Bill Overview
Title: Patient Navigator Enhancement Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to use unobligated amounts from the Provider Relief Fund (a funding mechanism for reimbursing health care providers for expenses or lost revenue attributable to COVID-19) to carry out the Patient Navigator Research Program of the National Cancer Institute.
Sponsors: Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]
Target Audience
Population: Patients who benefit from patient navigator services, notably cancer patients
Estimated Size: 500000
- The Patient Navigator Enhancement Act utilizes funds to support the Patient Navigator Research Program, which aims to assist patients in navigating healthcare systems.
- The initiative targets patients, particularly those undergoing cancer treatment, who benefit from navigational support services.
- Navigational support in healthcare can lead to better patient outcomes and satisfaction, indicating direct impact on the wellbeing of those engaged in complex healthcare treatments.
Reasoning
- The target population primarily consists of cancer patients who could benefit from patient navigator services.
- The policy uses a limited budget, hence would initially cover a small fraction of the total need.
- Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including low-income families, urban and rural residents, and different age groups, should be considered.
- Impact examples will show a mixture of direct, low, and no impact scenarios to reflect various degrees of policy reach.
- The Cantril wellbeing scale will be used to assess both short-term and long-term impacts in the presence and absence of the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Administrative Assistant (New York City, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often feel lost in the complex healthcare system.
- Having someone guide me through treatments would bring a great relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Navigational support might help reduce my stress around treatment schedules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't seem directly relevant to me, but it's crucial for those in need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having navigational support during my treatment years would have been beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The navigator services were a lifesaver. Enhancing these programs is a great initiative.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Farmer (Rural Iowa)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Navigational support is crucial where resources are scarce.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Marketing Specialist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are foundational for systemic improvement in cancer care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 70 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy has indirect benefits by reducing healthcare system strain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The stress from medical bureaucracy was overwhelming without navigational help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Navigators are helpful, but my family plays a huge role in managing treatments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The availability of unobligated funds within the Provider Relief Fund is a key factor determining the feasibility and size of this program.
- Timing is crucial since changes in policy focus post-pandemic may impact fund redirection viability.
- Potential indirect savings in healthcare from improved patient outcomes could occur but are speculative and long-term.