Financial Distress in Genitourinary Cancer: Insights From CDC National Health Interview Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study leverages CDC National Health Interview Survey data to examine Financial Distress (FD) among genitourinary (GU) cancer survivors, specifically prostate cancer (PC), kidney cancer (KC), and bladder cancer (BC). It investigates the economic impacts faced by these patients, especially in relation to disparities in insurance coverage and its effects on material, psychological, and behavioral aspects of FD. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed responses from GU cancer survivors, stratifying by cancer status and age (18-64 years, ≥65 years). Medical financial hardship was divided into three domains: material, psychological, and behavioral. Associations between cancer history, hardship, and clinical factors were assessed using generalized ordinal logistic regressions. RESULTS: Significant health care access disparities were found, particularly for mental health services, with 25% of younger BC survivors and 4.7% of younger KC survivors reporting affordability issues, in contrast to 2.7% of noncancer individuals. Dental care was also problematic, with higher avoidance rates among younger BC (27%) and KC (15%) survivors compared with the general population. Surprisingly, noncancer individuals reported more difficulty in affording prescriptions than BC survivors across both age groups. PC survivors, however, showed lower FD across all domains versus noncancer controls, indicating fewer concerns about medical bills and a lesser tendency to forgo care. CONCLUSION: The study underscores significant gaps in the financial support system for GU cancer survivors, with urgent needs in mental and dental health care access. Policy interventions, including comprehensive insurance reforms, are imperative to alleviate the financial burdens on these individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".