Jesse J Plascak1, James L Fisher2, Electra D Paskett3. 1. Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: plascak@uw.edu. 2. James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute. 3. James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Division of Cancer Control and Prevention, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the joint effects of insurance type and primary care physician density on stage at diagnosis is essential to elucidating the healthcare access and late-stage cancer relationship. PURPOSE: To determine if the relationship between primary care physician density and odds of late-stage cancer are modified by insurance type at diagnosis. METHODS: Case patients were Ohio adults diagnosed between 1996 and 2008 with cancer of one of the following sites: female breast, cervix, colon/rectum, lung/bronchus, melanoma of the skin, oral cavity and pharynx, or prostate (N=376,425). County-level physician density was obtained from the Ohio Department of Health. Multilevel logistic regression models estimated odds ratios of late-stage cancer diagnosis associated with increases in primary care physician density by insurance type. Analyses were conducted in 2014. RESULTS: Decreases in late-stage diagnosis of cancers of the breast, prostate, melanoma of the skin, oral cavity and pharynx, or lung/bronchus associated with increases in primary care physician density were strongest among those with private insurance, whereas those with Medicare (prostate, oral cavity and pharynx, lung/bronchus), Medicaid (lung/bronchus), uninsured (prostate), and other/unknown (prostate, oral cavity and pharynx, lung/bronchus) did not benefit as greatly, or experienced significant increases in late-stage cancer diagnosis (other/unknown [female breast], Medicaid [melanoma of the skin], and uninsured [colon/rectum]). CONCLUSIONS: As primary care physician density increases, those with private insurance consistently benefit the most in terms of late-stage cancer diagnosis, whereas those with several other insurance types experience flatter decreases or significantly higher odds of late-stage cancer diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: Understanding the joint effects of insurance type and primary care physician density on stage at diagnosis is essential to elucidating the healthcare access and late-stage cancer relationship. PURPOSE: To determine if the relationship between primary care physician density and odds of late-stage cancer are modified by insurance type at diagnosis. METHODS: Case patients were Ohio adults diagnosed between 1996 and 2008 with cancer of one of the following sites: female breast, cervix, colon/rectum, lung/bronchus, melanoma of the skin, oral cavity and pharynx, or prostate (N=376,425). County-level physician density was obtained from the Ohio Department of Health. Multilevel logistic regression models estimated odds ratios of late-stage cancer diagnosis associated with increases in primary care physician density by insurance type. Analyses were conducted in 2014. RESULTS: Decreases in late-stage diagnosis of cancers of the breast, prostate, melanoma of the skin, oral cavity and pharynx, or lung/bronchus associated with increases in primary care physician density were strongest among those with private insurance, whereas those with Medicare (prostate, oral cavity and pharynx, lung/bronchus), Medicaid (lung/bronchus), uninsured (prostate), and other/unknown (prostate, oral cavity and pharynx, lung/bronchus) did not benefit as greatly, or experienced significant increases in late-stage cancer diagnosis (other/unknown [female breast], Medicaid [melanoma of the skin], and uninsured [colon/rectum]). CONCLUSIONS: As primary care physician density increases, those with private insurance consistently benefit the most in terms of late-stage cancer diagnosis, whereas those with several other insurance types experience flatter decreases or significantly higher odds of late-stage cancer diagnosis.
Authors: R G Roetzheim; N Pal; D J van Durme; D Wathington; J M Ferrante; E C Gonzalez; J P Krischer Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Robert A Smith; Vilma Cokkinides; Durado Brooks; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Steven S Coughlin; Lisa C Richardson; Jean Orelien; Trevor Thompson; Thomas B Richards; Susan A Sabatino; Wei Wu; Darryl Cooney Journal: Open Health Serv Policy J Date: 2009-01-01
Authors: Loraine A Escobedo; Ashley Crew; Ariana Eginli; David Peng; Michael R Cousineau; Myles Cockburn Journal: Health Place Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 4.078