Advertisement

Cancer Survivorship and National Health Reform

  • Sara Rosenbaum
  • Jennifer Lee
  • Mandi Pratt Chapman
  • Steven R. Patierno
Chapter

Abstract

There is no more compelling case for national health reform than cancer treatment and survivorship. Half of all men and more than one-third of all women will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetimes [1]. There are more than 13 million cancer survivors in the USA with approximately 1.4 million new cases of cancer diagnosed annually [2]. As a result of earlier detection, improved therapies, and increased attention to treatment sequelae, more patients are in need of cancer treatment and follow-up care than ever before. Five-year survival rates for all cancers diagnosed between 1999 and 2005 reached 68%, up from 50% during the 1975–1977 time period [1]. In addition to an ever-increasing patient pool, cancer survivors are living longer and in need of more comprehensive follow-up care over a longer period of time.

Keywords

Cancer Survivor Oral Health Health Insurance Coverage Medicaid Beneficiary Federal Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    United States. American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society facts and figures 2010. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Cancer Institute. Surveillance epidemiology and end results: cancer fact stats: all sites [document on the Internet]. Maryland: The Institute; 2010 [cited 2010 August 21]. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html#incidence-mortality.
  3. 3.
    United States Congress. Patient protection and affordable care act. Washington, DC: USC publication 111–148; 2010.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    United States Congress. Health care and education reconciliation act. Washington, DC: USC publication 111–152; 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    United States National Cancer Institute. Presidents Cancer Panel. Bethesda: NCI; 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwartz KL, Crossley-May H, Vigneau FD, Brown K, Bauerjee M. Socio economic status and stage at diagnosis for five common malignancies. Cancer Causes Control. 2003;14:761–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    United States. Institute of Medicine. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare. Washington, DC: IOM; 2003.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thorpe KE, Howard D. Health insurance and spending among cancer patients. Health Aff. 2003;W3:189–98.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Banthin JS, Bernard DM. Changes in financial burdens for healthcare: national estimates or the populations younger than 65 years. JAMA. 2006;296(22):2712–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schoen C, Collins SR, Kriss JL, Doty M. How many are uninsured? Trends among U.S. adults 2003–2007. Health Aff (Milwood). 2008;4:298–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elkin EB, Bach PB. Cancer’s next frontier: addressing high and increasing cost. JAMA. 2010;303(11):1086–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weaver KE, Rowland JH, Bellizzi KM, Asia NM. Foregoing medical care because of cost: assessing disparities in health care access among cancer survivors living in the United States. Cancer. 2010;116(14):3493–504.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rabb SS, Gryzbicki DM. Quality in cancer diagnosis. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(3):139–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    United States. Institute of Medicine. Insuring quality cancer care. Washington, DC: IOM; 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Foley K et al. Survival disadvantage among Medicaid-insured breast patients treated with breast conserving surgery with radiation therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;101(2):207–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Snyderman D, Wynn D. Depression in cancer patients. Prim Care. 2009;36(4):703–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tornoux C, Katsahian S, Chevret S, Levy V. Factors influencing inclusion of patients with malignancies in clinical trials. Cancer. 2006;106(2):258–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kolata G. Grant system leads cancer researchers to play it safe. The New York Times. 2009 June 27.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gralow J et al. Clinical cancer advances 2007: major advances in cancer treatment, prevention, and screening. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(2):403–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    United States. Institute of Medicine. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington, DC: IOM; 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Association of American Medical Colleges, Center for Workforce Studies. Forecasting the supply of and demand for oncologists: a report to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Washington, DC: AAMC; 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gostin LO. Public health law: power, duty, restraint. California: University of California Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    United States. U.S. Constitution. Article 1 §8. Washington, DC: U.S. Constitution; 2010.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosenbaum S, Gruber J. Buying health care, the individual mandate, and the constitution. N Eng J Med. 2010;363:401–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    United States Congress. Health insurance portability and accountability act. Washington, DC: USC publication 104-191; 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    United States Congress. United vs. Lopez. Washington, DC: USC; 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    United States. National Cancer Institute. Presidents Cancer Panel. Bethesda: NCI; 2004.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenbaum S. A customary and necessary program: Medicaid and health reform. N Eng J Med. 2010;362:1950–5.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Horner et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2006, National Cancer Institute [document on the internet]. NCI: 2006 [cited 2010 August 23]. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975 2006/.
  30. 30.
    United States Congress. HITECH Act. Washington, DC: USC publication 111-5; 2010.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    National Association of Community Health Centers. Access denied. Washington, DC: NACHC; 2008.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    National Association of Community Health Centers. Expanding Health Centers under Health Care Reform. Washington, DC: NACHC; 2010.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, nutrition, physical activity and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Washington, DC: WCRF/AICR; 2007.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vargas RB, Ryan GW, Jackson CA, Rodriguez R, Freeman HP. Characteristics of the original patient navigation programs to reduce disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Cancer [serial on the Internet]. 2008 [cited 2010 Aug 23]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23547.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Battaglia CA, Roloff K, Posner MA, Freund KM. Improving follow-up to abnormal breast cancer screening in an urban populations: a patient navigation intervention. Cancer. 2007;109(supp):359–676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Patierno SR, LaVerda N, Alexander L, Levine P, Young HA. Longitudinal network patient navigation: development of an integrative model to reduce breast cancer disparities in Washington, DC. Oncol Issues. 2010;25(2):28–36.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Freeman HP. Patient navigation: a community center approach to reducing mortality. J Can Educ. 2006;21(1 supp):S11–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Rosenbaum
    • 1
  • Jennifer Lee
  • Mandi Pratt Chapman
  • Steven R. Patierno
  1. 1.Department of Health PolicyThe George Washington University School of Public Health and Health ServicesWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations