Skip to main content
. 2021 May 21;113(12):1723–1732. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab105

Table 3.

Changes in the percentage of stage I disease at diagnosis associated with Medicaid expansion among newly diagnosed young adult cancer patients aged 18-39 years, 2011-2016a,b

Cancer site Expansion states
Nonexpansion states
Crude model
Adjusted modelc
Pre-ME, % Post-ME, % Absolute difference (95% CI), ppt Pre-ME, % Post-ME, % Absolute difference (95% CI), ppt DD (95% CI), ppt P d DD (95% CI), ppt P d
All cancer types combined 51.6 53.5 1.9 (1.4 to 2.4) 49.1 49.6 0.4 (−0.2 to 1.1) 1.4 (0.6 to 2.2) <.001 1.4 (0.6 to 2.2) <.001
Thyroid 91.3 94.3 3.0 (2.5 to 3.6) 88.6 92.0 3.4 (2.6 to 4.3) −0.4 (−1.4 to 0.6) .43 −0.7 (−1.6 to 0.3) .18
Female breast 32.2 34.9 2.7 (1.6 to 3.8) 32.4 33.2 0.8 (−0.5 to 2.2) 1.9 (0.1 to 3.6) .04 1.8 (0.03 to 3.5) .046
Melanoma 67.8 69.5 1.7 (0.1 to 3.2) 64.8 64.7 −0.2 (−2.4 to 2.0) 1.8 (−0.9 to 4.5) .18 2.0 (−0.6 to 4.7) .13
Colon and rectum 17.0 17.4 0.4 (−1.1 to 2.0) 15.9 15.4 −0.5 (−2.4 to 1.3) 0.9 (−1.5 to 3.3) .45 0.9 (−1.6 to 3.3) .49
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 31.0 30.7 −0.3 (−2.2 to 1.6) 28.9 28.4 −0.5 (−2.9 to 1.9) 0.2 (−2.8 to 3.2) .90 0.2 (−2.8 to 3.2) .89
Cervix 62.1 61.4 −0.7 (−2.8 to 1.4) 58.5 57.3 −1.2 (−3.7 to 1.2) 0.5 (−2.7 to 3.8) .74 0.3 (−3.0 to 3.5) .87
Hodgkin lymphoma 10.1 9.8 −0.3 (−1.5 to 0.9) 11.7 10.1 −1.6 (−3.3 to 0.05) 1.3 (−0.8 to 3.4) .21 1.3 (−0.8 to 3.3) .23
Other 44.4 45.5 1.0 (0.02 to 2.0) 45.2 45.3 0.2 (−1.1 to 1.4) 0.8 (−0.7 to 2.4) .30 1.1 (−0.5 to 2.7) .16
a

Authors’ analysis of the 2011-2016 National Cancer Database. CI = confidence interval; DD = difference in difference; ME = Medicaid expansion; ppt = percentage points.

b

Cases without applicable stages (eg, leukemia, brain tumor) were excluded. Testicular cancer cases were excluded due to high percentage of unknown stage observed exclusively among patients with testicular cancer.

c

Adjusted model: regression models also adjusted for age, sex, race or ethnicity, zip code–level income, residence metropolitan statistical area status, and linear time trends as well as state adjusted as a random effect.

d

P values were calculated from linear probability regression models and reflect 2-sided test of statistical significance.