Search

Introduction We compared the stage at diagnosis for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in the military healthcare system (MHS) and the general public to assess differences between these two groups as well as to assess the trends in stage at diagnosis in the recent past. Method This study was based on the non-identifiable data from the U.S. Department of Defense Automated Central Tumor Registry (ACTUR) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute. Patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 1989 and 2012 were included. The distributions of tumor stage at diagnosis and trends in tumor stage were compared between the two populations. Results The cohorts were predominately male in both ACTUR (65.3%) and SEER (55.1%) and white patients accounted for greater than 80% of patients in both ACTUR and SEER. Among 21,031 patients in ACTUR and 773,356 patients in SEER, stage IV lung cancers predominated (ACTUR 33.6%, SEER 40.5%) followed by stage III (ACTUR 26.1%, SEER 26.4%) and stage I (ACTUR 24.7%, SEER 20.6%). Notable differences between the two populations were the higher percentage of stage I and lower percentage of stage IV, along with a lower rate of unknown stage patients after 2004, in ACTUR than SEER. Between 1989 and 2012, the percentage of stage IV disease increased in ACTUR and SEER coincident with a decrease in unknown stage disease. Conclusions The majority of NSCLC patients in the MHS and general population are diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC and the percentage is increasing. Compared to the general population, NSCLC patients in the MHS have a higher percentage of stage I, a lower percentage of stage IV, and of unknown stage cancer. Universal care along with more rigorous staging across the MHS may play a role in these findings.

Background Use of treatment for breast cancer is dependent on the patient’s cancer characteristics and willingness to undergo treatment and provider treatment recommendations. Receipt of breast cancer treatment varies by insurance status and type. It is not clear whether different benefit types and care sources differ in breast cancer treatment and outcomes among Department of Defense beneficiaries. Methods The objectives of this study are to assess whether receipt of breast cancer treatment varied by benefit type (TRICARE Prime vs non-Prime) or care source (direct care, purchased care, and both) and to examine whether survival and recurrence differed by benefit type and/or care source among female Department of Defense beneficiaries with the disease. Study subjects were women aged 40–64 yr, diagnosed with malignant breast cancer between 2003 and 2007. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the likelihood of receiving treatment by benefit type or care source. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to investigate differences in survival and recurrence by benefit type or care source. Findings A total of 2,668 women were included in this study. Those with Prime were more likely to have chemotherapy, radiation, hormone therapy, breast-conserving surgery, surveillance mammography, and recurrence than women with non-Prime. Survival was high, with 94.86% of those with Prime and 92.58% with non-Prime alive at the end of the study period. Women aged 50–59 yr with non-Prime benefit type had better survival than women with Prime of the same age. No survival differences were seen by care source. In regard to recurrence, women aged 60–64 yr with TRICARE Prime were more likely to have recurrent breast cancer than women with non-Prime. Additionally, women aged 50–59 yr who used purchased care were less likely to have a recurrence than women who used direct care only. Discussion/Impact/Recommendations To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine breast cancer treatment and survival by care source and benefit type in the Military Health System. In this equal access health care system, no differences in treatment, except mastectomy, by benefit type, were observed. There were no overall differences in survival, although patients with non-Prime tended to have better survival in the age group of 50–59 yr. In regard to care source, women who utilized mostly purchased care or utilized both direct and purchased care were more likely to receive certain types of treatment, such as chemotherapy and radiation, as compared with women who used direct care only. However, survival did not differ between different care sources. Future research is warranted to further investigate variations in breast cancer treatment and its survival gains by benefit type and care source among Department of Defense beneficiaries.

Introduction Breast cancer care imposes a significant financial burden to U.S. healthcare systems. Health services factors, such as insurance benefit type and care source, may impact costs to the health system. Beneficiaries in the U.S. Military Health System (MHS) have universal healthcare coverage and access to a network of military facilities (direct care) and private practices (purchased care). This study aims to quantify and compare breast cancer care costs to the MHS by insurance benefit type and care source. Materials and Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of data linked between the MHS data repository administrative claims and central cancer registry databases. The institutional review boards of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the Defense Health Agency, and the National Institutes of Health Office of Human Subjects Research reviewed and approved the data linkage. We used the linked data to identify records for women aged 40-64 yr who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2003 and 2007 and to extract information on insurance benefit type, care source, and cost to the MHS for breast cancer treatment. We estimated per capita costs for breast cancer care by benefit type and care source in 2008 USD using generalized linear models, adjusted for demographic, pathologic, and treatment characteristics. Results The average per capita (n = 2,666) total cost for breast cancer care was $66,300 [standard error (SE) $9,200] over 3.31 (1.48) years of follow-up. Total costs were similar between benefit types, but varied by care source. The average per capita cost was $34,500 ($3,000) for direct care (n = 924), $96,800 ($4,800) for purchased care (n = 622), and $60,700 ($3,900) for both care sources (n = 1,120), respectively. Care source differences remained by tumor stage and for chemotherapy, radiation, and hormone therapy treatment types. Conclusions Per capita costs to the MHS for breast cancer care were similar by benefit type and lower for direct care compared with purchased care. Further research is needed in breast and other tumor sites to determine patterns and determinants of cancer care costs between benefit types and care sources within the MHS.

Type of insurance and out-of-pocket costs influence the use of medical care. Specifically, type of insurance can impact an individual's likelihood of receiving a screening mammogram. Additionally, variation in tumor stage at diagnosis exists for patients with different types of insurance. It is not clear whether different benefit types and care sources differ in breast cancer care and outcomes among Department of Defense (DoD) beneficiaries.The objective of this study was to examine differences in screening mammography and tumor stage at diagnosis between different benefit types (TRICARE Prime vs. non-Prime) and among different care sources (direct care, purchased care, and both) in the DoD Military Health System. Study subjects were women 40 to 64 years of age, diagnosed with malignant breast cancer between 2003 and 2007. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess differences by benefit type and care source in receipt of screening mammography before diagnosis and tumor stage at diagnosis.A total of 2,668 women were included in this study. Patients with Prime were more likely to receive a screening mammography and have an earlier tumor stage than those with non-Prime. Women with direct care were more likely to have an earlier tumor stage but less likely to receive a screening mammogram than those with purchased care.In an equal access health care system, the use of mammography screening and tumor stage at diagnosis may differ by benefit type and care source among DoD beneficiaries. To our knowledge, this was the first study to assess mammography screening and tumor stage differences by benefit type and care source in the Military Health System. Although underlying reasons for the differences are not clear, they may be related to out-of-pocket costs, distance from medical treatment facilities, and frequency of doctor visits for other medical problems. Further research is needed to assess these differences and related factors among DoD beneficiaries.