Colon cancer care of Hispanic people in California: Paradoxical barrio protections seem greatest among vulnerable populations

Background: We examined paradoxical and barrio advantaging effects on cancer care among socioeconomically vulnerable Hispanic people in California. Methods: We secondarily analyzed a colon cancer cohort of 3,877 non-Hispanic white (NHW) and 735 Hispanic people treated between 1995 and 2005. A third of the cohort was selected from high poverty neighborhoods. Hispanic enclaves and Mexican American (MA) barrios were neighborhoods where 40% or more of the residents were Hispanic or MA. Key analyses were restricted to high poverty neighborhoods. Results: Hispanic people were more likely to receive chemotherapy (RR=1.18), especially men in Hispanic enclaves (RR=1.33) who were also advantaged on survival (RR=1.20). A survival advantage was also suggested among MA men who resided in barrios (RR=1.80). Conclusions: The findings were supportive of Hispanic paradox and MA barrio advantage theories. They further suggested that such advantages are greater for men, perhaps due to their greater spousal and extended familial support

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

Palliative chemotherapy among people living in poverty with metastasised colon cancer: Facilitation by primary care and health insurance

Background: Many Americans with metastasised colon cancer do not receive indicated palliative chemotherapy. We examined the effects of health insurance and physician supplies on such chemotherapy in California. Methods: We analysed registry data for 1199 people with metastasised colon cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2000 and followed for 1 year. We obtained data on health insurance, census tract-based socioeconomic status and county-level physician supplies. Poor neighbourhoods were oversampled and the criterion was receipt of chemotherapy. Effects were described with rate ratios (RR) and tested with logistic regression models. Results: Palliative chemotherapy was received by less than half of the participants (45%). Facilitating effects of primary care (RR=1.23) and health insurance (RR=1.14) as well as an impeding effect of specialised care (RR=0.86) were observed. Primary care physician (PCP) supply took precedence. Adjusting for poverty, PCP supply was the only significant and strong predictor of chemotherapy (OR=1.62, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.56). The threshold for this primary care advantage was realised in communities with 8.5 or more PCPs per 10 000 inhabitants. Only 10% of participants lived in such well-supplied communities. Conclusions: This study’s observations of facilitating effects of primary care and health insurance on palliative chemotherapy for metastasised colon cancer clearly suggested a way to maximise Affordable Care Act (ACA) protections. Strengthening America’s system of primary care will probably be the best way to ensure that the ACA’s full benefits are realised. Such would go a long way towards facilitating access to palliative care

Better Colon Cancer Care for Extremely Poor Canadian Women Compared with American Women

Extremely poor Canadian women were recently observed to be largely advantaged on most aspects of breast cancer care as compared with similarly poor, but much less adequately insured, women in the United States. This historical study systematically replicated the protective effects of single- versus multipayer health care by comparing colon cancer care among cohorts of extremely poor women in California and Ontario between 1996 and 2011. The Canadian women were again observed to have been largely advantaged. They were more likely to have received indicated surgery and chemotherapy, and their wait times for care were significantly shorter. Consequently, the Canadian women were much more likely to experience longer survival times. Regression analyses indicated that health insurance nearly completely explained the Canadian advantages. Implications for contemporary and future reforms of U.S. health care are discussed

Lack of access to chemotherapy for colon cancer: multiplicative disadvantage of being extremely poor, inadequately insured and African American

Abstract Background Despite evidence of chemotherapy’s ability to cure or comfort those with colon cancer, nearly half of such Americans do not receive it. African Americans (AA) seem particularly disadvantaged. An ethnicity by poverty by health insurance interaction was hypothesized such that the multiplicative disadvantage of being extremely poor and inadequately insured is worse for AAs than for non-Hispanic white Americans (NHWA). Methods California registry data were analyzed for 459 AAs and 3,001 NHWAs diagnosed with stage II to IV colon cancer between 1996 and 2000 and followed until 2011. Socioeconomic data from the 2000 census categorized neighborhoods: extremely poor (≥ 30% of households poor), middle (5-29% poor) and low poverty (< 5% poor). Participants were randomly selected from these poverty strata. Primary health insurers were Medicaid, Medicare, private or none. Chemotherapy rates were age and stage-adjusted and comparisons used standardized rate ratios (RR). Logistic and Cox regressions, respectively, modeled chemotherapy receipt and long term survival. Results A significant 3-way ethnicity by poverty by health insurance interaction effect on chemotherapy receipt was observed. Among those who did not live in extremely poor neighborhoods and were adequately insured privately or by Medicare, chemotherapy rates did not differ significantly between AAs (37.7%) and NHWAs (39.5%). Among those who lived in extremely poor neighborhoods and were inadequately insured by Medicaid or uninsured, AAs (14.6%) were nearly 60% less likely to receive chemotherapy than were NHWAs (25.5%, RR = 0.41). When the 3-way interaction effect as well as the main effects of poverty, health insurance and chemotherapy was accounted for, survival rates of AAs and NHWAs were the same. Conclusions The multiplicative barrier to colon cancer care that results from being extremely poor and inadequately insured is worse for AAs than it is for NHWAs. AAs are more prevalently poor, inadequately insured, and have fewer assets so they are probably less able to absorb the indirect and direct, but uncovered, costs of colon cancer care. Policy makers ought to be cognizant of these factors as they implement the Affordable Care Act and consider future health care reforms