No Increased Mortality Seen in axSpA Patients With Cancer
Results from this new analysis of data from Medicare claims linked to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database also showed that the rates of OS and CSS were significantly higher for patients with axSpA and concomitant colorectal cancer than for patients with colorectal cancer but not axSpA, even though past evidence suggested that for older patients with some other rheumatic diseases, there are worse cancer survival outcomes — for instance, patients with rheumatoid arthritis and concomitant breast or prostate cancer and those with systemic lupus erythematosus and breast cancer.
'We're not entirely sure why survival rates were higher in colorectal cancer patients with axSpA, but it's likely the use of [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] NSAIDs in the treatment of axSpA played a role,' study presenter Savannah M. Bowman, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston told Medscape Medical News at the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) 2025 Annual Meeting.
The hazard ratio (HR) for 5-year OS from colorectal cancer in patients with axSpA was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.83; P < .0001), and the HR for 5-year CSS was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.55-0.97; P = .03).
There were also no significant differences in OS and CSS in patients with axSpA and concomitant breast, prostate, or lung cancer compared with patients with cancer alone, with HRs of 0.87, 0.97, and 0.94, respectively.
When asked to comment on the study findings, John D. Reveille, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Texas McGovern Medical School, Houston, said that the better survival rates seen in patients with axSpA may result from the close monitoring they receive because of their increased risk for inflammatory bowel disease.
'It's likely these patients had colonoscopy [or other colorectal cancer screenings], and that this detected cancer earlier [than in patients without axSpA]. This would have resulted in better survival,' said Reveille, who was not involved in the study.
For the analysis, Bowman and study co-authors examined data from 6103 patients, with and without axSpA, and a primary diagnosis of breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer between 2006 and 2019. Of these patients, 2061 had breast cancer, 1988 had prostate cancer, 1234 had lung cancer, and 820 had colorectal cancer. The mean age ranged from 74 to 77 years.
Patients in the axSpA cohorts were required to have two or more claims with a diagnosis of axSpA either 12 months before or after cancer diagnosis. They were matched to controls by gender, cancer type and stage, age at cancer diagnosis, and year of cancer diagnosis.
Patients with diagnostic claims for connective tissue diseases were excluded from the control cohorts.
Survival time was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazard regression models were performed for each type of cancer and adjusted for competing risks for CSS.
'Further research is needed to explore the potential reasons for longer survival in elderly patients with colorectal cancer and axSpA compared to those without axSpA,' the investigators concluded.
Reveille agreed. 'The lack of previous research on colorectal cancer in axSpA patients suggests a need for further studies,' he told Medscape Medical News.
Bowman said she plans to use the IQVIA claims database to conduct the same analysis in younger patients. She would also like to analyze the impact of treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin 17 inhibitors, and Janus kinase inhibitors on cancer outcomes in patients with axSpA.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Study: Medicaid, Medicare don't adequately cover addiction treatment
July 1 (UPI) -- Opioid addicts covered by Medicare and Medicaid are less likely to receive the mental health and substance use treatment that they need, a new study says. Addicts with public insurance receive more than twice as many sessions if their therapy is also covered by other sources, such as court-mandated treatment, researchers report in the journal Addiction Science & Clinical Practice. "What's most striking is how insurance type fundamentally shapes patient treatment," said principal investigator Jamey Lister, an associate professor at the Rutgers University School of Social Work in New Jersey. "We discovered that patients with public insurance alone were less likely to utilize treatment services compared to those with multiple funding sources," Lister said. This news comes as Medicare and Medicaid face potential cuts from Republican-sponsored legislation making its way through Congress, researchers noted. About 10% of American adults suffer from both substance use and mental health disorders that require integrated treatment for both. For the new study, researchers analyzed records of 705 patients registered at a community health center in New Jersey between 2015 and 2021. During that period, the state's Medicaid coverage expanded under the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare). The patients all had been diagnosed with opioid use disorder, and 72% had another substance use disorder such as cannabis, cocaine or alcohol. About 39% also had a co-occurring mental health condition such as anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression or schizophrenia. Results show that people were more likely to get all the help they needed if they had additional coverage on top of Medicaid or Medicare. "It's the exact opposite of how we should be helping people," Lister said. "We should aspire to provide health care services that are driven by patient need, not by financing. But as we found, if you're only using public insurance, you're likely falling through the cracks." Cutting Medicaid and Medicare would make these problems worse, and cost the health care system even more in the long run, Lister argues. Lister pointed to a 2021 study published by the American Medical Association, which found that improving access to opioid addiction treatment can save between $25,000 to $105,000 in lifetime costs per person. In addition, overdoses, addiction and deaths account for $35 billion in health care costs annually, as well as nearly $15 billion in criminal justice costs, according to a Pew report highlighted by Lister. More information The National Institute of Mental Health has more on co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Scientific American
2 hours ago
- Scientific American
How Massive Medicaid Cuts Will Harm People's Health
Money can't necessarily buy an individual good health—but for a society, it can. On July 3 the House of Representatives will vote on the Trump administration's new budget bill, which incorporates massive cuts to Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program that serves more than 70 million low-income people. The bill, which passed the Senate on July 1, would cut $930 billion from Medicaid, Medicare and Affordable Care Act funding combined over 10 years, with more than 11 million people losing coverage by 2034. Experts have calculated that, taken together, the cuts will lead to more than 51,000 additional deaths per year by decreasing people's access to health care. Experts say the evidence shows that gutting Medicaid will have dramatic effects on health far beyond people enrolled today—some of whom may not even realize they use Medicaid because the program goes by different names in different states. Even those with private insurance will be affected. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. 'When you slash $1 trillion from the health care system, you can't expect it not to have far-reaching harms,' says Megan Cole Brahim, a health policy researcher at Boston University. 'It will really affect everyone, including people who aren't enrolled in Medicaid.' The bill includes two main Medicaid-related provisions. One increases the requirements people must meet to qualify for and remain on Medicaid: This would drive down the total number of people who receive benefits, Cole Brahim says, leaving more people without coverage. The second provision reduces the amount of money the federal government sends to the states to fund Medicaid coverage. This will cause great variability in how different states handle the cuts, she notes, because each state will have authority to make its own choices about whether to try to scrounge up the funding from other sources to close the gap and maintain Medicaid access. Medicaid's Overall Health Impacts Cuts to Medicaid at the scale proposed in the House and Senate bills are unprecedented, Cole Brahim says, but scientists still have plenty of data to work from to predict the effects of such a massive cut. Researchers have tracked differences in health outcomes in states where Medicaid was expanded, particularly after the passage of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That legislation gave states the option of extending Medicaid coverage to more people, up to those with an income of 138 percent of the federal poverty level, with federal support. So far, 40 states and Washington, D.C., have opted for expansion—and researchers have monitored health outcomes over time in those states compared with states that did not. 'Medicaid expansion was really a natural experiment,' says Brian Lee, a transplant hepatologist at the University of Southern California, who was co-author of a 2022 study in the Lancet that evaluated death rates in conjunction with Medicaid expansion across the U.S. When Medicaid coverage was offered to more people, overall death rates fell by nearly 12 per 100,000 adults per year on average. Where states were home to more women or more Black people, the decline in death rate was larger. And Lee notes that the 2022 findings are just the bird's-eye view of the way Medicaid access shapes people's health. For example, studies have found that more people get diagnosed with chronic conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease in Medicaid expansion states. Earlier diagnosis permits earlier treatment, which, logically, would reduce mortality rates over the course of decades. 'Medicaid expansion, in relative terms, is pretty new,' Lee says; the earliest states began implementing the program in 2014. 'A lot of people think that, actually, the best benefits are to come' —or at least, they thought that they were to come. Medicaid for Specific Needs The new policy changes won't just affect the people who lose access to Medicaid in the short term. 'This isn't a small program for a fraction of our population,' Cole Brahim says. 'It covers about one in five people, and the majority of people in the United States will have had Medicaid at some point in their life.' One key area in which Medicaid is crucial is older adult health services and other long-term support, including both home-based care and residential facilities, says Jasmine Travers Altizer, a researcher at New York University who studies aging. Two out of three people in the U.S. will require some form of long-term health services at some point in their life, she says. Even after people reach the age of 65, Medicare—a companion federally run insurance program for older adults —only covers nursing home and daily home health care services for 100 days, she notes. Many people don't have independent long-term care coverage, which can cost thousands of dollars a year in premiums, leaving them with no real alternative to Medicaid. And when people can't access proper medical care, they often need to rely on relatives for support, including full-time care—which comes with its own economic consequences for families and society at large. Our youngest populations also depend on Medicaid, Cole Brahim says. More than two in five births are paid for by the service —a proportion that rises to more than half for Black and Hispanic births. And although proponents of the Trump administration's Medicaid cuts say that these changes wouldn't affect pregnant people and kids, Cole Brahim notes that they would absolutely prevent some people from having coverage before pregnancy. 'Making sure people are connected to care before they become pregnant is really critical for maximizing health outcomes, both for the mom and the baby,' she says. Medicaid Cuts Lead to Provider Shortages All three experts emphasize a universal risk to Medicaid cuts: the reduction of health care facilities and personnel. Federal Medicaid funds are used to directly cover care of individuals on Medicaid, but this money indirectly keeps practitioners' and hospitals' doors open. The steep cuts to federal funding will ultimately mean doctors and hospitals have more trouble making ends meet. As facilities begin to close, people in affected communities—regardless of their insurance provider—will face longer wait times for appointments and longer travel times to facilities that are still in operation. People in more rural communities, which are already underserved, may lose care access entirely, even while remaining insured. Cole Brahim is particularly worried that obstetric and pediatric care will see more closures, noting that these departments are often less profitable because insurance providers already reimburse these services at lower rates, she says. Travers Altizer is also concerned about the cuts' effects on nursing homes, which are in crisis as well. In one recent survey of nursing home providers, 27 percent said they would have to close their facilities if Medicaid cuts occurred. Even more—58 percent—said they would need to reduce current staffing; 44 percent they would slow new hires. For Travers Altizer, those possibilities mark a return to the early days of COVID, when staffing shortages left some nursing home residents unable to get out of bed or otherwise meet basic needs. She also notes that people whose lose Medicaid coverage because of cuts will still need to seek care; they'll just do it in different ways—ways that are ultimately more expensive overall. Rather than primary care visits, people will lean on emergency rooms. Without skilled medical support, people will rely on friends and family. Without federal money, people will continue turning to online fundraising platforms such as GoFundMe at ever increasing rates. 'There's this big idea that we need to cut Medicaid [because] we need to save money, and Medicaid is this big federal government program,' Travers Altizer says. 'But taking away this support won't save money; it's going to shift costs.'
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Looking to reduce your Medicare costs in retirement? Here are 3 smart moves
There's a reason retirees are often told they can get away with replacing 70% to 80% of their income without needing more. A lot of costs tend to shrink in retirement. Many seniors no longer have a mortgage to pay for and can do more home maintenance themselves since they're not busy working. And not having to report to a job means not spending money on a daily commute. But if there's one expense that tends to increase among retirees, it's healthcare. For a 65-year-old leaving the workforce in 2024, Fidelity puts the average cost of healthcare in retirement at $165,000. And part of that includes expenses related to Medicare. The good news, though, is that you can take steps to lower your healthcare spending as a Medicare enrollee. Here's how. 1. Sign up on time Although Medicare coverage beings at 65, you can sign up a bit earlier. Your initial enrollment window for Medicare starts three months before the month you turn 65 and ends three months after that month. It pays to enroll in Medicare on time not just to avoid a gap in coverage, but also, to avoid surcharges on your premiums. If you don't enroll on time, you could face a 10% surcharge for each 12-month period you were eligible for Part B but didn't enroll. And there can be surcharges if you fail to enroll in a Part D drug plan on time. 2. Understand your plan's benefits inside and out If you decide to stick with original Medicare, you'll need a Part D drug plan to go along with Parts A (hospital care) and B (outpatient care). If you decide to enroll in Medicare Advantage, you should get all-in-one coverage through that plan, including prescriptions. While the rules that apply to Parts A and B are universal for all enrollees, each Medicare Advantage and Part D plan sets its own rules and has its own benefits. It's important to understand those thoroughly so you're able to take advantage of the perks you're paying for without incurring unwanted costs. For example, it's common for Medicare Advantage plans to stick you with higher costs for out-of-network care. In some cases, you might even have to foot the whole bill yourself, so it's important to know what your plan will and won't cover. Similarly, with Part D plans, medications are typically grouped into different tiers that come with different costs. It's important to see what costs you're looking at, since there may be a preferred medication that will result in less out-of-pocket spending on your part. 3. Take advantage of fall open enrollment each year The Medicare Advantage or Part D drug plan you sign up for isn't coverage you're stuck with for life. Each year, Medicare enrollees can make changes to Advantage and Part D plans during fall open enrollment, which takes place between Oct. 15 and Dec. 7. During open enrollment, you can switch from one Medicare Advantage plan to another or even drop Medicare Advantage altogether if you're not a fan. You can also make changes to your Part D coverage. Some people choose to sit out open enrollment because they're happy with their existing coverage. But you never know when a more cost-effective plan might become available. So it pays to do some research during open enrollment each year, no matter what. While healthcare might end up being a large retirement expense, there are ways you can reduce it as a Medicare enrollee. Read up on Medicare ahead of retirement so you can position yourself to make the most of it while shaving down your costs. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
