Cancer patients' trade-offs among efficacy, toxicity, and out-of-pocket cost in the curative and noncurative setting.

BACKGROUND: When making treatment decisions, cancer patients must make trade-offs among efficacy, toxicity, and cost. However, little is known about what patient characteristics may influence these trade-offs. METHODS: A total of 400 cancer patients reviewed 2 of 3 stylized curative and noncurative scenarios that asked them to choose between 2 treatments of varying levels of efficacy, toxicity, and cost. Each scenario included 9 choice sets. Demographics, cost concerns, numeracy, and optimism were assessed. Within each scenario, we used latent class methods to distinguish groups with discrete preferences. We then used regressions with group membership probabilities as covariates to identify associations. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 61 years (range, 27-90 y). Of the total number of patients included, 25% were enrolled at a community hospital, and 99% were insured. Three latent classes were identified that demonstrated (1) preference for survival, (2) aversion to high cost, and (3) aversion to toxicity. Across all scenarios, patients with higher income were more likely to be in the class that favored survival. Lower income patients were more likely to be in the class that was averse to high cost (P<0.05). Similar associations were found between education, employment status, numeracy, cost concerns, and latent class. CONCLUSIONS: Even in these stylized scenarios, socioeconomic status predicted the treatment choice. Higher income patients may be more likely to focus on survival, whereas those of lower socioeconomic status may be more likely to avoid expensive treatment, regardless of survival or toxicity. This raises the possibility that insurance plans with greater cost-sharing may have the unintended consequence of increasing disparities in cancer care.

Cost concerns of patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Health care providers are accustomed to identifying populations for whom cost-related concerns may be a significant barrier, such as the poor, but few empiric data have been collected to substantiate such assumptions, particularly among insured patients. METHODS: Patients with cancer from academic and community hospitals completed a questionnaire that included closed-ended items concerning demographic variables, optimism, numeracy, and concerns about present and future medical costs. In addition, they answered open-ended questions regarding cost concerns and medical expenses. RESULTS: Nearly all (99%) participants were insured. In response to the closed-ended questions, 30.3% of patients reported concern about paying for their cancer treatment, 22.3% reported that their family had made sacrifices to pay for their care, and 8.3% stated that their insurance adequately covered their current health care costs, and 17.3% reported concerns about coverage for their costs in the future. On open-ended questions, 35.3% reported additional expenses, and 47.5% reported concerns about health care costs. None of the assessed patient characteristics proved to be a robust predictor across all cost-related concerns. There was a strong association between the identification of concerns or expenses on the open-ended questions and concerns on closed-ended questions. CONCLUSION: Cost concerns are common among patients with cancer who have health insurance. Health care providers may alleviate concerns by discussing cost-related concerns with all patients, not only those of lower socioeconomic status or those without insurance. A closed-ended screening question may help to initiate these conversations. This may identify potential resources, lower distress, and enable patients to make optimal treatment decisions.