Nengliang Yao1, Fabian T Camacho1, Askar S Chukmaitov1, Steven T Fleming1, Roger T Anderson1. 1. 1 Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, College of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298, USA ; 2 College of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA ; 3 College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the management of comorbidities in cancer patients. This study used population-based data to estimate the guideline concordance rates for diabetes management before and after cancer diagnosis and examined if diabetes management services among cancer patients was associated with characteristics of the hospital where the patient was treated. METHODS: We linked 2005-2009 Medicare claims data to information on 2,707 breast and colorectal cancers patients in state cancer registry files. Multivariate logistic regression models examined hospital characteristics associated with receipt of diabetes management care after cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: The rates of HbAlc testing, LDL-C testing, and retinal eye exam decreased from 72.7%, 79.6%, and 57.9% before cancer diagnosis to 58.3%, 69.5%, and 55.8% after diagnosis. The pre- and post-diagnosis diabetes management care was not significantly different by hospital characteristics in the bivariate analysis except for that the distance between residence and hospital was negatively related to retinal eye exam after diagnosis (P<0.05). The multivariate analysis did not identify any significant differences in diabetes management care after cancer diagnosis by hospital characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients received fewer diabetes management care after diagnosis than prior to diagnosis, even for those who were treated in large comprehensive centers. This may reflect a missed opportunity to connect diabetic cancer patients to diabetes care. This study provides benchmarks to measure improvements in comorbidity management among cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the management of comorbidities in cancerpatients. This study used population-based data to estimate the guideline concordance rates for diabetes management before and after cancer diagnosis and examined if diabetes management services among cancerpatients was associated with characteristics of the hospital where the patient was treated. METHODS: We linked 2005-2009 Medicare claims data to information on 2,707 breast and colorectal cancerspatients in state cancer registry files. Multivariate logistic regression models examined hospital characteristics associated with receipt of diabetes management care after cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: The rates of HbAlc testing, LDL-C testing, and retinal eye exam decreased from 72.7%, 79.6%, and 57.9% before cancer diagnosis to 58.3%, 69.5%, and 55.8% after diagnosis. The pre- and post-diagnosis diabetes management care was not significantly different by hospital characteristics in the bivariate analysis except for that the distance between residence and hospital was negatively related to retinal eye exam after diagnosis (P<0.05). The multivariate analysis did not identify any significant differences in diabetes management care after cancer diagnosis by hospital characteristics. CONCLUSIONS:Cancerpatients received fewer diabetes management care after diagnosis than prior to diagnosis, even for those who were treated in large comprehensive centers. This may reflect a missed opportunity to connect diabetic cancerpatients to diabetes care. This study provides benchmarks to measure improvements in comorbidity management among cancerpatients.
Authors: Steven T Fleming; Susan A Sabatino; Gretchen Kimmick; Rosemary Cress; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Bin Huang; Wenke Hwang; Jonathan Liff Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Roger T Anderson; Tse-Chang Yang; Stephen A Matthews; Fabian Camacho; Teresa Kern; Heath B Mackley; Gretchen Kimmick; Christopher Louis; Eugene Lengerich; Nengliang Yao Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Rosemary D Cress; Alan M Zaslavsky; Dee W West; Robert E Wolf; Martha C Felter; John Z Ayanian Journal: Med Care Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Steven S Coughlin; Eugenia E Calle; Lauren R Teras; Jennifer Petrelli; Michael J Thun Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Michelle Doose; Jennifer Tsui; Michael B Steinberg; Cathleen Y Xing; Yong Lin; Joel C Cantor; Chi-Chen Hong; Kitaw Demissie; Elisa V Bandera Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jacklyn Cho; Daniela Nilo; Madeline R Sterling; Lisa M Kern; Monika M Safford; Laura C Pinheiro Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Erin Worndl; Kinwah Fung; Hadas D Fischer; Peter C Austin; Monika K Krzyzanowska; Lorraine L Lipscombe Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2018-05-11
Authors: Anne Beiter Arreskov; Maria Å Olsen; Sandra Sinius Pouplier; Volkert Siersma; Christen L Andersen; Søren Friis; Niels de Fine Olivarius Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 2.763
Authors: Laura Ashley; Saifuddin Kassim; Ian Kellar; Lisa Kidd; Frances Mair; Mike Matthews; Mollie Price; Daniel Swinson; Johanna Taylor; Galina Velikova; Jonathan Wadsley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 2.692