Implementing financial toxicity and health-related social risks screening and referral.

Abstract

11006 Background: Financial toxicity (FT), or cancer-related economic hardship, is associated with delayed/skipped care, reduced quality of life, and worse mortality. Screening for FT and health-related social risks (HRSR) as part of assessment for social determinates of health is currently being integrated into clinical care, but there is limited research on outcomes after patients screen positive for FT or HRSR. Methods: We conducted FT and HRSR screening for patients receiving treatment for breast, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, or thoracic cancer at an urban comprehensive cancer center. Screening included the 11-item Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool (scored 0-44, lower scores = worse FT) and a HRSR checklist to identify food, housing, medicine, and transportation insecurity. A COST score ≤20 or any endorsed HRSR was considered a positive screen, and financial/assistance counseling referral was offered. Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations of accepting referral, after controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. Data were collected 09/2022-08/2023. Results: 28,606 patients completed screening, of which 32% (n = 9106) screened positive. Median COST was 16.0. Identified HRSR were: 23% food, 25% housing, 21% medicine, and 24% transportation insecurity. Of positive screens, 51% (n = 4683) requested some form of financial counseling. Associations with accepted referral include: higher FT (β = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.16), younger age (β = 1.01, 95% CI: 1.008, 1.02), more essential needs (β = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.25), non-White race/ethnicity (β = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.49, 1.93), and stage 3 (β = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.53) or stage 4 (β = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.49) diagnoses (vs. stage 0/1). Needs of patients who requested counseling included concerns relating to out-of-pocket expenses (68%), non-medical expenses (39%), health insurance coverage (23%), and paying for prescription medication (18%; not mutually exclusive). Of financial counseling sessions with available dispositions (n = 2336/4683, 50%), outcomes (not mutually exclusive) included general counseling (29%), referral to specific assistance programs (e.g., copay assistance, reduced cost care program; 15%), and insurance navigation (15%). One-third of patients requesting counseling did not respond to contact attempts; 21% reported no longer being interested in counseling upon contact. Conclusions: Screening for FT and HRSR was feasible, and one-third of patients were identified as at risk for FT or having an unmet essential need. Patients known to have worse FT outcomes (those with later-stage disease, younger age, higher FT, minoritized groups) were more likely to accept financial counseling; however, only one-half of those at risk accepted help. Future work will focus on improving workflows to ensure assistance meets patient needs, including addressing patient stigma around requesting help.