Advertisement


Jenny S. Guadamuz, PhD, on Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Telemedicine Use Among U.S. Patients With Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

Jenny S. Guadamuz, PhD, of Flatiron Health, discusses the use of telemedicine services in community oncology clinics for patients initiating treatments for 21 common cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Black, uninsured, non-urban, and less affluent patients were less likely to use telemedicine services. Although telemedicine may expand access to specialty care, the proliferation of these services may widen cancer care disparities if equitable access to these services is not ensured, according to Dr. Guadamuz (Abstract 6511).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with disruptions in healthcare delivery, including decreases in in-person clinical visits. As a result, many clinicians shifted to telemedicine or telehealth services to mitigate these declines in in-person care. And this was facilitated by federal and state regulations enacted early in the pandemic that expanded coverage and reimbursement for telemedicine services. There is some evidence that telemedicine uptake varied by social demographic factors, such as age and sex. However, there's been very limited evaluations of inequities in telemedicine use among patients with cancer. So in this study, we assess factors associated with telemedicine use, including the social determinants of health among patients initiating treatment for 21 common cancers at community oncology clinics during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of methods, this is a retrospective study that used the nationwide Flatiron health electronic health record derived database, a de-identified database. Our sample included about 27,000 patients who were required to have started their treatment, their first line of therapy, between March 2020 and November 2021 with follow up through March 2022. Our primary outcome was telemedicine use or at least one telemedicine visit within 90 days of starting their cancer treatment. This was derived with billing codes. We examined inequities by multiple social determinants of health exposures, including race, ethnicity, insurance coverage, urban role status, and area level social economic status. Overall, 16% of patients used telemedicine services. Unfortunately, there were substantial inequities in telemedicine use where black, uninsured, non-urban, and lower SES patients were all less likely to use telemedicine services. There were particularly jarring inequities across social economic status, where one in four patients living in high SES areas use these services in comparison to about 10% of patients in low SES areas. These inequities were also statistically significant even after adjusting for clinical characteristics, such as age, sex, stage, and performance status. And we also found similar patterns in sub-cohorts of patients initiating their cancer regimens for advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer, colorectal, breast, and pancreatic cancer. It is also important to note that telemedicine use peaked among patients who started their treatment early in the pandemic from March to May 2020, at about 25%, but declined to about 12% among those who did so more recently from September to November 2021. But it's important to note that most of the inequities described above persisted throughout these periods. These findings are critically important considering recent efforts to make the coverage of telemedicine services permanent instead of being tied to health and human services, public health emergency declaration for COVID-19. And also efforts increase reimbursement rates for telemedicine services by Medicare, several Medicaid programs and several private insurance. Future work should examine social determinants of health characteristics that may be associated with telemedicine inequities, including things like high speed internet access. We cannot assume that patients have the equitable infrastructure necessary to use telemedicine services. It'll also be important to determine whether telemedicine care is of high quality. For example, are there differences in the receipt of timely and guideline concordant treatment between patients who receive telemedicine services versus those who only receive in-person care? It'll be also important to determine what types of practices are providing telemedicine more equitably to their patients. We can learn from these clinics and bring it back to the rest of our network. Finally, our primary conclusion is that the proliferation of telemedicine services may widen cancer care inequities if people of color and those living in marginalized areas do not have equitable access.

Related Videos

Bladder Cancer

Shilpa Gupta, MD, on Urothelial Cancer: Defining Who Is 'Platinum-Ineligible'

Shilpa Gupta, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, discusses an updated consensus definition for standard therapy and clinical trial eligibility for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer who are platinum-ineligible, criteria that are proposed to guide treatment recommendations for this population. This may be especially important now that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has restricted the use of first-line pembrolizumab to those who are considered platinum-ineligible (Abstract 4577).

Lung Cancer

Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, on SCLC: Comparing Quality of Life With Once- and Twice-Daily Thoracic Radiotherapy

Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, discusses results from the CALGB 30610 study, which showed a similar clinical benefit for once- and twice-daily radiotherapy administered to patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. While both regimens were well tolerated, patients who received radiotherapy once daily had better quality-of-life scores at week 3 and slightly worse scores at week 12. Patients believed the once-daily regimen was more convenient (Abstract 8504).

Breast Cancer

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, and Kevin Kalinsky, MD, on Breast Cancer: Latest Findings on Fulvestrant or Exemestane With or Without Ribociclib

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, discuss phase II findings from the MAINTAIN trial, which showed a benefit in progression-free survival for patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer when they switched to endocrine therapy and received ribociclib after disease progression on another CDK4/6 inhibitor (Abstract LBA1004).

Colorectal Cancer

Michael J. Overman, MD, and Jeanne Tie, MBChB, MD, on Colon Cancer: Guiding Adjuvant Chemotherapy With ctDNA

Michael J. Overman, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Jeanne Tie, MBChB, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, discuss results from the DYNAMIC trial, in which a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-guided approach reduced the use of adjuvant chemotherapy without compromising recurrence-free survival in patients with stage II colon cancer (Abstract LBA100).

Lymphoma
Immunotherapy

Stephen M. Ansell, PhD, MD, on Hodgkin Lymphoma: An Updated Analysis on First-Line Brentuximab Vedotin Plus Chemotherapy

Stephen M. Ansell, PhD, MD, of Mayo Clinic, discusses updated data from the ECHELON-1 trial, which showed that, when administered to patients with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma, the combination of brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine resulted in a 41% reduction in the risk of death. These outcomes, says Dr. Ansell, confirm A+AVD as a preferred option for previously untreated disease (Abstract 7503).

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement