Swenson, Wade T.

Abstract Rural health disparities in the United States remain poorly understood, in part due to inconsistent definitions of “rurality” and the failure to integrate both geographic and socially constructed dimensions of place. This commentary draws from insights shared during the panel “Addressing Diversity in Cancer Prevention, Control, and Survivorship Within Rural Communities” at the 2024 Transforming Community and Rural Healthcare (TCRH) conference. Panelists emphasized the limitations of current rural-urban classification systems, which often overlook the intersectional identities, cultural heterogeneity, and lived experiences of rural populations. They advocated for integrating community-based participatory research (CBPR) and identity-based approaches to define rurality more holistically. Such methods prioritize self-identification, social determinants of health (SDOH), and localized knowledge, allowing for a more accurate assessment of cancer disparities and the development of equitable interventions. The commentary outlines how geophysical and census-based metrics, although convenient, can misrepresent rural communities and inadvertently perpetuate disparities in cancer care access, outcomes, and policy. The authors argue for an identity- and community-centered conceptualization of rurality that is dynamic, inclusive, and responsive to the complexity of rural life.

55 Background: Prior authorization (PA) processes are known to create administrative burdens and delays in care, but little is known about how these challenges impact rural oncology patients and practice settings. Methods: To understand the broad impact of prior authorization on rural oncology patients and practices, we conducted this study across three community oncology practices serving majority rural patient populations with distinct geography, healthcare infrastructure, and models of care. Sites included one critical access hospital system located in a highly-rural community (Lakewood Health System; Staples, Minnesota), a community-based hub-and-spoke hospital system-based practice located in a mid-sized community (Mayo Clinic Health System – Northfield; Northfield, Minnesota), and a standalone referral level III trauma center serving a highly rural patient base (Self Regional Healthcare; Greenwood, South Carolina). This retrospective cohort study examined all intravenous and subcutaneous cancer-directed therapy plans (no oral therapy) that required PA submission at these locations over a three-month period from October 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024. Results: 129 PA submissions were required during the study period. 82 were due to cancer-directed therapy agents (of which 14 were immunotherapy agents), and 47 were due to adjunctive therapies (of which 22, 16, and 9 were due to granulocyte stimulation, bone preservation, and anti-emesis agents, respectively). All 129 PA submissions ultimately resulted in approval of the desired medication or formulary-approved biosimilar. Delays from PA submission to approval ranged from 0 to 18 days. A total of 209 patient-days were delayed due to PA during the study period, which did not ultimately result in change of care or denial of care in any instance. Conclusions: At all sites included in this study, all PA submissions were eventually authorized. The PA process was found to introduce inconsistent and potentially avoidable delays for hundreds of patients and their care teams. These findings highlight the inefficiency of current PA processes among rural cancer populations and the practices that care for them, underscoring the need for ongoing efforts directed at state and federal PA reform.

Although innovation in cancer treatment has improved cure rates and survival, the costs have escalated beyond societies' ability to pay. Cancer care costs in the United States are expected to rise to 245 billion by 2030. In this health policy session, we focused on three cost-containment strategies, and their potential impact on cancer care delivery. Site Neutrality: Curbing the Cost of Cancer Care, but at What Risk? , explores legislation that would introduce payment parity across differing sites of care: elimination of facility fees in hospital owned practices and shift of billing for oncology infusions away from hospital owned practices. Unintended consequences could reduce access to care for vulnerable populations, shift costs to patients, and reduce safety. Post-Pandemic Digital Health Reimbursement: Impact on Access to Care , explores how the emergency waivers, licensure flexibilities, and parity reimbursement necessitated by COVID-19 shepherded innovation that outpaced the regulatory framework needed for long-term sustainability. Today, telehealth services, hospital at home, remote patient monitoring, and decentralized clinical trial enrollment face reintroduction of regulatory and payment barriers. Will we live to see efficacy-based pricing for cancer drugs? Learning from international models , explores how lack of drug price negotiation has led to higher prices in the United States compared with Canada and Europe. Comparative clinical effectiveness pricing systems compare the value of each drug to standard treatments. Comparative cost-effectiveness programs look at the incremental cost per additional unit of health gained above the standard of care. The United States could learn from these approaches used in comparable countries.

e13828 Background: Disparities in cancer outcomes between rural and urban populations are often linked to limited healthcare resources in rural areas. However, the impact of socioeconomic factors, particularly income inequality, requires further investigation. Methods: We analyzed cancer mortality rates using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, focusing on rural-urban continuum codes and median county income, the proportions of patients with de novo metastatic disease at diagnosis, those aged 80 and older, and those experiencing a treatment delay of three months or more. Results: Our findings indicate that non-metropolitan counties (56.7%, 95% CI: 56.6%, 56.8%) and those with lower median incomes (54.9%, 95% CI: 54.8%, 55.1%) have significantly lower cancer survival rates than metropolitan counties (62.6%, 95% CI: 62.5%, 62.6%) and higher-income rural counties (62.6%, 95% CI: 62.6%, 62.7%), a trend consistent over the observation period. Higher proportions of de novo metastatic disease and increased treatment delays were observed in counties with lower income and greater rurality, with these counties also demonstrating higher annual percentage rates of change for both de novo metastatic disease (P < 0.05) and treatment delays (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Lower county-level median household income is associated with higher cancer mortality rates, increased de novo metastatic disease, and longer treatment delays. These results underscore the need to appreciate the role of income disparities in cancer outcomes and to improve access to oncology care in underserved rural populations.