Steven B Zeliadt1, Richard M Hoffman2, Genevieve Birkby3, Jan M Eberth4, Alison T Brenner5, Daniel S Reuland6, Susan A Flocke7. 1. Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Veterans Health Administration, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: szeliadt@uw.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa; Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, Iowa City, Iowa. 3. Center for Community Health Integration and the Prevention Research Center for Healthy Neighborhoods, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina; Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. 5. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 7. Center for Community Health Integration and the Prevention Research Center for Healthy Neighborhoods, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; Cancer Prevention, Control and Population Research, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to identify issues faced by Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in implementing lung cancer screening in low-resource settings. METHODS: Medical directors of 258 FQHCs serving communities with tobacco use prevalence above the median of all 1,202 FQHCs nationally were sampled to participate in a web-based survey. Data were collected between August and October 2016. Data analysis was completed in June 2017. RESULTS: There were 112 (43%) FQHC medical directors or surrogates who responded to the 2016 survey. Overall, 41% of respondents were aware of a lung cancer screening program within 30 miles of their system's largest clinic. Although 43% reported that some providers in their system offer screening, it was typically at a very low volume (less than ten/month). Although FQHCs are required to collect tobacco use data, only 13% indicated that these data can identify patients eligible for screening. Many FQHCs reported important patient financial barriers for screening, including lack of insurance (72%), preauthorization requirements (58%), and out-of-pocket cost burdens for follow-up procedures (73%). Only 51% indicated having adequate access to specialty providers to manage abnormal findings, and few reported that leadership had either committed resources to lung cancer screening (12%) or prioritized lung cancer screening (12%). CONCLUSIONS: FQHCs and other safety-net clinics, which predominantly serve low-socioeconomic populations with high proportions of smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, face significant economic and resource challenges to implementing lung cancer screening. Although these vulnerable patients are at increased risk for lung cancer, reducing patient financial burdens and appropriately managing abnormal findings are critical to ensure that offering screening does not inadvertently lead to harm and increase disparities. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to identify issues faced by Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in implementing lung cancer screening in low-resource settings. METHODS: Medical directors of 258 FQHCs serving communities with tobacco use prevalence above the median of all 1,202 FQHCs nationally were sampled to participate in a web-based survey. Data were collected between August and October 2016. Data analysis was completed in June 2017. RESULTS: There were 112 (43%) FQHC medical directors or surrogates who responded to the 2016 survey. Overall, 41% of respondents were aware of a lung cancer screening program within 30 miles of their system's largest clinic. Although 43% reported that some providers in their system offer screening, it was typically at a very low volume (less than ten/month). Although FQHCs are required to collect tobacco use data, only 13% indicated that these data can identify patients eligible for screening. Many FQHCs reported important patient financial barriers for screening, including lack of insurance (72%), preauthorization requirements (58%), and out-of-pocket cost burdens for follow-up procedures (73%). Only 51% indicated having adequate access to specialty providers to manage abnormal findings, and few reported that leadership had either committed resources to lung cancer screening (12%) or prioritized lung cancer screening (12%). CONCLUSIONS: FQHCs and other safety-net clinics, which predominantly serve low-socioeconomic populations with high proportions of smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, face significant economic and resource challenges to implementing lung cancer screening. Although these vulnerable patients are at increased risk for lung cancer, reducing patient financial burdens and appropriately managing abnormal findings are critical to ensure that offering screening does not inadvertently lead to harm and increase disparities. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Douglas E Wood; Ella Kazerooni; Scott L Baum; Mark T Dransfield; George A Eapen; David S Ettinger; Lifang Hou; David M Jackman; Donald Klippenstein; Rohit Kumar; Rudy P Lackner; Lorriana E Leard; Ann N C Leung; Samir S Makani; Pierre P Massion; Bryan F Meyers; Gregory A Otterson; Kimberly Peairs; Sudhakar Pipavath; Christie Pratt-Pozo; Chakravarthy Reddy; Mary E Reid; Arnold J Rotter; Peter B Sachs; Matthew B Schabath; Lecia V Sequist; Betty C Tong; William D Travis; Stephen C Yang; Kristina M Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jennifer A Lewis; W Jeffrey Petty; Janet A Tooze; David P Miller; Caroline Chiles; Antonius A Miller; Christina Bellinger; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Andrew L Sussman; Christina M Getrich; Robert L Rhyne; Richard E Crowell; Kathryn L Taylor; Ellen J Reifler; Pamela H Wescott; Ambroshia M Murrietta; Ali I Saeed; Shiraz I Mishra Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Mary S Rodríguez-Rabassa; Vani N Simmons; Agueda Vega; Daniela Moreno; Jessica Irizarry-Ramos; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2020
Authors: Jennifer Elston Lafata; Deirdre A Shires; Yongyun Shin; Susan Flocke; Kenneth Resnicow; Morgan Johnson; Ellen Nixon; Xinxin Sun; Sarah Hawley Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Jennifer Richmond; Olive M Mbah; Sofia Z Dard; Lauren C Jordan; Katherine S Cools; Cleo A Samuel; Jalaal M Khan; Matthew A Manning Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jennifer A Lewis; Lauren R Samuels; Jason Denton; Gretchen C Edwards; Michael E Matheny; Amelia Maiga; Christopher G Slatore; Eric Grogan; Jane Kim; Robert H Sherrier; Robert S Dittus; Pierre P Massion; Laura Keohane; Sayeh Nikpay; Christianne L Roumie Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2020-06-13
Authors: Lesley Watson; Megan M Cotter; Shauna Shafer; Kara Neloms; Robert A Smith; Katherine Sharpe Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.117