The Socio-Economic Geography of Cancer

Being poor can affect the type of cancer you get.

A close up of cancer cells in the cervix.
National Journal
John Metcalfe, City Lab
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
John Metcalfe, City Lab
May 27, 2014, 6:51 a.m.

We know that be­ing poor can make you sick. New re­search provides more evid­ence of this dis­mal link spe­cific­ally for can­cer: Liv­ing in poverty, it seems, is as­so­ci­ated with a high­er risk of con­tract­ing the kind of tu­mors that will kill you.

That’s the con­clu­sion of sci­ent­ists who’ve in­vest­ig­ated al­most 3 mil­lion ma­lig­nant tu­mors dia­gnosed in 16 states as well as the Los Angeles area ““ what they as­sert is the “most com­pre­hens­ive as­sess­ment of the re­la­tion­ship between SES (so­cioeco­nom­ic status) and can­cer in­cid­ence for the United States.” Over­all, they found no cor­rel­a­tion between how poor or rich you are and how likely you are to get can­cer. But drilling down in­to the census tracts with high­er poverty rates, they no­ticed a pre­val­ence of can­cers with low in­cid­ence and high mor­tal­ity rates. Wealth­i­er neigh­bor­hoods were marked by can­cers of high in­cid­ence, but low mor­tal­ity rates. As the lead re­search­er, Fran­cis Bos­coe at the New York State Can­cer Re­gistry, ex­plains: “When it comes to can­cer, the poor are more likely to die of the dis­ease while the af­flu­ent are more likely to die with the dis­ease.”

Out of 39 types of can­cer, 14 showed a pos­it­ive as­so­ci­ation with poverty, the re­search­ers said in their study (which was partly sup­por­ted by the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion). Poor neigh­bor­hoods were more likely to see can­cers of the larynx, cer­vix, liv­er, and penis, as well as Ka­posi sar­coma. They were also tied to an up­tick in can­cers re­lated to to­bacco use and hu­man papil­lo­mavir­us. Rich­er areas, mean­while, suffered more from melan­oma and oth­er skin af­flic­tions, and can­cers of the thyroid and testes.

What’s to ac­count for these dif­fer­ences? Though race might play a part in the grand scheme of can­cer, it’s not ap­plic­able to what the re­search­ers meas­ured in this ex­per­i­ment. “The SES ef­fects we re­port are in­de­pend­ent of race, as race was ad­jus­ted for in the ana­lys­is,” they say. Rather, there could be be­ha­vi­or­al and eco­nom­ic things at play here, such as sub­stance use and ac­cess to med­ic­al care, ac­cord­ing to the study:

In gen­er­al, can­cer sites as­so­ci­ated with be­ha­vi­or­al risk factors such as to­bacco, al­co­hol and in­tra­ven­ous drug use, sexu­al trans­mis­sion, and poor diet tend to be as­so­ci­ated with high­er poverty. In con­trast, can­cer sites as­so­ci­ated with over­dia­gnos­is are as­so­ci­ated with lower poverty, not­ably skin, thyroid, and pro­state. Over­dia­gnos­is refers to the clin­ic­al de­tec­tion of asymp­to­mat­ic tu­mors, of­ten through ad­vanced med­ic­al tech­no­logy, that would oth­er­wise re­main un­detec­ted and un­coun­ted.

For a break­down of the can­cers that are dia­gnosed in poor and rich neigh­bor­hoods, have a look at this graph the re­search­ers made for four poverty levels us­ing data from the 2005-2009 Amer­ic­an Com­munity Sur­vey. The af­flic­tions that strike in high­er-poverty areas are loc­ated to­ward the right, and can­cers dis­covered more in rich­er ‘hoods are shown to­ward left:

What We're Following See More »
ANOTHER NUCLEAR OPTION?
Byrd Rule Could Trip Up Health Legislation
10 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”

Source:
ONE WEEK
Senate Votes To Fund Government
13 hours ago
BREAKING
ON TO SENATE
House Passes Spending Bill
14 hours ago
BREAKING

The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.

PRESIDENT CALLS MEDICAID FUNDS A “BAILOUT”
Puerto Rico Another Sticking Point in Budget Talks
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."

Source:
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN?
Democrats Threaten Spending Bill Over Obamacare
1 days ago
BREAKING

Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login