Financial Burden Of Cancer Care Research Articles

Reducing financial toxicity in bladder cancer care.

Financial toxicity is a significant concern for many individuals with bladder cancer, which is, overall, the most expensive malignancy, per patient. Financial toxicity, defined as the harmful effects of treatment costs on an individual's quality of life, is associated with worse outcomes and decreased quality of life. Awareness of the objective and subjective factors that contribute to financial toxicity, and ways to mitigate their effects on patients, is essential to reduce the burden of bladder cancer care. This commentary aims to discuss the elements contributing to financial toxicity amongst bladder cancer patients, identify at-risk populations, and review current and potential strategies for mitigating financial burden. Bladder cancer is becoming more expensive as the use of novel therapies increases. Early data suggest how some of these novel treatments or changes in treatment delivery may impact costs. Potential innovative strategies for cost reduction include blue light cystoscopy, intravesical gemcitabine-docetaxel rather than BCG for high-risk nonmuscle-invasive patients, home BCG therapy, and surveillance guideline optimization. However, there is still much work to be done on the potential impacts of these treatment on financial toxicity. While there is a paucity of data on treatment changes to reduce financial toxicity, and cost data can be hard to access, clinicians can still reduce the financial burden of cancer care. Awareness, financial toxicity screening, cost communication, and/or early referral to financial navigators or other similar resources have the potential to reduce financial burden. Despite mounting evidence, these tools/techniques are largely underutilized. Many individuals with bladder cancer face significant financial toxicity, with the potential for this to worsen in the setting of rising treatment costs. Novel diagnostic and treatment modifications may reduce financial toxicity. However, awareness, screening, cost discussions, and utilization of financial navigators are tools/techniques that are currently available and should be used to reduce financial burden.

Cost trends in standard-of-care cancer treatments, 2017-2021.

11073 Background: Financial burden of cancer care in the United States is substantial. Prior studies have explored price trends at the level of individual cancer drugs but not that of clinical indications, which can be impacted not only by changes in drug prices but also changes in standard-of-care. This study evaluates temporal trends in the cost of providing the contemporary best guideline-concordant therapy for each cancer indication. Methods: We analyzed trends in the cost of the standard-of-care treatments for the 20 most prevalent cancer types, using NCCN Guidelines to identify the standard-of-care (SOC) treatment for each indication. Our primary comparison of interest was the cost of providing the SOC treatment regimen for each indication in 2021 vs. 2017. All solid tumor treatment indications present in the NCCN Guidelines at both study time points, 7/1/2017 and 7/1/2021, were included. Indications that involved radiotherapy or stem cell transplant among the treatment options were excluded. Costs of all recommended treatment options for each included indication were calculated using Medicare reimbursement rates. We included costs of the antineoplastic agents themselves as well as necessary supportive medications. Costs were inflation-adjusted to 2021 USD. We identified the SOC treatment for every indication at both time points by referring to NCCN Evidence Blocks and identifying the regimen(s) with the highest scores (prioritizing Efficacy, then Safety, then Quality, then Consistency, in that order). If multiple SOC treatments for a single indication had identical scores, we chose the least-costly treatment. Results: 83 clinical indications across 16 solid tumor cancer types (bladder, brain, breast, colon, kidney, liver, lung, melanoma, oropharyngeal, ovary, pancreas, prostate, rectal, soft tissue, stomach, and uterus) were included. Median SOC cost was $8,364 (IQR = $3,838, $15,783) in 2017, compared to a median of $4,290 (IQR = $1,438, $14,947) in 2021. 57 indications (68.7%) had lower SOC costs in 2021 vs 2017, with median change of -$935 (IQR = -$4,432, +$452), representing a 31% decrease (IQR = -50%, 8%). Gastric cancer perioperative chemotherapy had the biggest absolute cost decrease at $65,612 (-90%), while extensive stage small cell lung cancer had the biggest absolute increase at $37,213 (706%). 45 indications (54.2%) had the same SOC regimen across this study period, of which 75.6% saw price drops. Of the 38 indications with new SOCs, 60.5% had lower costs. Conclusions: Majority of the best SOC treatments decreased in cost over a 4 year period. Although introduction of newly approved drugs can cause large price increases for some indications, more commonly the financial cost of delivering the standard-of-care treatment for a given cancer trended down due to slower-than-inflation price increases and new generic entrants.

Oncologic drug repository programs in the United States: a review and comparison.

As cancer affects 40% of all Americans during their lifetime, the financial burden of cancer care represents a significant contribution towards the overall cost of health care in the United States. Cancer drug repository programs offer a unique solution for patients who have limited financial ability to access medications while reducing medical waste. We reviewed all state legislation in the United States regarding cancer drug repository programs. Five states have oral anticancer drug (OACD)-specific drug repository programs, while 28 states have generalized drug repository programs. Iowa's statewide, mail-order OACD repository program is the preeminent example of an effective and efficient program, which should be replicated across the country. Many states have passed legislation allowing for drug repository programs but have struggled to translate such legislation into active programs due to lack of funding and management. We offer recommendations across policy, manufacturing, institutional, health care professional, and patient domains in order provide optimal patient care.

Breaking boundaries: Exploring extended pembrolizumab in first-line treatment of renal cell carcinoma with axitinib-pembrolizumab combination.

436 Background: The standard first-line treatment for metastatic renal cancer (mRCC) combines immune checkpoint- (ICI) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). While TKI therapy continues until disease progression, ICI treatment is typically stopped after 24 months or 35 cycles, aligning with approval study criteria. However, in real-world practice, the decision to discontinue ICI therapy upon achieving a positive response can be distressing for both patients and healthcare providers; thus ICIs are not stopped. We conducted an initial analysis of prolonged pembrolizumab (Pem) use in axitinib-pembrolizumab (Axi-Pem) combination therapy to evaluate its effects and toxicity. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from mRCC patients treated with first-line Axi-Pem in 10 German tertiary care centers between 2019 and 2023. After completing 35 cycles or 24 months of Pem, patients were offered continued ICI therapy if positive response was assessed. We calculated objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) from the treatment start to achievement of 36 therapy months. Adverse events (irAEs) were reported following CTCAE 5.0 criteria. Results: Out of 72 patients, 27 met strict eligibility criteria from the Keynote-426 study (NCT02853331), with a response at 24 months and continuous Pem therapy. Patients had a median age of 65.7 years (range: 34-84), and IMDC risk was favorable/intermediate/poor in 22.2%/55.5%/18.5%. Median follow-up was 33.2 months (range: 25.3-48.4). At the 36-mos landmark, median PFS was not reached (PFS 64.7%), ORR was 63.6%, with complete response, partial response, and stable disease observed in 9.1%(1)/54.5%(6)/9.1%(1) of cases, respectively. Permanent Pem discontinuation occurred due to progressive disease in two cases and complete response in one case. Another case led to Pem discontinuation due to immune-related toxicity. Conclusions: In our selected real-world patient cohort seeking prolonged ICI therapy, responders who received continuous Pem beyond 24 months achieve sustained efficacy in first-line treatment. Furthermore, the incidence of irAEs does not increase with prolonged exposure to ICI therapy. Additional results beyond the 36-month landmark are urgently needed to further support the clinical necessity and feasibility of ongoing ICI treatment in light of its impact on the overall financial burden of cancer care.

The economic impact of short-term imaging with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

643 Background: Although modern cancer treatment has significantly improved overall survival, this comes with a high financial cost. Based on an NIH report on Financial Burden of Cancer Care, treating pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) costs $108K, $18K, and $125K for initial treatment, during follow-up, and in last year of life, respectively. During the course of treatment, patients will visit the hospital for acute symptoms for which cross-sectional imaging is obtained within 45 days of subsequent scheduled follow-up imaging. This presents an opportunity for cost saving if data could be collected to identify an algorithm to avoid unnecessary duplication of imaging in a short interval. The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate tumor growth trajectory within this short time span of 45 days to guide future trials to clarify the circumstances for which a subsequent follow up study is necessary. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients from our tumor registry from 2016 to 2019 who were diagnosed with metastatic PDAC (mPDAC). Subjects were included for analysis if they met the following criteria: 1) diagnosed with mPDAC; 2) had at least 2 CT abdomen/pelvis (CTAP) within 45 days of each other with one of the studies being obtained in the emergency department; and 3) had at least 1-3 measurable lesions as defined by RECIST 1.1 criteria. Tumor dimension was measured on axial images with the largest cross-section. For our primary outcome we used paired t-tests to evaluate the difference in mean size of all lesions (primary and metastatic). We also performed sub-group analyses comparing mean size of primary and metastatic lesions separately. An alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. Results: We screened 383 subjects from the tumor registry and identified 28 subjects suitable for our study. 18 subjects were female and 10 were male. We identified 69 target lesions, 23 of which were primary and 46 were metastatic. The mean sum of the largest dimension of target lesions was 2.82 cm on the initial study and 3.23 on the latter study (p<0.001). The mean sum of the largest dimension of the primary lesion was 3.62 cm on the initial study and 3.89 on the latter study (p=0.01). For metastatic lesions, the initial sum was 2.38 cm while the latter was 2.85 (p<0.001). Conclusions: Our finding of increase in tumor size in 45 days for mPDAC suggests that mPDAC is aggressive and can grow even in short time span. This suggests that if progression is identified on a study obtained within 45 days of scheduled follow-up, the follow-up study could be cancelled to avoid added cost to the patient. However, if the earlier study is stable or shows response, the scheduled follow-up may still be necessary to demonstrate continued stability/response.

Hospital- and county-level characteristics explain geographic variability in prices of cancer-related procedures: Implications for policy and interventions.

Healthcare costs in the U.S. are high and variable, which can hinder access and impact health outcomes across communities. This study examined hospital- and county-level characteristics to identify factors that explain geographic variation in prices for four cancer-related procedures. Data sources included Turquoise Health, which compiles publicly-available price data from U.S. hospitals. We examined list prices for four procedures: abdominal ultrasound, diagnostic colonoscopy, brain MRI, and pelvis CT scan, which we linked to characteristics of hospitals (e.g., number of beds) and counties (e.g., metropolitan status). We used multilevel linear regression models to assess multivariable relationships between prices and hospital- and county-level characteristics. Supplementary analyses repeated these models using procedures prices for commercial insurance plans. For each procedure, list prices varied across counties (intraclass correlation: abdominal ultrasound = 23.2%; colonoscopy = 17.1%; brain MRI = 37.2%; pelvis CT = 50.9%). List prices for each procedure were associated with hospital ownership (all p < 0.001) and percent of population without health insurance (all p < 0.05). For example, list prices for abdominal ultrasound were higher for proprietary versus Government-owned hospitals (β = 539.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 256.12, 822.08, p < 0.001) and for hospitals in counties with more uninsured residents (β = 23.44, 95% CI: 2.55, 44.33, p = 0.03). Commercial insurance prices were negatively associated with metropolitan status. Prices for cancer-related healthcare procedures varied substantially, with considerable heterogeneity associated with county location as well as county-level social determinants of health (e.g., health insurance coverage). Interventions and policy changes are needed to alleviate the financial burden of cancer care among patients, including geographic variation in prices for cancer-related procedures.

Financial burden and coping strategies for cancer care in India

ProblemGlobally 9.3 million deaths occurred due to cancer in 2018. Currently, India has 13.9 lakh cancer cases, which are estimated to increase by 12% by the year 2025. Treatment of cancer inflicts a heavy cost of care and may even impoverish households. MethodsUsing the national health survey data for 2017–18, this study estimates the burden of healthcare expenditure due to cancer and coping strategies to pay for treatment. Factors affecting the health care expenditure on cancer are examined using a two-part model. FindingThe monthly values (in 2022 prices) of inpatient and outpatient OOPE on cancer for 2017-18, were found to be ₹6549 and ₹8811 implying that, 37% and 49% of household's monthly consumption expenditure was spent on inpatient and outpatient cancer care, respectively. Households relied on their own income/savings to pay for care and hardship financing was faced even by the higher income quintile patients both for inpatient and outpatient care. The second richest quintile had the greatest odds of borrowing money (0.94[0.54–1.63]).The two-part model shows that the likelihood of incurring expenditure on cancer care is greater at higher age-groups and income quintiles and is lower for females and people seeking care at private facilities. However, the mean expenditure is higher for those using private facilities or belonging to richer quintiles and is lower in urban areas. ConclusionThere is a need for policies to impart financial protection and expand the screening and curative services for cancer, with an assured quality in the public sector to ameliorate the financial burden of cancer care among households in India.

Association of CA19-9 and tumor size in treatment monitoring for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

693 Background: Although modern cancer treatment has significantly prolonged patient’s life, it comes with a high financial cost. Based on an NIH report on Financial Burden of Cancer Care, treating PDAC costs $108K, $18K, and $125K for initial treatment, during follow up, and in last year of life, respectively. Of these, CA19-9 and CT studies are obtained concurrently to evaluate tumor burden whose cost can be reduced by decreasing imaging frequency when CA19-9 remains stable. As a pilot study, we evaluated whether changes in CA19-9, an inexpensive laboratory study commonly used for monitoring treatment response, correlates with tumor size change on imaging studies. A positive correlation may lead us to design future studies to evaluate whether stable CA19-9 can serve as an indicator for stable disease on CT scan such that imaging frequency (and cost) may be reduced. Methods: We retrospectively identified PDAC patients from our tumor registry from 2016 to 2019. Subjects were included if they met the following criteria: 1) diagnosed with PDAC 2) had at least 2+ CA19-9 and CT/MR follow up assessments with the laboratory and imaging studies within one month of each other, and 3) had measurable lesions as defined by RECIST 1.1 criteria. Due to limited resources, we limited the maximum number of lesions to 4 instead of the usual 5 for RECIST 1.1. Two-dimensional orthogonal tumor sizes were measured on axial images with the largest cross-section. Changes in the values were obtained serially (from the immediately prior study). Nonparametric correlations (Spearman’s rho) were used to evaluate monotonicity. The significance level was set at p &lt; 0.05. Results: We screened 300 subjects from the tumor registry and identified 23 subjects suitable for our study. 13 subjects were female and 10 were male with ages ranging from 35 to 84. We identified 55 target lesions and 128 assessments (with both CA19-9 and imaging) from the 23 subjects. We analyzed the log absolute and log relative change in CA19-9 with change in tumor area. When absolute CA19-9 value, absolute change in CA19-9, and relative change in CA19-9 were tested against the absolute change in tumor size, the correlation was significant for the absolute value and absolute change of CA19-9 (p &lt; 0.01), but not for relative change of CA19-9 (p &lt; 0.11). When tested against relative change in tumor size, all three values were highly significant (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: Our finding of direct correlations between changes of CA19-9 and relative change of tumor size on imaging suggests that CA19-9 can serve as a surrogate measure of relative change of tumor burden for patients undergoing treatment. This provides motivation for future studies evaluating the possibility that stable CA19-9 can represent stable tumor burden such that expensive imaging studies may be obtained at longer time intervals to reduce financial cost to patients.

The Impact of Telemedicine on Indirect Patient Costs in an Outpatient Radiation Oncology Department

Purpose/Objective(s)Patients incur more than medical-related expenses when attending necessary consultation and follow-up visits, including time and travel costs. With the rapid integration of telemedicine in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, our department gained another tool that has the potential to reduce the financial burden of cancer care for our patients. The aim of this study was to estimate the indirect cost savings (time, travel costs, opportunity costs) resulting from the use of telemedicine at a large, academic radiation oncology outpatient clinic located in a densely populated suburban setting. We hypothesize that telemedicine provides time- and cost-savings for patients.Materials/MethodsAll telemedicine and in-person visits scheduled at our main outpatient clinic over a one-week period in June 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Care visits with patients residing outside of the state were excluded. Travel distance and time calculations were estimated using Google Maps and based on patients’ reported home address. Travel cost was calculated using the IRS 2021 standard mileage rate of $0.56 per mile. Opportunity cost was calculated by multiplying round-trip travel time with estimated hourly wage, derived by median household income per census block group and in the context of a 40-hour work week. Annual projections were calculated by multiplying weekly cost savings by 52.ResultsA total of 156 patients had scheduled visits in our department over one week, 115 of which were via telemedicine. There was no difference in gender, race, ethnicity, and insurance status between telemedicine and in-person visits. Those attending telemedicine vs in-person visits were younger in age (61 vs 68 yrs, p=0.03). There was no significant difference between distance or time traveled to the cancer center between telemedicine and in-person cohorts. For telemedicine visits, median per-visit round-trip travel time saved was 66 minutes (IQR, 39-168 minutes) with a travel cost savings of $33.60 (IQR, $17.92 - $100.80), opportunity cost savings of $67.04 ($42.97 - $118.56), and overall cost savings of $110.57 (IQR, $59.94 - $202.04). Annually, telemedicine visits are estimated to save patients a total travel time of 12911.6 hours, travel costs of $402,684, opportunity costs of $530,588, and overall cost savings of $933,272.ConclusionTelemedicine benefits patients with time- and cost-savings in an outpatient radiation oncology clinic. Our estimates are likely under-representative of the entire financial impact, as costs related to childcare, parking, tolls, hotels, and meals were not captured in our analysis. These unmeasured costs are likely amplified for those patients who live further from the clinic. Despite this, travel distance was not associated with utilization of telemedicine. In clinically appropriate situations, patient-centered metrics such time- and cost-savings should be considered when informing the choice between telemedicine and in-person visits.

Communication between cancer patients, caregivers and oncologists about out-of-pocket spending

Abstract Background Concern about the cost and affordability of cancer drugs is widespread and well known. Even in countries with universal healthcare systems or health insurance for all, additional patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses are prevalent. Studies showed that honest communication between oncologists and patients is an important component in alleviating financial burden of cancer care. The study explores patient-caregiver-oncologist communication regarding the affordability of OOP medication and the extent to which this communication is related to families’ financial burden after their loved ones’ death. Methods A cross-sectional survey is conducted in Israel among 491 primary caregivers of deceased cancer patients, Jewish and Arab, in three oncology centers. Results About 43% caregivers said that they and/or the patients had paid OOP for medications during the last half-year of the patient's life. Most (73%) oncologists who suggested an OOP medication hardly asked or did not ask about financial ability and took little or no interest in ability to afford it, 43% hardly explained or did not explain the advantages of an OOP medication, and 52% hardly explained or did not explain any treatment alternatives. A linear regression analysis reveals that older age and female gender are related to less communication about an OOP medication and that better education, greater affluence, and having private health insurance are related to more communication. About 56% of caregivers say that OOP payment for medications inflicted a very heavy or heavy financial burden on patients and their households. A regression analysis revealed that physicians’ interest in their financial ability and in the explanation they gave decreased their burden. Conclusions Discussing and explaining the meaning of OOP payment alleviates the financial burden that families experience. It is crucial to develop and invest in improving oncologists’ education and skills to communicate costs more openly. Key messages

Financial Toxicity, Symptom Burden, Illness Perceptions, and Communication Confidence in Cancer Clinical Trial Participants.

Cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants are at risk for experiencing adverse associations from financial toxicity, but these remain understudied. From July 2015 to July 2017, we prospectively enrolled CCT participants referred for financial assistance and a group of patients matched by age, sex, cancer type, trial, and trial phase. We assessed financial burden of cancer care, cost concerns about CCTs, physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS]) and psychologic (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]) symptoms, illness perceptions (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), and communication confidence (Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions). Adjusting for age, sex, race, performance status, marital status, income, insurance, and disease status, we examined associations of financial burden and cost concerns with patients' symptoms, illness perceptions, and communication confidence. Of 198 patients, 112 (56.6%) reported financial burden and 82 (41.4%) reported cost concerns. Higher ESAS-total (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06; P = .001), PHQ-4 depression (OR = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.08; P < .001), PHQ-4 anxiety (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.55; P = .025), and more negative illness perceptions (OR = 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07; P = .029) were associated with financial burden, but not communication confidence (OR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.02 to 1.05; P = .587). Higher ESAS-total (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.05; P = .004), PHQ-4 depression (OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.71; P = .03), PHQ-4 anxiety (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.53; P = .018), more negative illness perceptions (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.10; P = .001), and decreased communication confidence (OR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.00; P = .029) were associated with cost concerns. In this study of CCT participants, greater symptom burden, more negative illness perceptions, and lower communication confidence were associated with financial toxicity, underscoring the importance of addressing these issues when seeking to alleviate adverse associations of financial toxicity.

#SurgOnc: Global discussions about surgical cancer care on Twitter during COVID-19.

11045 Background: Social media platforms such as Twitter are highly utilized to communicate about cancer care. Although surgery is the primary treatment for solid malignancies, little is known about public perceptions or communication behaviors regarding this treatment modality. Further, prolonged lockdowns and widespread delays of planned operations during the COVID-19 pandemic have magnified the importance of virtual communication about surgical cancer care. Methods: Tweets referencing cancer surgery were collected from January 2018 to January 2022 using Twitter’s Application Programming Interface. Account metadata was used to predict user demographic information and to compare tweeting metrics across users. Natural language processing models were applied to tweet content to resolve common topics of conversation and to classify tweets by cancer type. Results: There were 442,840 original tweets about cancer surgery by 262,168 users. Individuals accounted for most users (65%) while influencers accounted for the least (1.4%). Influencers made the most median impressions (19,139). Of 240,713 tweets discussing surgery for specific cancers, breast (20%) and neurologic (17%) cancers were most mentioned. When adjusting for national rates of procedures performed, tweets about surgery for neurologic cancers were the most common (231 tweets per 1000 procedures) whereas those for urologic cancers were the least common (15 tweets per 1000 procedures). Discussions about cancer surgery research made up 31% of tweets before the pandemic but only 11% of tweets during the pandemic. During the pandemic, concern regarding COVID-19 related delays was the most tweeted topic (23%). Cancer surgery research was most cited by oncologists, as well as in tweets about hepatopancreatobiliary and colorectal cancers. The cost of surgery was commonly mentioned in tweets about breast and gynecologic cancers and contained the most negative sentiment score (-0.7). Conclusions: Twitter was highly utilized to discuss surgical cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, conversations shifted focus from research to survivorship and reflected real-time events such as COVID-19-related surgical delays. We identified the financial burden of cancer care as a commonly held concern among patients discussing cancer surgery on social media. Future public health outreach about cancer surgery may be optimized by coordinating with influencers and by targeting topics of concern like cost of surgery and undermentioned content like urologic cancers. Twitter’s role as a platform for research dissemination was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and further tracking is needed regarding online research discussions after the pandemic.

Validity of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) in patients with gynecologic cancer

ObjectiveFinancial toxicity is a financial burden of cancer care itself, which leads to worse quality of life and higher mortality and is considered an adverse effect. The COmprehensive Score for...

Not All Canadian Cancer Patients Are Equal-Disparities in Public Cancer Drug Funding across Canada.

Canada lacks a national drug insurance plan. The home province or territory of a patient determines which cancer drugs are available on the public formulary, who is eligible for public coverage and what portion of the financial burden of cancer care falls to the individual. This narrative review describes the current interprovincial disparities in access to cancer drugs across Canada. Health technology assessment (HTA) of drugs at a provincial and territory level is a closed process, does not necessarily follow the recommendations of national HTA and leads to further delays in drug access. The public coverage of take-home cancer drugs (THCDs) in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces is often fragmented, unnecessarily complex and a barrier to cancer drug access. Policy solutions to address inter-provincial formulary variation and poor access to THCDs are discussed.

Financial navigation: Staff perspectives on patients' financial burden of cancer care.

To describe perceptions of financial navigation staff concerning patients' cancer-related financial burden. This qualitative descriptive study used a semi-structured interview guide to examine perceptions of financial navigation staff concerning patients' cancer-related financial burden. Staff who provided financial navigation support services to cancer patients were interviewed from different types of cancer programs across seven states representing rural, micropolitan, and urban settings. Interviews lasted approximately one hour, were audio recorded, and transcribed. Transcripts were double coded for thematic analysis. Thirty-five staff from 29 cancer centers were interviewed. The first theme involved communication issues related to patient and financial navigation staff expectations, timing and the sensitive nature of financial discussions. The second theme involved the multi-faceted impact of financial burden on patients, including stress, difficulty adhering to treatments, and challenges meeting basic, non-medical needs. CONCLUSIONSAND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer-related financial burden has a profound impact on cancer survivors' health and non-health outcomes. Discussions regarding cancer-related costs between cancer survivors and healthcare team members could help to normalize conversations and mitigate the multi-faceted determinants and effects of cancer-related financial burden. As treatment may span months and years and unexpected costs arise, having this discussion regularly and systematically is needed.

Out-of-Pocket Spending for Cancer Medication, Financial Burden, and Cost Communication with Oncologists in the Last Six Months of Life in Israel.

Honest communication between oncologists and patients is important in alleviating the financial burden of cancer care. This study explored patient–relative–oncologist communication regarding the affordability of out-of-pocket (OOP) medication and the extent to which this communication addresses itself to the families’ financial burden. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among primary caregivers of deceased cancer patients. About 43% of relatives said that they and/or the patients had paid out of pocket for medications during the last six months of the patient’s life. Most (73%) oncologists suggested an OOP medication without asking about financial ability, 43% hardly explained the advantages of an OOP medication, and 52% hardly explained any treatment alternatives. Older age and female gender were related to less communication about an OOP medication, and better education, greater affluence, and having private health insurance were related to more communication. About 56% of relatives said that OOP payment for medications inflicted a very heavy or heavy financial burden on patients and their households. Physicians’ interest in financial ability and giving explanation lightened the burden. Given the difficulty of explaining the complex interactions of cost and clinical outcomes, oncologists need to be better educated in skills that would enable them to communicate costs more openly and should consider the cost of a treatment when prescribing it.

Navigating the high costs of cancer care: opportunities for patient engagement.

Over the past decade, the financial burden of cancer care on patients and their families has garnered increased attention. Many of the potential solutions have focused on system-level interventions such as adopting value-based payment models and negotiating drug prices; less consideration has been given to actions at the patient level to address cancer care costs. We argue that it is imperative to develop and support patient-level strategies that engage patients and consider their preferences, values and individual circumstances. Opportunities to meet these aims and improve the economic experience of patients in oncology are discussed, including: shared decision-making and communication, financial navigation and treatment planning, digital technology and alternative care pathways, and value-based insurance design.

High financial burden of cancer care in the US, with variation by site of care

High financial burden of cancer care in the US, with variation by site of care

Improving Access to Cancer Care in the HIV Population: Qualitative Research to Identify Barriers to Care.

Purpose: People living with HIV are less likely to receive cancer treatment and have worse cancer-specific survival, yet underlying drivers of this disparity have minimally been explored. We investigated cancer care barriers from the perspective of patients living with HIV and cancer (PLWHC) to inform future interventions, reduce disparities, and improve outcomes.Methods: We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 27 PLWHC. The interview guide explored perceptions of the cancer care experience, treatment decision making, and barriers to cancer treatment. Interview data were analyzed using the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.Results: Study participants were predominantly men (n=22, 81%) with a median age of 56 years and median annual income of $24,000. Among those who experienced challenges with cancer treatment adherence, barriers included debilitating side effects of cancer treatment, stigma surrounding HIV, issues with coping and mental health, the financial burden of cancer care, and challenges with care accessibility. Despite these challenges, participants indicated that their past experiences of coping with HIV had prepared them to accept and address their cancer diagnosis. Resiliency and social support were key facilitators for cancer treatment adherence.Conclusion: This qualitative study of PLWHC in the United States found that a cancer diagnosis created a substantial added stress to an already challenging situation. Health- and stigma-related stressors impacted patients' ability to fully complete cancer treatment as prescribed. There is a need for improved provider communication and mental health support for PLWHC to ensure equitable access to and completion of cancer treatment.

Substantial financial burden of cancer care for Syrian refugees

Substantial financial burden of cancer care for Syrian refugees