival were observed in the California, while they were non-significant or non-existent in Ontario. The direct associations of primary care physician (RRs of 1.32 versus 1.11) and gastroenterologist (RRs of 1.56 versus 1.15) supplies with survival were both stronger in Ontario than California. The supply of primary care physicians took precedence. Probably mediated through the initial course of treatment, it largely explained the Canadian advantage. Conclusions: Poverty and health insurance were more predictive in the USA, community physician supplies more so in Canada. Canada’s primary care protections were greatest among the most socioeconomically vulnerable. The protective effects of Canadian health care prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) clearly suggested the following. Notwithstanding the importance of insuring all, strengthening America’s system of primary care will probably be the best way to ensure that the ACA’s full benefits are realized. Finally, Canada’s strong primary care system ought to be maintained

Effects of being uninsured or underinsured and living in high poverty neighborhoods on colon cancer care and survival in California: historical cohort analysis, 1996—2011

Background: We examined the mediating effects of health insurance on poverty-colon cancer care and survival relationships and the moderating effects of poverty on health insurance-colon cancer care and survival relationships among women and men in California. Methods: We analyzed registry data for 3,291 women and 3,009 men diagnosed with colon cancer between 1996 and 2000 and followed until 2011 on lymph node investigation, stage at diagnosis, surgery, chemotherapy, wait times and survival. We obtained socioeconomic data for individual residences from the 2000 census to categorize the following neighborhoods: high poverty (30% or more poor), middle poverty (5-29% poor) and low poverty (less than 5% poor). Primary health insurers were Medicaid, Medicare, private or none. Results: Evidence of mediation was observed for women, but not for men. For women, the apparent effect of poverty disappeared in the presence of payer, and the effects of all forms of health insurance seemed strengthened. All were advantaged on 6-year survival compared to the uninsured: Medicaid (RR = 1.83), Medicare (RR = 1.92) and private (RR = 1.83). Evidence of moderation was also only observed for women. The effects of all forms of health insurance were stronger for women in low poverty neighborhoods: Medicaid (RR = 2.90), Medicare (RR = 2.91) and private (RR = 2.60). For men, only main effects of poverty and payers were observed, the advantaging effect of private insurance being largest. Across colon cancer care processes, Medicare seemed most instrumental for women, private payers for men. Conclusions: Health insurance substantially mediates the quality of colon cancer care and poverty seems to make the effects of being uninsured or underinsured even worse, especially among women in the United States. These findings are consistent with the theory that more facilitative social and economic capital is available in more affluent neighborhoods, where women with colon cancer may be better able to absorb the indirect and direct, but uncovered, costs of care