Do rural cancer patients receive lower quality cancer care? Assessing the impact of rurality on oncology practice performance measures.

Authors

null

Catherine R. Fedorenko

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA

Catherine R. Fedorenko, Laura Elizabeth Panattoni, Qin Sun, Li Li, Karma L. Kreizenbeck, Scott David Ramsey

Organizations

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA

Research Funding

Other
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

Background: Rural residents are diagnosed at later stages of cancer compared to urban residents, have poorer survival, and face distinct barriers to receiving quality cancer care. ASCO has developed policy initiatives to address rural cancer care; however, little is known about quality of cancer care among patients residing in rural areas. This study examined the impact of rurality on performance metrics, controlling for socioeconomic status and insurance type. Methods: We linked Washington state cancer registry records from 2015-2017 with claims records for two large commercial insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid. Using claims from this database, we generated eight nationally recognized quality measures. Rurality was measured by the Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCAs) categorized into 4 levels (Metro, Metro with commute, Micropolitan, Small Town/Rural). Process and outcome measures were adjusted for age, sex, race, comorbidity score, stage, cancer type, marital status, the Area Deprivation Index, and treatment factors where appropriate. Results were stratified by payer type. Results: The table below lists the effect of a patient’s rurality on the quality metric where significant (p<0.05). Where rurality did not impact the performance measure, results are left blank. Conclusions: After controlling for socioeconomic status and payer type, quality of cancer care for rural cancer patients was not consistently poorer compared to urban patients. These results suggest that lower survival among rural patients may be due to factors beyond quality of care.

Odds Ratio for Rural Residents Unless Noted.

NCommercialMedicareLow Income Insurance*
Outcome measures
Emergency department (ED) visits during chemotherapy8730
Inpatient stays during chemotherapy87300.630.52
End of Life (EoL): 2+ ED visits10468Metro commute: 0.69
EoL: ICU stay104680.66Metro commute: 0.59
Micro: 0.55 0.47
Process measures
Recommended Treatment3091
Anti-nausea medication during chemotherapy4072Micro: 0.27
EoL: Chemotherapy10468
EoL: Hospice10468Micro: 0.74

*Low income insurance = Medicaid, Medicare under 65 (disabled), Medicaid/Medicare dual enrolled

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2019 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session A: Cost, Value, and Policy; Health Equity and Disparities

Track

Cost, Value, and Policy,Health Care Access, Equity, and Disparities

Sub Track

Rural Oncology Care

Citation

J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl 27; abstr 166)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2019.37.27_suppl.166

Abstract #

166

Poster Bd #

R5

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Timothy James Daeeun Ohlsen

Abstract

2023 ASCO Annual Meeting

Socioeconomic and demographic disparities in rectal cancer treatment.

First Author: Vernon Wu

First Author: Dawn L. Hershman