One in every twenty-five persons in America is a racial/ethnic minority who lives in a rural area. Our objective was to summarize how racism and, subsequently, the social determinants of health disproportionately affect rural racial/ethnic minority populations, provide a review of the cancer disparities experienced by rural racial/ethnic minority groups, and recommend policy, research, and intervention approaches to reduce these disparities. We found that rural Black and American Indian/Alaska Native populations experience greater poverty and lack of access to care, which expose them to greater risk of developing cancer and experiencing poorer cancer outcomes in treatment and ultimately survival. There is a critical need for additional research to understand the disparities experienced by all rural racial/ethnic minority populations. We propose that policies aim to increase access to care and healthcare resources for these communities. Further, that observational and interventional research should more effectively address the intersections of rurality and race/ethnicity through reduced structural and interpersonal biases in cancer care, increased data access, more research on newer cancer screening and treatment modalities, and continued intervention and implementation research to understand how evidence-based practices can most effectively reduce disparities among these populations.

PURPOSE Medicaid expansion through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been shown to improve insurance coverage and early diagnosis of cancer in young adults (YAs); whether these improvements translate to survival benefits remains unknown. We examined the association between Medicaid expansion under the ACA and 2-year overall survival among YAs with cancer. METHODS Using the National Cancer Database, we identified 345,413 YAs (age 18-39 years) diagnosed with cancer in 2010-2017. We applied the difference-in-differences (DD) method to estimate changes in 2-year overall survival after versus before Medicaid expansion in expansion versus nonexpansion states. RESULTS Among all YAs, 2-year overall survival increased more in expansion states (90.39% pre-expansion to 91.85% postexpansion) than in nonexpansion states (88.98% pre-expansion to 90.07% postexpansion), resulting in a net increase of 0.55 percentage points (ppt; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.96). The expansion-associated survival benefit was concentrated in patients with female breast cancer (DD, 1.20 ppt; 95%CI, 0.27 to 2.12) when stratifying by cancer type and in patients with stage IV disease (DD, 2.56; 95%CI, 0.36 to 4.77) when stratifying by stage. In addition, greater survival benefit associated with Medicaid expansion was observed among racial and ethnic minoritized groups (DD, 1.01 ppt; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.87) as compared with non-Hispanic White peers (DD, 0.41 ppt; 95% CI, –0.06 to 0.87) and among patients with a Charlson comorbidity score of ≥ 2 (DD, 6.48 ppt; 95% CI, 0.81 to 12.16) than those with a comorbidity score of 0 (DD, 0.44 ppt; 95% CI, 0.005 to 0.87). CONCLUSION Medicaid expansion under the ACA was associated with an improvement in overall survival among YAs with cancer, with survival benefits most pronounced among patients of under-represented race and ethnicity and patients with high-risk diseases.

Background: Rural residents experience worse cancer prognosis and access to cancer care providers than their urban counterparts. Critical access hospitals (CAHs) represent over half of all rural community hospitals. However, research on cancer services provided within CAHs is limited.Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate trends in cancer services availability in urban and rural Prospective Payment System (PPS) hospitals and CAHs.Design: Retrospective, time-series analysis using data from 2008 to 2017 American Hospital Association Annual Surveys. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to examine differential trends in cancer services between urban PPS, rural PPS, and CAHs, overall and among small (< 25 beds) hospitals.Subjects: All US acute care and cancer hospitals (4752 in 2008 to 4722 in 2017).Measures: Primary outcomes include whether a hospital provided comprehensive oncology services, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy each year.Results: In 2008, CAHs were less likely to provide all cancer services, especially chemotherapy (30.4%) and radiation therapy (2.9%), compared with urban (64.4% and 43.8%, respectively) and rural PPS hospitals (42.0% and 23.3%, respectively). During 2008-2017, compared with similarly sized PPS hospitals, CAHs were more likely to provide oncology services and chemotherapy, but with decreasing trends. Radiation therapy availability between small PPS hospitals and CAHs did not differ. Conclusions:Compared with all PPS hospitals, CAHs offered fewer cancer treatment services and experienced a decline in service capability over time. These differences in chemotherapy services were mainly driven by hospital size, as small urban and rural PPS hospitals had lower rates of chemotherapy than CAHs. Still, the lower rates of radiotherapy in CAHs highlight disproportionate challenges facing CAHs for some specialty services.

No abstract