Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 17, 834, April 1, 2008. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2760
© 2008 American Association for Cancer Research
Health Insurance–Related Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening in Virginia
Vanessa de Bosset1,
Julius Atashili1,
William Miller1 and
Michael Pignone2
1 School of Public Health and 2 Division of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Requests for reprints: Vanessa de Bosset, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#7435, 2106-B McGavran-Greenberg Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435. Phone: 919-259-2476; Fax: 919-966-2089. E-mail: vanessad{at}email.unc.edu
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain low in the United States. The effect of health insurance on CRC screening is not clear. We assessed the association between having health insurance and being screened for CRC and the factors that modify this association.
Methods: We used data from the 2005 Virginia Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to evaluate the association of self-reported insurance coverage on self-reported CRC screening among all men and women ages 
50 years (N = 2,887). Prevalence odds ratios (POR) were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. All covariates were assessed for potential effect measure modification and confounding. All analyses accounted for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System complex survey sampling design.
Results: Overall, participants who reported having insurance coverage were more than twice as likely to report being screened for CRC compared with those who reported having none [crude POR, 2.16; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.26-3.68]. This relationship differed between men and women (PORmales, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.63-6.96; PORfemales, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.74-2.89). After adjusting for age and income, self-reported insurance coverage had a positive association with report of being screened among men (POR, 2.02; 95% CI, 0.96-4.23) but not among women (POR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.34-1.93).
Conclusions: Men who reported having health insurance were more likely to report having CRC screening than those who reported not having insurance coverage. However, this effect was not observed in women. These findings, if confirmed in other study populations, indicate that improving CRC screening coverage may require not only insurance status specifications but also gender-explicit considerations. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(4):834–7)
|
Introduction
|
|---|
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in American men and women (1). Several screening methods have been shown to reduce mortality from CRC (2) and recommendations in favor of screening have been made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (3) and many societies (4-6). However, despite these recommendations, the proportion of Americans being screened for CRC remains low and screening practices have been shown to differ by gender (7), age (8), race and ethnicity (9), type of health care coverage (10), incomes (11), and body mass index (12). Relatively few studies have thoroughly evaluated the association of insurance status and CRC screening (11, 13-16). Improving CRC screening rates will require a thorough understanding of factors associated with screening. Using data from the 2005 Virginia Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), we examined whether self-reported insurance coverage was associated with report of having undergone CRC screening (fecal occult blood testing within the previous year and/or lower endoscopy within the last 5 years) and what factors modified this association.
|
Materials and Methods
|
|---|
Study Population and Design
The BRFSS, a joint project between the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and state health departments, collects data about health risk behaviors, clinical preventive practices, and health care using a random-digit dialed telephone cross-sectional methodology. A disproportionate stratified random sampling method is used to ensure that a representative sample is collected from noninstitutionalized, U.S. civilian population ages 18 years of each state. To assess the association between self-reported insurance coverage and report of having been screened for CRC, our data analysis was limited to residents living in Virginia in 2005 who were ages 50 years, the age group for which CRC screening is recommended when at average risk for CRC. The University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board approved this study.
Variable Definitions
The main predictor, self-reported health care insurance status, was defined as having any kind of health care coverage (health insurance, prepaid plans such as Health Maintenance Organization, or government plans such as Medicare). The outcome measure was self-reported CRC screening defined as fecal occult blood testing within the past year and/or lower endoscopy (flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) within the previous 5 years. Because the BRFSS does not differentiate between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy in its questionnaire, it is impossible to know which of these exams were done. In Virginia, a state law was introduced in 2000 requiring all insurance providers to offer comprehensive CRC screening coverage (17). Consequently, we considered any respondent who reported having undergone a lower endoscopy within the previous 5 years to have been screened.
Based on prior studies, the following covariates, shown to be associated with health insurance and CRC screening, were considered in our analyses: gender, age (50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65 years), level of education attained (high school graduate or less, attended or graduated from college/technical school), annual household income (<$25,000, $25,000 to <$50,000, $50,000), race/ethnicity (White, non-White), employment status (employed for wages, self-employed, unemployed/unable to work, homemaker/student, retired), and having seen a physician within the past year. Categories were chosen based on subject matter literature (age, income, education) or to ensure that the sample size in each category would be large enough (race/ethnicity, employment).
Statistical Analyses
SURVEY procedures from Statistical Analysis System version 9.1 (SAS Institute) were used in all the analyses to account for the complex sampling design with stratification and unequal weighting used to collect the 2005 Virginia data. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate prevalence odds ratios (POR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The likelihood ratio test, which compares the main-effects, no-interaction model with the fully parameterized model containing the interaction term, was used to evaluate the potential effect measure modifier(s). If the interaction term significantly improved the model fit at 
= 0.15, it was left in the final model. Confounding was assessed using a change in estimate strategy with a backward elimination approach. Variables were retained in the model as confounders if adjusting for them resulted in at least a 10% change in the effect estimate.
|
Results
|
|---|
The distribution of the study subjects by characteristics and outcome overall and according to self-reported health insurance status is shown in Table 1
. The study population was largely White, insured, and educated. There were slightly more females than males. The majority of participants (59%) reported having been screened for CRC.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Distribution of the study subjects by characteristics and outcome, overall and according to health care insurance status, BRFSS, Virginia, 2005
|
|
The unadjusted bivariate analysis showed that participants who reported having health insurance coverage were more likely to report having been screened for CRC than those who reported not having health insurance coverage (POR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.26-3.68).
As depicted in Table 2
, the association between self-reported insurance coverage and CRC screening differed by gender (P = 0.10). The association was stronger for males (POR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.63-6.96) than it was for females (POR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.74-2.89). After adjusting for confounders (age and annual household income), males who reported having insurance coverage were still more likely to report having been screened for CRC compared with males without insurance coverage (POR, 2.02; 95% CI, 0.96-4.23). For females, there seemed to be no effect (POR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.34-1.93).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2. POR modification of the association between self-reported insurance coverage and self-reported CRC screening by gender, BRFSS, Virginia, 2005
|
|
|
Discussion
|
|---|
Participants who reported having health insurance were more than twice as likely to report being screened for CRC compared with those who reported not having insurance coverage, but this relationship was stronger for men than for women. After adjusting for confounding, the relationship remained positive for men but not for women.
Studies evaluating the association of insurance status and CRC screening are relatively uncommon (11, 13-16, 18-21). Moreover, differences in patient populations, the variable definitions, and the statistical analyses of these studies make comparisons of the results challenging. In general, most of these studies found that having insurance coverage was positively associated with CRC screening (11, 13-16, 19-21).
To our knowledge, our study is the first that assesses potential effect measure modification of several covariates on the association between self-reported insurance status and report of having CRC screening. We observed that only gender affects this relationship. This gender-related difference has not been reported previously, and verification is necessary. We did, however, find one study that looked at the association between self-reported health insurance and report of being screened for CRC stratified by gender (21). Although potential confounders were not taken into account in their analyses, the authors found that having insurance was positively associated with being screened in both males and females.
We were surprised by the lack of association between report of having insurance coverage and self-reported CRC screening among women. One possible explanation for this result is uncontrolled confounding. Because this is an observational study, it is possible that this effect estimate was biased by an unmeasured confounder. For example, if an unmeasured factor was more common among uninsured women than those insured and if this factor was associated with an increased odds of being screened for CRC, it may have confounded the relation between insurance coverage and CRC screening in females. In addition, in spite of the large size of this study, there were relatively few uninsured participants resulting in quite imprecise effect estimates, particularly in women.
We acknowledge that this study has some limitations. First, because of the cross-sectional study design, a specific causative relation between insurance coverage and CRC screening may not necessarily be inferred. Second, because the BRFSS does not differentiate between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy in its questionnaire, we considered that a respondent who reported having undergone a lower endoscopy within the previous 5 years had been screened for CRC. Because several associations (4, 6) recommend that screening colonoscopy be done every 10 years in people ages 50 who are at average risk for CRC, our results might underestimate the actual proportion of CRC screening according to recommendations. On the other hand, the results might also be overestimated considering that the survey does not specify why the lower endoscopy was done (screening versus diagnostic use). Nonetheless, the association between self-reported health insurance coverage and report of CRC screening did not substantially differ when we considered lower endoscopy in the previous 5 or 10 years. Third, BRFSS data are based on self-report. Although self-reported data might be less exact than information obtained from medical charts (22), self-report of CRC screening is reasonably accurate (23). Fourth, BRFSS data are obtained by calling household landline telephone numbers. Although this can lead to undercoverage or noncoverage of certain subpopulations, in Virginia only 2.1% of households are without telephone service (24), which should have a minimal effect on our estimates. Finally, because Virginia requires insurance providers to cover preventive CRC screening (17), the proportion of those screened in our study is higher than national figures (25). Thus, the generalizability of our findings may be limited to states with demographic characteristics and insurance practices similar to those of Virginia.
In conclusion, this study showed that men who report having insurance coverage were more likely to report being screened for CRC. This association was not observed for women. To our knowledge, this gender difference has not been previously reported and additional investigation is necessary. These findings, if confirmed, could be of importance in the design and implementation of programs to improve CRC screening. The effect of insurance coverage may require gender-specific considerations: whereas improving insurance coverage may be expected to improve CRC screening in men, this may not necessarily be the case in women, who may require other interventions. Prospective studies, in more diverse populations, with different insurance requirements could provide more insights to our findings.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Received 11/ 1/07;
revised 1/17/08;
accepted 1/21/08.
|
References
|
|---|
- Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. SEER*Stat Database: Incidence—SEER 17 Regs Public-Use, Nov 2005 Sub (2000-2003), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch. Available from: http://www.seer.cancer.gov/.
- Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg A, Lohr K. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults. Systematic Evidence Review No. 7 (prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011). AHRQ Publication No. 02-S003. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002. Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/serfiles.htm.
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendations and rationale. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002. Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/colorectal/colorr.htm.
- American Cancer Society. Guidelines on screening and surveillance for the early detection of adenomatous polyps and colorectal cancer. Update 2001. Available from: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PRO/content/PRO_1_1_Colorectal_Cancer_Screening_Guidelines_2001.asp.
- American Academy of Family Physicians. Clinical Care & Research. A-E: recommendations for clinical preventive services, colorectal cancer. Revision 6.3, March 2007. Available from: http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/exam/a-e.html.
- American College of Gastroenterology. Colon cancer prevention and screening. Available from: http://www.acg.gi.org/patients/women/colon.asp#1.
- Brawarsky P, Brooks DR, Mucci LA. Correlates of colorectal cancer testing in Massachusetts men and women. Prev Med 2003;36:659–68.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Jerant AF, Franks P, Jackson JE, Doescher MP. Age-related disparities in cancer screening: analysis of 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:481–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- McMahon LF, Jr., Wolfe RA, Huang S, Tedeschi P, Manning W, Jr., Edlund MJ. Racial and gender variation in use of diagnostic colonic procedures in the Michigan Medicare population. Med Care 1999;37:712–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Gordon NP, Rundall TG, Parker L. Type of health care coverage and the likelihood of being screened for cancer. Med Care 1998;36:636–45.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Adams EK, Thorpe KE, Becker ER, et al. Colorectal cancer screening, 1997-1999: role of income, insurance and policy. Prev Med 2004;38:551–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Rosen AB, Schneider EC. Colorectal cancer screening disparities related to obesity and gender. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:332–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Cairns CP, Viswanath K. Communication and colorectal cancer screening among the uninsured: data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2006;17:1115–25.[Medline]
- Matthews BA, Anderson RC, Nattinger AB. Colorectal cancer screening behavior and health insurance status (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2005;16:735–42.[Medline]
- Walsh JM, Posner SF, Perez-Stable EJ. Colon cancer screening in the ambulatory setting. Prev Med 2002;35:209–18.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Ata A, Elzey JD, Insaf TZ, Grau AM, Stain SC, Ahmed NU. Colorectal cancer prevention: adherence patterns and correlates of tests done for screening purposes within United States populations. Cancer Detect Prev 2006;30:134–43.[Medline]
- Rustgi AK. Breaking the barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology 2004;126:1232–3.[Medline]
- Hsia J, Kemper E, Kiefe C, et al. The importance of health insurance as a determinant of cancer screening: evidence from the Women's Health Initiative. Prev Med 2000;31:261–70.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Ross JS, Bradley EH, Busch SH. Use of health care services by lower-income and higher-income uninsured adults. JAMA 2006;295:2027–36.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Zapka JG, Puleo E, Vickers-Lahti M, Luckmann R. Healthcare system factors and colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med 2002;23:28–35.[CrossRef][Medline]
- McQueen A, Vernon SW, Meissner HI, Klabunde CN, Rakowski W. Are there gender differences in colorectal cancer test use prevalence and correlates? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:782–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Comparability of data: BRFSS 2005. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources, Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/BRFSS/.
- Baier M, Calonge BN, Cutter GR, et al. Validity of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9:229–32.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Summary File 3. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov.
- National Healthcare Disparities Report 2006. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr06/report/Chap2.htm#cancer.
Top
Abstract
Introduction
