BACKGROUND: It is strongly recommended that adults aged 50-75 years be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). Recommended screening options include colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or the more recently introduced FIT-DNA (FIT in combination with a stool DNA test). CRC screening programs can benefit from knowledge of patterns of use by test type and within population subgroups. METHODS: Using 2018 National Health Interview Survey data, we examined CRC screening test use for adults aged 50-75 years (N=10,595). We also examined time trends in CRC screening test use from 2010-2018. RESULTS: In 2018, an estimated 66.9% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years had a CRC screening test within recommended time intervals. However, the prevalence was less than 50% among those aged 50-54 years, those without a usual source of health care, those with no doctor visits in the past year, and those who were uninsured. The test types most commonly used within recommended time intervals were colonoscopy within 10 years (61.1%), FOBT or FIT in the past year (8.8%), and FIT-DNA within 3 years (2.7%). After age-standardization to the 2010 census population, the percentage up-to-date with CRC screening increased from 61.2% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2018, driven by increased use of stool testing, including FIT-DNA. CONCLUSIONS: These results show some progress, driven by a modest increase in stool testing. However, CRC testing remains low in many population subgroups. IMPACT: These results can inform efforts to achieve population CRC screening goals.

The national prevalence of employment changes after a cancer diagnosis has not been fully documented. Cancer survivors who worked for pay at or since diagnosis (n = 1,490) were identified from the 2011, 2016 and 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and Experiences with Cancer Supplements. Analyses characterized employment changes due to cancer and identified correlates of those employment changes. Employment changes were made by 41.3% (95% CI = 38.0% to 44.6%) of cancer survivors, representing over 3.5 million adults in the United States. Of these, 75.4% (95% CI = 71.3 to 79.2%) took extended paid time-off and 46.1% (95% CI = 41.6 to 50.7%) made other changes, including switching to part-time or to a less demanding job. Cancer survivors who were younger, female, non-white or multiple races/ethnicities, and <20 years since last cancer treatment were more likely to make employment changes. Findings highlight the need for patient-provider communication about the effects of cancer and its treatment on employment.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the importance of cost-related discussions in cancer care, little is known about the prevalence or drivers of these discussions in clinical practice. This study estimates the prevalence and examines the correlates of cancer survivors' discussions about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care with providers. METHODS: The 2016 and 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Surveys were used to identify 1,550 survivors who responded to the question on discussion about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. Multivariable multinomial logistic regression examined the correlates of discussions about out-of-pocket costs. Analyses were performed in 2019. RESULTS: Approximately one quarter of cancer survivors reported having discussed the out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. In multivariable analyses, respondents in the following categories were less likely to report no cost discussion than any cost discussion: black non-Hispanic/other race (RRR=0.67, 95% CI=0.45, 0.98; white non-Hispanic race as reference), no health insurance at diagnosis (RRR=0.51, 95% CI=0.27, 0.95; private health insurance as reference), and any experience of financial hardship (RRR=0.48, 95% CI=0.35, 0.66; no financial hardship as reference). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported discussions about out-of-pocket costs for cancer care are infrequent in the U.S. The findings highlight the needs to improve the understanding of the barriers and facilitators for effective discussions about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care.

This study examines the prevalence at which cancer survivors and their spouses/partners in the US stay at their jobs to maintain employer-based health insurance.

Purpose -: To examine associations by gender between cancer history and major health insurance transitions (gains and losses), and relationships between insurance transitions and access to care. Methodology -: Longitudinal 2008-2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data pooled yielding 2,223 cancer survivors and 50,692 individuals with no cancer history ages 18-63 years upon survey entry, with gender-specific sub-analyses. Access-to-care implications of insurance loss or gain were compared by cancer history and gender. Findings -: Initially uninsured cancer survivors were significantly more likely to gain insurance coverage than individuals with no cancer history (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.08-1.44). Females in particular were significantly more likely to gain insurance (unmarried RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.06-1.28; married RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.02-1.16). Significantly higher rates of difficulty accessing needed medical care and prescription medications were reported by those remaining uninsured, those who lost insurance, and women in general. Remaining uninsured, losing insurance, and male gender were associated with lack of a usual source of care. Research implications -: Additional outreach to disadvantaged populations is needed to improve access to affordable insurance and medical care. Future longitudinal studies should assess whether major Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions enacted after the 2008-2013 study period (or those of ACA's replacement) are addressing these important issues. Originality -: Loss of health insurance coverage can reduce health care access resulting in poor health outcomes. Cancer survivors may be particularly at risk of insurance coverage gaps due to the long-term chronic disease trajectory. This study is novel in exploring associations between cancer history by gender and health insurance transitions, both gains and losses, in a national non-elderly adult sample.

In the United States in 2019, an estimated 16.9 million persons are living after receiving a cancer diagnosis (1). These cancer survivors face many challenges, including functional limitations, serious psychological distress (2), and other lasting and late effects of cancer treatments. Because of the high cost of cancer therapy, many cancer survivors are more likely to face substantial out-of-pocket health care expenditures and financial hardship, compared with persons without a history of cancer (3,4). Out-of-pocket expenditures and financial hardship associated with cancer have been higher among survivors aged 18-64 years than they have been among older survivors (5). To estimate annual out-of-pocket expenditures and financial hardship among cancer survivors aged 18-64 years, compared with persons without a cancer history, CDC, the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute analyzed data from the 2011-2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).* The average annual out-of-pocket spending per person was significantly higher among cancer survivors ($1,000; 95% confidence interval [CI] = $886-$1,113) than among persons without a cancer history ($622; CI = $606-$639). Financial hardship was common; 25.3% of cancer survivors reported material hardship (e.g., problems paying medical bills), and 34.3% reported psychological hardship (e.g., worry about medical bills). These findings add to accumulating evidence documenting the financial difficulties of many cancer survivors. Mitigating the negative impact of cancer in the United States will require implementation of strategies aimed at alleviating the disproportionate financial hardship experienced by many survivors. These strategies include systematic screening for financial hardship at cancer diagnosis and throughout cancer care, integration of discussions about the potential for adverse financial consequences of treatments in shared treatment decision-making, and linkage of patients and survivors to available resources to ensure access to high-quality evidence-based care.

PURPOSE: To assess the financial outcomes and associated social and economic effects on cancer survivors and their families. METHODS: We assessed the responses of 1656 cancer survivors to a survey with both closed- and open-ended questions about cancer-related financial sacrifices they and their family experienced and evaluated differences in financial sacrifice by reported levels of cancer-related debt. RESULTS: The most commonly reported financial sacrifices included cutbacks on household budgets, challenges with health care insurance and costs, career/self-advancement constraints, reduction/depletion of assets, and inability to pay bills. Survivors who incurred $10,000 or more in debt were significantly more likely to report social and economic impacts, including housing concerns and strained relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates both the frequency with which cancer survivors and families must make financial sacrifices as a result of their cancer, and the variety of forms that this sacrifice can take, even for individuals who have health insurance. The many types of financial hardship create challenges that are unique to each survivor and family. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Interventions that allow for personalized assistance with the specific financial and social needs of cancer survivors and their families have the potential to address a critical aspect of the long-term wellbeing of this important population.

Regular colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for reducing CRC incidence and mortality. This paper provides an updated analysis of CRC screening in the United States (US) and examines CRC screening by several features of health insurance coverage. Recommendation-consistent CRC screening was calculated for adults aged 50-75 in 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015 using data from the National Health Interview Survey. CRC screening prevalence in 2015 was described overall and by sociodemographic subgroups. CRC screening by health insurance coverage was further examined using multivariable logistic regression, stratified by age (50-64years and 65-75years) and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, time in US, and comorbid conditions. Recommendation-consistent screening increased from 51.6% in 2008 to 58.3% in 2010 (p<0.001). Use plateaued from 2010 to 2013 but increased to 61.3% in 2015 (p<0.001). In 2015, adults aged 50-64years with traditional employer-sponsored private insurance were more likely to be screened (62.2%) than those with traditional private direct purchase plans (50.9%) and the uninsured (24.8%) (p<0.01, respectively). After multivariable adjustment, differences between traditional employer-sponsored private insurance and the uninsured remained statistically significant. Adults aged 65-75 with Medicare and private insurance were more likely to be screened (76.3%) than those with Medicare, no supplemental insurance (68.8%) or Medicare and Medicaid (65.2%) (p<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the differences between Medicare and private insurance and Medicare no supplemental insurance remained statistically significant. CRC screening rates have increased over time, but certain segments of the population, especially the uninsured, continue to screen below recommended levels.

BACKGROUND: We examined the longitudinal association between sociodemographic factors and an expanded definition of underemployment among those with and without cancer history in the United States. METHODS: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2007-2013) were used in multivariable regression analyses to compare employment status between baseline and two-year follow-up among adults aged 25-62 years at baseline (n = 1,614 with and n = 39,324 without cancer). Underemployment was defined as becoming/staying unemployed, changing from full to part-time, or reducing part-time work significantly. Interaction effects between cancer history/time since diagnosis and predictors known to be associated with employment patterns, including age, gender/marital status, education, and health insurance status at baseline were modeled. RESULTS: Approximately 25% of cancer survivors and 21% of individuals without cancer reported underemployment at follow-up (p = 0.002). Multivariable analyses indicated that those with a cancer history report underemployment more frequently (24.7%) than those without cancer (21.4%, p = 0.002) with underemployment rates increasing with time since cancer diagnosis. A significant interaction between gender/marital status and cancer history and underemployment was found (p = 0.0004). There were no other significant interactions. Married female survivors diagnosed >10 years ago reported underemployment most commonly (38.7%), and married men without cancer reported underemployment most infrequently (14.0%). A wider absolute difference in underemployment reports for married versus unmarried women as compared to married versus unmarried men was evident, with the widest difference apparent for unmarried versus married women diagnosed >10 years ago (18.1% vs. 38.7%). CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors are more likely to experience underemployment than those without cancer. Longer time since cancer diagnosis and gender/marital status are critical factors in predicting those at greatest risk of underemployment. The impact of cancer on work should be systematically studied across sociodemographic groups and recognized as a component of comprehensive survivorship care.

PURPOSE: With increasing cancer care costs and greater patient cost-sharing in the USA, understanding access to medical care among cancer survivors is imperative. This study aims to identify financial, psychosocial, and cancer-related barriers to the receipt of medical care, tests, or treatments deemed necessary by the doctor or patient for cancer among cancer survivors age < 65 years. METHODS: We used data on 4321 cancer survivors aged 18-64 years who completed the 2012 LIVESTRONG Survey. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with the receipt of necessary medical care, including sociodemographic, financial hardship, debt amount, caregiver status, and cancer-related variables. RESULTS: Approximately 28% of cancer survivors were within 1 year, and 43% between 1 and 5 years, since their last treatment at the time of survey. Nearly 9% of cancer survivors reported not receiving necessary medical care. Compared to survivors without financial hardship, the likelihood of not receiving necessary medical care significantly increased as the amount of debt increased among those with financial hardship (RRFinancial hardship w/< $10,000 debt = 1.94, 95% CI 1.55-2.42, and RR RRFinancial hardship w/≥ $10,000 debt = 3.41, 95% CI 2.69-4.33, p < 0.001). Survivors who reported lack of a caregiver, being uninsured, and not receiving help understanding medical bills were significantly more likely to not receive necessary medical care. CONCLUSION: We identified key financial and insurance risk factors that may serve as significant barriers to the receipt of necessary medical care among cancer survivors age < 65 in the USA IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The majority of cancer survivors reported receiving medical care either they or their doctors deemed necessary. However, identifying potentially modifiable barriers to receipt of necessary medical cancer care among cancer survivors age < 65 is imperative for developing interventions to ensure equitable access to care and reducing cancer disparities.

Objectives: Cancer survivors require appropriate health care to manage their unique health needs. This study describes access to cancer care among cancer survivors in the United States and compares access to general medical care between cancer survivors and people who have no history of cancer. Methods: We assessed access to general medical care using the core 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). We assessed access to cancer care using the MEPS Experiences With Cancer Survey. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare access to general medical care among 2 groups of cancer survivors (those who reported having access to all necessary cancer care [n = 1088] and those who did not [n = 70]) with self-reported access to general medical care among people who had no history of cancer (n = 22 434). Results: Of the 1158 cancer survivors, 70 (6.0%) reported that they did not receive all necessary cancer care. Adjusted analyses found that cancer survivors who reported not receiving all necessary cancer care were also less likely to report receiving general medical care (78.0%) than cancer survivors who reported having access to necessary cancer care (87.1%) and people who had no history of cancer (87.8%). Conclusions: This study provides nationally representative data on the proportion of cancer survivors who have access to necessary cancer care and yields insight into factors that impede survivors’ access to both cancer care and general medical care. This study is a reference for future work on access to care.

PURPOSE: Previous research describing how informal cancer caregiving impacts employment has been conducted in small samples or a single disease site. This paper provides population-based estimates of the effect of informal cancer caregiving on employment and characterizes employment changes made by caregivers. METHODS: The samples included cancer survivors with a friend or family caregiver, participating in either the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Survey (ECSS) (n = 458) or the LIVESTRONG 2012 Survey for People Affected by Cancer (SPAC) (n = 4706). Descriptive statistics characterized the sample of survivors and their caregivers' employment changes. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of caregivers' extended employment changes, comprising time off and changes to hours, duties, or employment status. RESULTS: Among survivors with an informal caregiver, 25 % from the ECSS and 29 % from the SPAC reported that their caregivers made extended employment changes. Approximately 8 % of survivors had caregivers who took time off from work lasting ≥2 months. Caregivers who made extended employment changes were more likely to care for survivors: treated with chemotherapy or transplant; closer to diagnosis or end of treatment; who experienced functional limitations; and made work changes due to cancer themselves compared to caregivers who did not make extended employment changes. CONCLUSIONS: Many informal cancer caregivers make employment changes to provide care during survivors' treatment and recovery. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study describes cancer caregiving in a prevalent sample of cancer survivors, thereby reflecting the experiences of individuals with many different cancer types and places in the cancer treatment trajectory.

BACKGROUND: We examined mammography use before and after Medicare eliminated cost sharing for screening mammography in January 2011. METHODS: Using National Health Interview Survey data, we examined changes in mammography use between 2010 and 2013 among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-74 years. Logistic regression and predictive margins were used to examine changes in use after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: In 2013, 74.7% of women reported a mammogram within 2 years, a 3.5 percentage point increase (95% confidence interval, -0.3, 7.2) compared with 2010. Increases occurred among women aged 65-69 years, unmarried women, and women with usual sources of care and 2-5 physician visits in the prior year. After adjustment, mammography use increased in 2013 versus 2010 (74.8% vs. 71.3%, P=0.039). Interactions between year and income, insurance, race, or ethnicity were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: There was a modest increase in mammography use from 2010 to 2013 among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-74 years, possibly consistent with an effect of eliminating Medicare cost sharing during this time. Findings suggest that eliminating cost sharing might increase use of recommended screening services.

The rising medical costs associated with cancer have led to considerable financial hardship for patients and their families in the United States. Using data from the LIVESTRONG 2012 survey of 4,719 cancer survivors ages 18-64, we examined the proportions of survivors who reported going into debt or filing for bankruptcy as a result of cancer, as well as the amount of debt incurred. Approximately one-third of the survivors had gone into debt, and 3 percent had filed for bankruptcy. Of those who had gone into debt, 55 percent incurred obligations of $10,000 or more. Cancer survivors who were younger, had lower incomes, and had public health insurance were more likely to go into debt or file for bankruptcy, compared to those who were older, had higher incomes, and had private insurance, respectively. Future longitudinal population-based studies are needed to improve understanding of financial hardship among US working-age cancer survivors throughout the cancer care trajectory and, ultimately, to help stakeholders develop evidence-based interventions and policies to reduce the financial hardship of cancer.

PURPOSE: To estimate the prevalence of financial hardship associated with cancer in the United States and identify characteristics of cancer survivors associated with financial hardship. METHODS: We identified 1,202 adult cancer survivors diagnosed or treated at ≥ 18 years of age from the 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences With Cancer questionnaire. Material financial hardship was measured by ever (1) borrowing money or going into debt, (2) filing for bankruptcy, (3) being unable to cover one's share of medical care costs, or (4) making other financial sacrifices because of cancer, its treatment, and lasting effects of treatment. Psychological financial hardship was measured as ever worrying about paying large medical bills. We examined factors associated with any material or psychological financial hardship using separate multivariable logistic regression models stratified by age group (18 to 64 and ≥ 65 years). RESULTS: Material financial hardship was more common in cancer survivors age 18 to 64 years than in those ≥ 65 years of age (28.4% v 13.8%; P < .001), as was psychological financial hardship (31.9% v 14.7%, P < .001). In adjusted analyses, cancer survivors age 18 to 64 years who were younger, female, nonwhite, and treated more recently and who had changed employment because of cancer were significantly more likely to report any material financial hardship. Cancer survivors who were uninsured, had lower family income, and were treated more recently were more likely to report psychological financial hardship. Among cancer survivors ≥ 65 years of age, those who were younger were more likely to report any financial hardship. CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors, especially the working-age population, commonly experience material and psychological financial hardship.

BACKGROUND: Serious psychological distress (SPD) is associated with adverse health outcomes such as poor quality of life and shorter survival in cancer survivors, but to the authors' knowledge, the relationship between SPD and health care use and medical expenditures is not clear. METHODS: A total of 4326 cancer survivors and 57,109 noncancer participants were identified from the 2008 through 2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a nationwide population-based survey, and their psychological distress was assessed with the 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (SPD defined by a score ≥13). The association between SPD and use and medical expenditures of various types of health care (office-based, outpatient, hospital inpatient, emergency department, dental, and prescriptions) was examined using a 2-part modeling approach that adjusted for demographic, personal, and comorbidity factors. The marginal effects of SPD on health care use and expenditures were calculated for cancer survivors and were compared with those of noncancer participants. RESULTS: The weighted prevalence of SPD in cancer survivors was 8.2% compared with 4.8% in the noncancer participants. SPD was significantly associated with higher use of all care types except dental care in cancer survivors. Cancer survivors with SPD spent $4431 (95% confidence interval, $3419-$5443) more than survivors without SPD on medical services each year, whereas this extra expenditure associated with SPD for participants without cancer was $2685 (95% confidence interval, $2099-$3271). CONCLUSIONS: In a national representative sample of cancer survivors, SPD was found to be associated with higher health care use and medical expenditures. Distress screening and psychosocial care in cancer survivors may help reduce the economic burden of cancer in the United States.

To meet the complex needs of a growing number of cancer survivors, it is essential to accelerate the translation of survivorship research into evidence-based interventions and, as appropriate, recommendations for care that may be implemented in a wide variety of settings. Current progress in translating research into care is stymied, with results of many studies un- or underutilized. To better understand this problem and identify strategies to encourage the translation of survivorship research findings into practice, four agencies (American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, LIVE STRONG: Foundation, National Cancer Institute) hosted a meeting in June, 2012, titled: "Biennial Cancer Survivorship Research Conference: Translating Science to Care." Meeting participants concluded that accelerating science into care will require a coordinated, collaborative effort by individuals from diverse settings, including researchers and clinicians, survivors and families, public health professionals, and policy makers. This commentary describes an approach stemming from that meeting to facilitate translating research into care by changing the process of conducting research-improving communication, collaboration, evaluation, and feedback through true and ongoing partnerships. We apply the T0-T4 translational process model to survivorship research and provide illustrations of its use. The resultant framework is intended to orient stakeholders to the role of their work in the translational process and facilitate the transdisciplinary collaboration needed to translate basic discoveries into best practices regarding clinical care, self-care/management, and community programs for cancer survivors. Finally, we discuss barriers to implementing translational survivorship science identified at the meeting, along with future directions to accelerate this process.

The number of persons in the United States with a history of cancer has increased from 3 million in 1971 to approximately 13.4 million in 2012, representing 4.6% of the population. Given the advances in early detection and treatment of cancer and the aging of the U.S. population, the number of cancer survivors is projected to increase by >30% during the next decade, to approximately 18 million. Cancer survivors face many challenges with medical care follow-up, managing the long-term and late effects of treatments, monitoring for recurrence, and an increased risk for additional cancers. These survivors also face economic challenges, including limitations in work and daily activities, obtaining health insurance coverage and accessing health care, and increasing medical care costs. To estimate annual medical costs and productivity losses among male and female cancer survivors and persons without a cancer history, CDC, along with other organizations, analyzed data from the 2008-2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The results indicate that the economic burden of cancer survivorship is substantial among all survivors. For male cancer survivors, during 2008-2011, average annual medical costs and productivity losses resulting from health problems per person and adjusted to 2011 dollars were significantly higher among cancer survivors than among persons without a cancer history, by $4,187 and $1,459, respectively; for females, the estimated annual costs per person were $3,293 and $1,330 higher among cancer survivors than among persons without a cancer history, respectively. These findings suggest the need to develop and evaluate health and employment intervention programs aimed at improving outcomes for cancer survivors and their families.

PURPOSE: To present nationally representative estimates of the impact of cancer survivorship on medical expenditures and lost productivity among adults in the United States. METHODS: Using the 2008 to 2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we identified 4,960 cancer survivors and 64,431 individuals without a history of cancer age ≥ 18 years. Direct medical costs were measured using annual health care expenditures and examined by source of payment and service type. Indirect morbidity costs were estimated from lost productivity as a result of employment disability, missed work days, and lost household productivity. We evaluated the economic burden of cancer survivorship by estimating excess costs among cancer survivors, stratified by time since diagnosis (recently diagnosed [≤ 1 year] and previously diagnosed [> 1 year]), compared with individuals without a history of cancer using multivariable regression models stratified by age (18 to 64 and ≥ 65 years), controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and comorbidities. RESULTS: In 2008 to 2010, the annual excess economic burden of cancer survivorship among recently diagnosed cancer survivors was $16,213 per survivor age 18 to 64 years and $16,441 per survivor age ≥ 65 years. Among previously diagnosed cancer survivors, the annual excess burden was $4,427 per survivor age 18 to 64 years and $4,519 per survivor age ≥ 65 years. Excess medical expenditures composed the largest share of the economic burden among cancer survivors, particularly among those recently diagnosed. CONCLUSION: The economic impact of cancer survivorship is considerable and is also high years after a cancer diagnosis. Efforts to reduce the economic burden caused by cancer will be increasingly important given the growing population of cancer survivors.