Back

Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Lung Cancer Survival Outcomes: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis

Akinyemi, O.; Fasokun, M.; Eze, A.; Ugochukwu, N.; Arshad, S.; Belie, O.; Hughes, K.; Cornwell, E.; Levy, G.

2025-09-02 oncology
10.1101/2025.08.31.25334804 medRxiv
Show abstract

INTRODUCTIONThe Affordable Care Acts Medicaid expansion aimed to enhance healthcare access for low-income individuals and minority groups, promoting early screening and treatment to improve health equity. OBJECTIVEThis study examines the impact of Medicaid expansion on lung cancer-specific survival (CSM) and overall mortality (OS) by comparing outcomes in Texas (non-expansion of ACA) and California (expansion of ACA). METHODOLOGYWe conducted a retrospective study using data from SEER cancer registry (2007-2021) to evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion on lung cancer survival in California (expansion) vs. Texas (non-expansion). The study included adults aged 18-64, with periods split into pre-ACA (2007-2013), one-year washout (2014), and post-ACA (2015-2021). We utilized a DID design and adjusted for important covariates. RESULTSAmong 119,937 individuals with Lung cancer, 52.1% were in California (62,521), while 47.8% were in Texas (57,416). The pre-ACA period included 60,010 individuals (53.1% in California and 46.9% in Texas), and 59,927 patients were in the post-ACA period (51.2% in California and 48.8% in Texas). Overall, Medicaid expansion was associated with a 1.12-point (- 1.12, 95% CI -1.46 to -0.77) reduction in the hazard of cancer-specific mortality. The policy was also associated with a 0.81point reduction in the hazard of overall mortality (-0.81, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.57). CONCLUSIONMedicaid expansion was associated with a significant improvement in lung cancer outcomes among individuals with lung cancer in California, which implemented the policy in 2014, compared to Texas, which has not yet implemented the policy.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 3%
28.7%
2
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.9%
3
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.5%
50% of probability mass above
4
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.3%
6
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.8%
7
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.2%
8
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
9
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.0%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.8%
11
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
12
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
13
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
14
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
15
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
16
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
17
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
18
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
19
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
23
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
25
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.5%
26
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
27
Cancer Letters
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%