Eric E Seiber1, Fabian Camacho2, Muhammad Fazal Zeeshan3, Teresa T Kern2, Steven T Fleming4. 1. Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 2. Department of Public Health Science, College of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 3. Department of Community Health Sciences, Peshawar Medical College, Riphah International University, Peshawar, Pakistan. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Appalachian residents have a higher overall cancer burden than the rest of the United States because of the unique features of the region. Treatment delays vary widely within Appalachia, with colorectal cancer patients undergoing median treatment delays of 5 days in Kentucky compared to 9 days for patients in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina combined. OBJECTIVE: This study identified the source of this disparity in treatment delay using statistical decomposition techniques. METHODOLOGY: This study used linked 2006 to 2008 cancer registry and Medicare claims data for the Appalachian counties of Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina to estimate a 2-part model of treatment delay. An Oaxaca Decomposition of the 2-part model revealed the contribution of the individual determinants to the disparity in delay between Kentucky counties and the remaining 3 states. RESULTS: The Oaxaca Decomposition revealed that the higher percentage of patients treated at for-profit facilities in Kentucky proved the key contributor to the observed disparity. In Kentucky, 22.3% patients began their treatment at a for-profit facility compared to 1.4% in the remaining states. Patients initiating treatment at for-profit facilities explained 79% of the observed difference in immediate treatment (<2 days after diagnosis) and 72% of Kentucky's advantage in log days to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The unique role of for-profit facilities led to reduced treatment delay for colorectal cancer patients in Kentucky. However, it remains unknown whether for-profit hospitals' more rapid treatment converts to better health outcomes for colorectal cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: Appalachian residents have a higher overall cancer burden than the rest of the United States because of the unique features of the region. Treatment delays vary widely within Appalachia, with colorectal cancerpatients undergoing median treatment delays of 5 days in Kentucky compared to 9 days for patients in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina combined. OBJECTIVE: This study identified the source of this disparity in treatment delay using statistical decomposition techniques. METHODOLOGY: This study used linked 2006 to 2008 cancer registry and Medicare claims data for the Appalachian counties of Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina to estimate a 2-part model of treatment delay. An Oaxaca Decomposition of the 2-part model revealed the contribution of the individual determinants to the disparity in delay between Kentucky counties and the remaining 3 states. RESULTS: The Oaxaca Decomposition revealed that the higher percentage of patients treated at for-profit facilities in Kentucky proved the key contributor to the observed disparity. In Kentucky, 22.3% patients began their treatment at a for-profit facility compared to 1.4% in the remaining states. Patients initiating treatment at for-profit facilities explained 79% of the observed difference in immediate treatment (<2 days after diagnosis) and 72% of Kentucky's advantage in log days to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The unique role of for-profit facilities led to reduced treatment delay for colorectal cancerpatients in Kentucky. However, it remains unknown whether for-profit hospitals' more rapid treatment converts to better health outcomes for colorectal 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: Eugene J Lengerich; Thomas C Tucker; Raymond K Powell; Pat Colsher; Erik Lehman; Ann J Ward; Jennifer C Siedlecki; Stephen W Wyatt Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2005 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Lori R Armstrong; Trevor Thompson; H Irene Hall; Steven S Coughlin; Brooke Steele; Joe D Rogers Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia; Elizabeth Calhoun; Julie S Darnell; Donald J Dudley; Kevin Fiscella; Martha L Hare; Nancy LaVerda; Ji-Hyun Lee; Paul Levine; David M Murray; Steven R Patierno; Peter C Raich; Richard G Roetzheim; Melissa Simon; Frederick R Snyder; Victoria Warren-Mears; Elizabeth M Whitley; Paul Winters; Gregory S Young; Electra D Paskett Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ryan P Merkow; Karl Y Bilimoria; Karen L Sherman; Martin D McCarter; Howard S Gordon; David J Bentrem Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Maria Ramos; Magdalena Esteva; Elena Cabeza; Carlos Campillo; Joan Llobera; Antonio Aguiló Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Tong Gan; Heather F Sinner; Samuel C Walling; Quan Chen; Bin Huang; Tom C Tucker; Jitesh A Patel; B Mark Evers; Avinash S Bhakta Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Katia Noyes; John R T Monson; Irfan Rizvi; Ann Savastano; James S A Green; Nick Sevdalis Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Francisco A Montiel Ishino; Emmanuel A Odame; Kevin Villalobos; Claire Rowan; Martin Whiteside; Hadii Mamudu; Faustine Williams Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2021 Nov-Dec