Acceptance of Simulated Adult Patients With Medicaid Insurance Seeking Care in a Cancer Hospital for a New Cancer Diagnosis

IMPORTANCE: Although there have been significant increases in the number of US residents insured through Medicaid, the ability of patients with Medicaid to access cancer care services is less well known. OBJECTIVE: To assess facility-level acceptance of Medicaid insurance among patients diagnosed with common cancers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This national cross-sectional secret shopper study was conducted in 2020 in a random sample of Commission on Cancer–accredited facilities in the United States using a simulated cohort of Medicaid-insured adult patients with colorectal, breast, kidney, and melanoma skin cancer. EXPOSURES: Telephone call requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid with a new cancer diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Acceptance of Medicaid insurance for cancer care. Descriptive statistics, χ(2) tests, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with Medicaid acceptance for colorectal, breast, kidney, and skin cancer. High access hospitals were defined as those offering care across all 4 cancer types surveyed. Explanatory measures included facility-level factors from the 2016 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services General Information database. RESULTS: A nationally representative sample of 334 facilities was created, of which 226 (67.7%) provided high access to patients with Medicaid seeking cancer care. Medicaid acceptance differed by cancer site, with 319 facilities (95.5%) accepting Medicaid insurance for breast cancer care; 302 (90.4%), colorectal; 290 (86.8%), kidney; and 266 (79.6%), skin. Comprehensive community cancer programs (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; P = .007) were significantly less likely to provide high access to care for patients with Medicaid. Facilities with nongovernment, nonprofit (vs for-profit: OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.8; P = .03) and government (vs for-profit: OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.6-27.2; P = .01) ownership, integrated salary models (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P = .001), and average (vs above-average: OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.4-29.6; P = .02) or below-average (vs above-average: OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 1.5-47.5; P = .02) effectiveness of care were associated with high access to Medicaid. State Medicaid expansion status was not significantly associated with high access. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance at centers designated for high-quality care. These findings highlight gaps in cancer care for the expanding population of patients receiving Medicaid.