Search

Racial and ethnic inequities in health and health care impact individual well-being, contribute to millions of premature deaths, and cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Addressing these inequities is vital to improving the health of the nation's most disadvantaged communities—and will also help to achieve optimal health for all. In 2003, the Institute of Medicine examined these inequities in Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Because disparities persist, the National Academies convened an expert committee with support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The committee's report reviews the major drivers of health care disparities, provides insight into successful and unsuccessful interventions, identifies gaps in the evidence base, and makes recommendations to advance health equity.

At the request of the Health Resources and Services Administration, the National Academies Forum on Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders hosted a public workshop in April 2024 to explore mental health care services related to anxiety and mood disorders in women. Speakers provided evidence to identify, define, and prepare strategies for the provision of essential health care services for women experiencing anxiety and mood disorders. Presentations also described health disparities, healthcare finances, and policies related to the quality and access of mental healthcare services available for women.

A National Academies committee hosted a public workshop series in 2023. Speakers invited by the committee discussed the current state of racial and ethnic health care disparities in the U.S., highlighted major drivers of health care disparities, provided insight into successful and unsuccessful interventions, identified gaps in the evidence base and proposed strategies to close those gaps, and considered ways to scale and spread effective interventions to reduce racial and ethnic inequities in health care. This workshop series is part of an ongoing consensus study examining the current state of racial and ethnic health care disparities in the U.S., building on the 2003 Institute of Medicine consensus report, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. The consensus study will publish its full conclusions and recommendations in summer 2024.

Existing systems are not prepared to provide the mental health care services needed by the growing population of older adults. The National Academies Forum on Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders hosted a public workshop in May 2023 to highlight the current state of mental health care for older adults, outline the challenges they face, and explore potential long-term strategies and solutions for addressing unmet mental health needs. Discussions emphasized information about wellness and prevention, social determinants of health in aging populations, the impact of workforce shortages and gaps, the need for supportive healthy communities, and strategies to promote positive mental health.This publication summarizes the presentations and discussion of the workshop.

Emerging real-time data sources, together with innovative data science techniques and methods - including artificial intelligence and machine learning - can help inform upstream suicide prevention efforts. Select social media platforms have proactively deployed these methods to identify individual platform users at high risk for suicide, and in some cases may activate local law enforcement, if needed, to prevent imminent suicide. To explore the current scope of activities, benefits, and risks of leveraging innovative data science techniques to help inform upstream suicide prevention at the individual and population level, the Forum on Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a virtual workshop series consisting of three webinars held on April 28, May 12, and June 30, 2022. This Proceedings highlights presentations and discussions from the workshop.

Studies show that people commonly have psychotic symptoms for over a year before receiving treatment. Reducing this duration is critical, because early treatment is strongly associated with better outcomes. The National Academies Forum on Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders hosted a workshop in July 2022 to examine the current evidence on short- and long-term outcomes for people at high risk for psychosis. Speakers explored potential policy solutions and strategies that are most effective for coordinated, early-intervention specialty services. This Proceedings document summarizes workshop discussions.

Indigenous communities experience higher risks for suicide compared to the general U.S. population, with suicide as the second-leading cause of death among Indigenous children and young adults in North America. To reduce this trend, it is essential for prevention and intervention efforts to build on scientific evidence; cultural and local knowledge; and the best community, family, and institutional practices to reduce risk and increase protection. The Forum on Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders and the Forum for Children's Well-Being at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a three-part virtual public workshop on April 26, 2022, May 13, 2022, and June 10, 2022, to examine suicide risk and protective factors in Indigenous populations, discuss culturally appropriate and effective suicide prevention policies and programs, explore existing data systems and how data can be used for tracking suicide rates, and consider opportunities for action. This Proceedings highlights presentations and discussions from the workshop.

The persistent trends in suicide necessitate action among mental health care providers and payers, researchers, and community leaders. Health care settings provide an important opportunity for suicide intervention and prevention, but they cannot yet fully manage suicide risk because of a lack of training, knowledge gaps, and reimbursement challenges. School, workplace, and community-based interventions can help reduce the incidence of suicidal behavior, as can better access to care and reduced access to lethal means of suicide. To better understand the strategies to improve access to effective interventions to prevent suicide, the Forum on Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine hosted a two-part virtual public workshop, Strategies and Interventions to Reduce Suicide, on June 22, 2021, and July 28, 2021. The first webinar examined the scope of the public health problem, discussed implementation of effective approaches for suicide prevention care, and addressed known barriers to health care access. The second webinar focused on building 9-8-8, the new nationwide emergency number designated to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Participants discussed current crisis systems, gaps, challenges, and needs for marginalized populations. This Proceedings of a Workshop summarizes the presentations and discussions that occurred during the workshops.

Every year, significant amounts of expensive drugs are discarded. This is due in part to the growing number of prescription drugs that are administered in variable doses (rather than fixed or flat doses) based on a patient's weight or body size. Strict regulations and guidance generally prohibit or severely restrict the acceptable time frame for sharing medication from single-dose vials among patients, and so the unused amount will typically be discarded. Due to the current system for producing, administering, and paying for drugs in the United States, significant - but indeterminate - amounts of expensive prescription drugs are discarded each year. At the request of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medications in Single Dose Vials: Implications of Discarded Drugs explores the federal health care costs, safety, and quality concerns associated with discarded drugs that result from the weight-based dosing of medicines contained in single-dose vials.

New technologies and improved understanding of the genesis and progression of various cancers have added to the enthusiasm for potential new strategies to improve screening and early detection of cancer. Research is also under way to evaluate refinements in current screening approaches, including determining optimal screening intervals, the ages at which screening should begin and end, as well as more specific estimates of the potential risks and benefits of screening for certain populations, such as racial and ethnic minority populations and people who have elevated risk for specific cancers. However, there remain significant challenges to developing, validating, and effectively implementing new cancer screening approaches. Guidelines for screening issued by different organizations vary considerably with no clear way of deciding which guidelines are most trustworthy. There is also a need to improve access to high-quality cancer screening and follow-up care, particularly in low-resource communities and among populations who are underserved or have numerous barriers to receiving care. To examine the challenges and opportunities related to improving current approaches to cancer screening, as well as the evidence base for novel cancer screening methods, the National Cancer Policy Forum held a workshop, Advancing Progress in the Development and Implementation of Effective, High-Quality Cancer Screening, on March 2-3, 2020, in Washington, DC. This workshop convened a broad range of experts, including clinicians, researchers, statisticians, and patient advocates, as well as representatives of health care organizations, academic medical centers, insurers, and federal agencies. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions of the workshop and highlights suggestions from individual participants regarding how to improve cancer screening.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held the workshop Applying Big Data to Address the Social Determinants of Health in Oncology on October 28-29, 2019, in Washington, DC. This workshop examined social determinants of health (SDOH) in the context of cancer, and considered opportunities to effectively leverage big data to improve health equity and reduce disparities. The workshop featured presentations and discussion by experts in technology, oncology, and SDOH, as well as representatives from government, industry, academia, and health care systems. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

To explore the role of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in innovative drug development and its impact on patient access, the Board on Health Care Services and the Board on Health Sciences Policy of the National Academies jointly hosted a public workshop on July 24-25, 2019, in Washington, DC. Workshop speakers and participants discussed the ways in which federal investments in biomedical research are translated into innovative therapies and considered approaches to ensure that the public has affordable access to the resulting new drugs. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

The oncology careforce faces challenges as population growth in the U.S. contributes to increases in the number of patients diagnosed with cancer. Significant advances in cancer research, screening and diagnostic practices, and treatment have led to the age-adjusted declining mortality rate from cancer. However, as the field continues to develop and advance, cancer care has become more complex than ever before. There is a growing concern regarding the U.S. health care system's capacity to deliver high-quality cancer care to the increasing number of patients. The National Academies convened a workshop on February 11-12, 2019 to explore trends in cancer care and identify opportunities for improvement in the rapidly developing oncology careforce. Discussions at the workshop primarily focused on trends in demographics, the careforce, and oncology practice, as well as implications for the future of cancer care and strategies to improve the organization and delivery of cancer care. Opportunities to change policy and leverage technologies in oncology were also identified. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

In recent years, significant progress has been made in the clinical development and use of various types of cancer immunotherapy, all of which rely on the immune system to fight cancer. The majority of new cancer drug applications submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are for immunotherapies or combinations involving immunotherapies. One type of immunotherapy is an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Cells in the human body have proteins that regulate the immune system response to foreign invaders (e.g., cancer cells, microorganisms). However, cancer cells can coopt these'checkpoint'proteins and thwart the immune system's ability to recognize and attack cancer cells. To help promote an immune response to cancer, researchers have developed immune checkpoint inhibitors that enable T-cells to recognize cancer cells as foreign and to prevent deactivation of an immune system response. To examine the challenges and opportunities to develop combination cancer therapies that include immune checkpoint inhibitors, the National Cancer Policy Forum held a workshop on July 16-17, 2018, in Washington, DC. This workshop convened stakeholders with a broad range of expertise, including cancer researchers, clinicians, patient advocates, and representatives from industry, academia, and government. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

Throughout history, perhaps no other disease has generated the level of social, scientific, and political discourse or has had the degree of cultural significance as cancer. A collective in the truest sense of the word,'cancer'is a clustering of different diseases that afflict individuals in different ways. Its burdens are equally broad and diverse, from the physical, financial, and psychological tolls it imposes on individuals to the costs it inflicts upon the nation's clinical care and public health systems, and despite decades of concerted efforts often referred to as the'war on cancer', those costs have only continued to grow over time. The causes and effects of cancer are complex—in part preventable and treatable, but also in part unknown, and perhaps even unknowable. Guiding Cancer Control defines the key principles, attributes, methods, and tools needed to achieve the goal of implementing an effective national cancer control plan. This report describes the current structure of cancer control from a local to global scale, identifies necessary goals for the system, and formulates the path towards integrated disease control systems and a cancer-free future. This framework is a crucial step in establishing an effective, efficient, and accountable system for controlling cancer and other diseases.

A hallmark of high-quality cancer care is the delivery of the right treatment to the right patient at the right time. Precision oncology therapies, which target specific genetic changes in a patient's cancer, are changing the nature of cancer treatment by allowing clinicians to select therapies that are most likely to benefit individual patients. In current clinical practice, oncologists are increasingly formulating cancer treatment plans using results from complex laboratory and imaging tests that characterize the molecular underpinnings of an individual patient's cancer. These molecular fingerprints can be quite complex and heterogeneous, even within a single patient. To enable these molecular tumor characterizations to effectively and safely inform cancer care, the cancer community is working to develop and validate multiparameter omics tests and imaging tests as well as software and computational methods for interpretation of the resulting datasets. To examine opportunities to improve cancer diagnosis and care in the new precision oncology era, the National Cancer Policy Forum developed a two-workshop series. The first workshop focused on patient access to expertise and technologies in oncologic imaging and pathology and was held in February 2018. The second workshop, conducted in collaboration with the Board on Mathematical Sciences and Analytics, was held in October 2018 to examine the use of multidimensional data derived from patients with cancer, and the computational methods that analyze these data to inform cancer treatment decisions. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the second workshop.

Delivering high-quality cancer care to all patients presents numerous challenges, including difficulties with care coordination and access. Patient navigation is a community-based service delivery intervention designed to promote access to timely diagnosis and treatment of cancer and other chronic diseases by eliminating barriers to care, and has often been proposed and implemented to address these challenges. However, unresolved questions include where patient navigation programs should be deployed, and which patients should be prioritized to receive navigation services when resources are limited. To address these issues and facilitate discussion on how to improve navigation services for patients with cancer, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop on November 13 and 14, 2017. At this workshop, a broad range of experts and stakeholders, including clinicians, navigators, researchers, and patients, explored which patients need navigation and who should serve as navigators, and the benefits of navigation and current gaps in the evidence base.

The National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a public workshop, Incorporating Weight Management and Physical Activity Throughout the Cancer Care Continuum, on February 13 and 14, 2017, in Washington, DC. The purpose of this workshop was to highlight the current evidence base, gaps in knowledge, and research needs on the associations among obesity, physical activity, weight management, and health outcomes for cancer survivors, as well as to examine the effectiveness of interventions for promoting physical activity and weight management among people living with or beyond cancer. Workshop sessions also reviewed the opportunities and challenges for providing weight management and physical activity interventions to cancer survivors. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

Advances in cancer research have led to an improved understanding of the molecular mechanisms underpinning the development of cancer and how the immune system responds to cancer. This influx of research has led to an increasing number and variety of therapies in the drug development pipeline, including targeted therapies and associated biomarker tests that can select which patients are most likely to respond, and immunotherapies that harness the body's immune system to destroy cancer cells. Compared with standard chemotherapies, these new cancer therapies may demonstrate evidence of benefit and clearer distinctions between efficacy and toxicity at an earlier stage of development. However, there is a concern that the traditional processes for cancer drug development, evaluation, and regulatory approval could impede or delay the use of these promising cancer treatments in clinical practice. This has led to a number of efforts—by patient advocates, the pharmaceutical industry, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—to accelerate the review of promising new cancer therapies, especially for cancers that currently lack effective treatments. However, generating the necessary data to confirm safety and efficacy during expedited drug development programs can present a unique set of challenges and opportunities. To explore this new landscape in cancer drug development, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine developed a workshop held in December 2016. This workshop convened cancer researchers, patient advocates, and representatives from industry, academia, and government to discuss challenges with traditional approaches to drug development, opportunities to improve the efficiency of drug development, and strategies to enhance the information available about a cancer therapy throughout its life cycle in order to improve its use in clinical practice. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

Rapid advances in cancer research, the development of new and more sophisticated approaches to diagnostic testing, and the growth in targeted cancer therapies are transforming the landscape of cancer diagnosis and care. These innovations have contributed to improved outcomes for patients with cancer, but they have also increased the complexity involved in diagnosis and subsequent care decisions. To examine opportunities to improve cancer diagnosis and care, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine developed a two-workshop series. The first workshop, held on February 12-13, 2018, in Washington, DC, focused on potential strategies to ensure that patients have access to appropriate expertise and technologies in oncologic pathology and imaging to inform their cancer diagnosis and treatment planning, as well as assessment of treatment response and surveillance. This publication chronicles the presentations and discussions at the workshop.

The 2006 Institute of Medicine (IOM) consensus study report From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition made recommendations to improve the quality of care that cancer survivors receive, in recognition that cancer survivors are at risk for significant physical, psychosocial, and financial repercussions from cancer and its treatment. Since then, efforts to recognize and address the unique needs of cancer survivors have increased, including an emphasis on improving the evidence base for cancer survivorship care and identifying best practices in the delivery of high-quality cancer survivorship care. To examine progress in cancer survivorship care since the Lost in Transition report, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop in July 2017, in Washington, DC. Workshop participants highlighted potential opportunities to improve the planning, management, and delivery of cancer survivorship care. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

Thanks to remarkable advances in modern health care attributable to science, engineering, and medicine, it is now possible to cure or manage illnesses that were long deemed untreatable. At the same time, however, the United States is facing the vexing challenge of a seemingly uncontrolled rise in the cost of health care. Total medical expenditures are rapidly approaching 20 percent of the gross domestic product and are crowding out other priorities of national importance. The use of increasingly expensive prescription drugs is a significant part of this problem, making the cost of biopharmaceuticals a serious national concern with broad political implications. Especially with the highly visible and very large price increases for prescription drugs that have occurred in recent years, finding a way to make prescription medicines—and health care at large—more affordable for everyone has become a socioeconomic imperative. Affordability is a complex function of factors, including not just the prices of the drugs themselves, but also the details of an individual's insurance coverage and the number of medical conditions that an individual or family confronts. Therefore, any solution to the affordability issue will require considering all of these factors together. The current high and increasing costs of prescription drugs—coupled with the broader trends in overall health care costs—is unsustainable to society as a whole. Making Medicines Affordable examines patient access to affordable and effective therapies, with emphasis on drug pricing, inflation in the cost of drugs, and insurance design. This report explores structural and policy factors influencing drug pricing, drug access programs, the emerging role of comparative effectiveness assessments in payment policies, changing finances of medical practice with regard to drug costs and reimbursement, and measures to prevent drug shortages and foster continued innovation in drug development. It makes recommendations for policy actions that could address drug price trends, improve patient access to affordable and effective treatments, and encourage innovations that address significant needs in health care.

Though cancer was once considered to be a problem primarily in wealthy nations, low- and middle-income countries now bear a majority share of the global cancer burden, and cancer often surpasses the burden of infectious diseases in these countries. Effective low-cost cancer control options are available for some malignancies, with the World Health Organization estimating that these interventions could facilitate the prevention of approximately one-third of cancer deaths worldwide. Effective cancer treatment approaches are also available and can reduce the morbidity and mortality due to cancer in low-resource areas. But these interventions remain inaccessible for many people in the world, especially those residing in low-resource communities that are characterized by a lack of funds—on an individual or a societal basis—to cover health infrastructure and care costs. As a result, worse outcomes for patients with cancer are more common in low- and middle-income countries compared with high-income countries. Few guidelines and strategies for cancer control consider the appropriateness and feasibility of interventions in low-resource settings, and this may undermine the effectiveness of care. Recognizing the challenges of providing cancer care in resource constrained settings, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine developed a two- workshop series examining cancer care in low-resource communities, building on prior work of the National Academies. The first workshop, held in October 2015, focused on cancer prevention and early detection. The second workshop was held in November 2016, and focused on cancer treatment, palliative care, and survivorship care in low-resource areas. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions of this workshop.

The public health burden from lung cancer is substantial: it is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Given the individual and population health burden of lung cancer, especially when it is diagnosed at later stages, there has been a push to develop and implement screening strategies for early detection. However, many factors need to be considered for broad implementation of lung cancer screening in clinical practice. Effective implementation will entail understanding the balance of potential benefits and harms of lung cancer screening, defining and reaching eligible populations, addressing health disparities, and many more considerations. In recognition of the substantial challenges to developing effective lung cancer screening programs in clinical practice, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop in June 2016. At the workshop, experts described the current evidence base for lung cancer screening, the current challenges of implementation, and opportunities to overcome them. Workshop participants also explored capacity and access issues; best practices for screening programs; assessment of patient outcomes, quality, and value in lung cancer screening; and research needs that could improve implementation efforts. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

In recent years, the field of oncology has witnessed a number of technological advances, including more precise radiation therapy and minimally invasive surgical techniques. Three-dimensional (3D), stereotactic, and proton-beam radiation therapy, as well as laparoscopy and robotic surgery, can enhance clinician's ability to treat conditions that were clinically challenging with conventional technologies, and may improve clinical outcomes or reduce treatment-related problems for some patients. Both patients and physicians seek access to these new technologies, which are rapidly being adopted into standard clinical practice. Such demand is often propelled by marketing that portrays the new technologies as the'latest and greatest'treatments available. However, evidence is often lacking to support these claims, and these novel technologies usually come with higher price tags and are often used to treat patients who might have achieved similar benefits from less expensive, conventional treatment. The increased cost of novel treatments without adequate assessment of how they affect patient outcomes is a pressing concern given that inappropriate use of expensive technologies is one of the key factors that threaten the affordability of cancer care in the United States. To explore these issues further, the National Cancer Policy Forum (NCPF) of the Institute of Medicine organized a workshop in July 2015. This is the third NCPF workshop in a series examining the affordability of cancer care. Participants explored clinical benefits and comparative effectiveness of emerging advanced technologies for cancer treatment in radiation therapy and surgery and potential strategies to assess the value and promote optimal use of new technologies in cancer treatment. This report summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

Immunotherapy is a form of cancer therapy that harnesses the body's immune system to destroy cancer cells. In recent years, immunotherapies have been developed for several cancers, including advanced melanoma, lung cancer, and kidney cancer. In some patients with metastatic cancers who have not responded well to other treatments, immunotherapy treatment has resulted in complete and durable responses. Given these promising findings, it is hoped that continued immunotherapy research and development will produce better cancer treatments that improve patient outcomes. With this promise, however, there is also recognition that the clinical and biological landscape for immunotherapies is novel and not yet well understood. For example, adverse events with immunotherapy treatment are quite different from those experienced with other types of cancer therapy. Similarly, immunotherapy dosing, therapeutic responses, and response time lines are also markedly different from other cancer therapies. To examine these challenges and explore strategies to overcome them, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop in February and March of 2016. This report summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.