A randomized controlled trial of shared decision-making treatment planning process to enhance shared decision-making in patients with MBC.

PURPOSE: Opportunities exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM). Presenting patient-reported data, including patient treatment preferences, to oncologists before or during a treatment plan decision may improve patient engagement in treatment decisions. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial evaluated the standard-of-care treatment planning process vs. a novel treatment planning process focused on SDM, which included oncologist review of patient-reported treatment preferences, prior to or during treatment decisions among women with MBC. The primary outcome was patient perception of shared decision-making. Secondary outcomes included patient activation, treatment satisfaction, physician perception of treatment decision-making, and use of treatment plans. RESULTS: Among the 109 evaluable patients from December 2018 to June 2022, 28% were Black and 12% lived in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood. Although not reaching statistical significance, patients in the intervention arm perceived SDM more often than patients in the control arm (63% vs. 59%; Cramer's V = 0.05; OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.57). Among patients in the intervention arm, 31% were at the highest level of patient activation compared to 19% of those in the control arm (V = 0.18). In 82% of decisions, the oncologist agreed that the patient-reported data helped them engage in SDM. In 45% of decision, they reported changing management due to patient-reported data. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologist engagement in the treatment planning process, with oncologist review of patient-reported data, is a promising approach to improve patient participation in treatment decisions which should be tested in larger studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03806738.

Engagement Among Diverse Patient Backgrounds in a Remote Symptom Monitoring Program.

PURPOSE: Previous randomized controlled trials have demonstrated benefit from remote symptom monitoring (RSM) with electronic patient-reported outcomes. However, the racial diversity of enrolled patients was low and did not reflect the real-world racial proportions for individuals with cancer. METHODS: This secondary, cross-sectional analysis evaluated engagement of patients with cancer in a RSM program. Patient-reported race was grouped as Black, Other, or White. Patient address was used to map patient residence to determine rurality using Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes and neighborhood disadvantage using Area Deprivation Index. Key outcomes included (1) being approached for RSM enrollment, (2) declining enrollment, (3) adherence with RSM via continuous completion of symptom surveys, and (4) withdrawal from RSM participation. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI were estimated from modified Poisson models with robust SEs. RESULTS: Between May 2021 and May 2023, 883 patients were approached to participate, of which 56 (6%) declined RSM. Of those who enrolled in RSM, a total of 27% of patients were Black or African American and 67% were White. In adjusted models, all patient population subgroups of interest had similar likelihoods of being approached for RSM participation; however, Black or African American patients were more than 3× more likely to decline participation than White participants (RR, 3.09 [95% CI, 1.73 to 5.53]). Patients living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to decline (RR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.24 to 1.02]), but less likely to adhere to surveys (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97]). All patient populations had a similar likelihood of withdrawing. CONCLUSION: Black patients and individuals living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods are at risk for lower engagement in RSM. Further work is needed to identify and overcome barriers to equitable participation.

Why location matters: associations between county-level characteristics and availability of National Cancer Oncology Research Program and National Cancer Institute sites.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with cancer seek care at community oncology sites; however, most clinical trials are available at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated sites. Although the NCI National Cancer Oncology Research Program (NCORP) was designed to address this problem, little is known about the county-level characteristics of NCORP site locations. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis determined the association between availability of NCORP or NCI sites and county-level characteristic theme percentile scores from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index themes. Health Resources and Services Administration's Area Health Resource Files were used to determine contiguous counties. We estimated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using modified Poisson regression models to evaluate the association between county-level characteristics and site availability within singular and singular and contiguous counties. RESULTS: Of 3141 included counties, 14% had an NCORP, 2% had an NCI, and 1% had both sites. Among singular counties, for a standard deviation increase in the racial and ethnic theme score, there was a 22% higher likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 1.10 to 1.36); for a standard deviation increase in the socioeconomic status theme score, there was a 24% lower likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 0.67 to 0.87). Associations were of smaller magnitude when including contiguous counties. NCI sites were located in more vulnerable counties. CONCLUSIONS: NCORP sites were more often in racially diverse counties and less often in socioeconomically vulnerable counties. Research is needed to understand how clinical trial representation will increase if NCORP sites strategically increase their locations in more vulnerable counties.

Understanding the financial cost of cancer clinical trial participation.

BACKGROUND: Though financial hardship is a well-documented adverse effect of standard-of-care cancer treatment, little is known about out-of-pocket costs and their impact on patients participating in cancer clinical trials. This study explored the financial effects of cancer clinical trial participation. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis used survey data collected in December 2022 and May 2023 from individuals with cancer previously served by Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonprofit organization providing social needs navigation and financial assistance to US adults with a chronic illness. Surveys included questions on cancer clinical trial participation, trial-related financial hardship, and sociodemographic data. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted using Cramer's V to estimate the in-sample magnitude of association. Associations between trial-related financial hardship and sociodemographics were estimated using adjusted relative risks (aRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) from modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors. RESULTS: Of 650 survey respondents, 18% (N = 118) reported ever participating in a cancer clinical trial. Of those, 47% (n = 55) reported financial hardship as a result of their trial participation. Respondents reporting trial-related financial hardship were more often unemployed or disabled (58% vs. 43%; V = 0.15), Medicare enrolled (53% vs. 40%; V = 0.15), and traveled >1 h to their cancer provider (45% vs. 17%; V = 0.33) compared to respondents reporting no hardship. Respondents who experienced trial-related financial hardship most often reported expenses from travel (reported by 71% of respondents), medical bills (58%), dining out (40%), or housing needs (40%). Modeling results indicated that respondents traveling >1 h vs. ≤30 min to their cancer provider had a 2.2× higher risk of financial hardship, even after adjusting for respondent race, income, employment, and insurance status (aRR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.8). Most respondents (53%) reported needing $200-$1000 per month to compensate for trial-related expenses. Over half (51%) of respondents reported less willingness to participate in future clinical trials due to incurred financial hardship. Notably, of patients who did not participate in a cancer clinical trial (n = 532), 13% declined participation due to cost. CONCLUSION: Cancer clinical trial-related financial hardship, most often stemming from travel expenses, affected almost half of trial-enrolled patients. Interventions are needed to reduce adverse financial participation effects and potentially improve cancer clinical trial participation.

TBCRC 057: Survey about willingness to participate in cancer clinical trials during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic-related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic-era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate. METHODS: We conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic-related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two-sample t-tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic-related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate-severe pandemic-related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research-only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate. CONCLUSIONS: While pandemic-related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others.

Cancer-Related Financial Hardship Screening as Part of Practice Transformation.

BACKGROUND: Data on financial hardship, an "adverse event" in individuals with cancer, are needed to inform policy and supportive care interventions and reduce adverse economic outcomes. METHODS: Lay navigator-led financial hardship screening was piloted among University of Alabama at Birmingham oncology patients initiating treatment in October 2020. Financial hardship screening, including reported financial distress and difficulty, was added to a standard-of-care treatment planning survey. Screening feasibility and completion and proportions of reported financial distress and difficulty were calculated overall and by patient race and rurality. The risk of financial distress by patient sociodemographics was estimated. RESULTS: Patients who completed a treatment planning survey (N=2741) were 18% Black, Indigenous, or persons of color (BIPOC) and 16% rural dwelling. The majority of patients completed financial hardship screening (90%), surpassing the target feasibility completion rate of 75%. The screening revealed 34% of patients were experiencing financial distress, including 49% of BIPOC and 30% of White patients. Adjusted models revealed BIPOC patients had a 48% higher risk of financial distress compared with those who were White (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI, 1.31-1.66). Large differences in reported financial difficulties were seen comparing patients who were BIPOC and White (utilities: 33% vs. 10%, upfront medical payments: 44% vs. 23%, transportation: 28% vs. 12%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The collection of patient-reported financial hardship data via routine clinical care was feasible and identified racial inequities at treatment initiation. Efforts to collect patient economic data should support the design, implementation, and evaluation of patient-centered interventions to improve equity and reduce the impact of financial hardship.

A nationwide cross-sectional study on the association of patient-level factors with financial anxiety in the context of chronic medical conditions.

Patient-level characteristics associated with the prevalence and severity of financial anxiety have yet to be described. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of survey data assessing financial anxiety in patients with chronic medical conditions in December 2020. 1771 patients (42.6% response rate) participated in the survey. Younger age (19-35 age compared to ≥ 75 age) (ß, 5.86; 95% CI 2.10-9.63), male sex (ß, - 1.9; 95% CI - 3.1 to - 0.73), Hispanic/Latino race/ethnicity (compared with White patients) (ß, 2.55; 95% CI 0.39-4.71), household size ≥ 4 (compare with single household) (ß, 4.54; 95% CI 2.44-6.64), household income of ≥ $96,000-$119,999 (compared with ≤ $23,999) (ß, - 3.2; 95% CI - 6.3 to 0.04), single marital status (compared with married) (ß, 2.18; 95% CI 0.65-3.71), unemployment (ß, 2.07; 95% CI 0.39-3.74), high-school education (compared with advanced degrees) (ß, 3.10; 95% CI 1.32-4.89), lack of insurance coverage (compared with private insurance) (ß, 6.05; 95% CI 2.66-9.45), more comorbidities (≥ 3 comorbidities compared to none) (ß, 2.95; 95% CI 1.00-4.90) were all independently associated with financial anxiety. Patients who are young, female, unmarried, and representing vulnerable sub-populations are at elevated risk for financial anxiety.

Evaluating Nurses' Time to Response by Severity and Cancer Stage in a Remote Symptom Monitoring Program for Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using electronic patient-reported outcomes enables patients with cancer to communicate symptoms between in-person visits. A better understanding of key RSM implementation outcomes is crucial to optimize efficiency and guide implementation efforts. This analysis evaluated the association between the severity of patient-reported symptom alerts and time to response by the health care team. METHODS: This secondary analysis included women with stage I-IV breast cancer who received care at a large academic medical center in the Southeastern United States (October 2020-September 2022). Symptom surveys with at least one severe symptom alert were categorized as severe. Response time was categorized as optimal if the alert was closed by a health care team member within 48 hours. Odds ratios (ORs), predicted probabilities, and 95% CIs were estimated using a patient-nested logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of 178 patients with breast cancer included in this analysis, 63% of patients identified as White and 85% of patients had a stage I-III or early-stage cancer. The median age at diagnosis was 55 years (IQR, 42-65). Of 1,087 surveys included, 36% reported at least one severe symptom alert and 77% had an optimal response time by the health care team. When compared with surveys that had no severe symptom alerts, surveys with at least one severe symptom alert had similar odds of having an optimal response time (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.38). The results were similar when stratified by cancer stage. CONCLUSION: Response times to symptom alerts were similar for alerts with at least one severe symptom compared with alerts with no severe symptoms. This suggests that alert management is being incorporated into routine workflows and not prioritized based on disease or symptom alert severity.

Associations Between Patient-Perceived Cancer Curability and Advance Directive Completion.

Background: Despite Advance Care Planning recommendations for patients with cancer, many lack Advance Directives (ADs). AD disparities persist among Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC) patients. Based on a hypothesized correlation, we examined the association between patient-perceived cancer incurability and AD completion. Methods: This cross-sectional study obtained self-reported AD completion and incurability perception from routine care surveys. AD completion by incurability perception was estimated using modified Poisson regression. Subgroup analyses examined patients who were BIPOC, White, and had solid organ malignancies. Results: Our sample (N = 1209) was predominantly female (70%), White (73%) with early-stage disease (60%), and solid organ malignancies (82%). AD completion was 42%, and 40% of patients reported their cancer incurable. Patient-perceived incurability was not associated with increased AD completion (likelihood ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.13) in overall or subgroup analyses. Conclusion: Patient-perceived cancer incurability was not associated with AD completion, even accounting for race/ethnicity and cancer type.

Effect of prior treatments on post-CDK 4/6 inhibitor survival in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Multiple treatment options exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, limited information is available on the impact of prior treatment duration and class on survival outcome for novel therapies, such as cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) for patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+ HER2-) MBC. METHODS: This study used a nationwide, de-identified electronic health record-derived database to identify women with HR+ HER2- MBC who received at least one CDK 4/6i between 2011 and 2020. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for the association between prior duration and class of cancer treatment (both early-stage and metastatic) and prior CDK 4/6i survival as well as for those with multiple CDK 4/6i. RESULTS: Of 5363 patients, the median survival from first CDK 4/6 inhibitor administration was 3.3 years. When compared to patients with no prior treatments, patients with < 1 year of prior treatment duration had a 30% increased hazard of death (HR, 1.30; 95% CI 1.15-1.46), those with 1 to < 3 years a 68% increased hazard of death (HR 1.68; 95% CI 1.49-1.88), and those with 3 or more years a 55% increased hazard of death (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.36, 1.76). Patients who received prior therapy (endocrine or chemotherapy) before their CDK 4/6i had worse outcomes than those who received no prior therapy. Similar results were seen when comparing patients in the metastatic setting alone. Finally, patients who received a different CDK 4/6i after their first saw a lower hazard of death compared to patients who received subsequent endocrine or chemotherapy after their first CDK 4/6i. CONCLUSION: Prior treatment duration and class are associated with a decreased overall survival after CDK 4/6 inhibitor administration. This highlights the importance for clinicians to consider prior treatment and duration in treatment decision-making and for trialists to stratify by these factors when randomizing patients or reporting results of future studies.

Patient-reported discrimination among limited-resourced cancer survivors: a brief report.

PURPOSE: Healthcare discrimination has been associated with health disparities including lower cancer screenings, higher medical mistrust, and strained patient-provider relationships. Our study sought to understand patient-reported discrimination among cancer survivors with limited resources living in the United States. DESIGN AND METHODS: We used cross-sectional survey data distributed by the Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) in 12/2020 and 07/2021. Respondents reported source and reason of healthcare discrimination. Age, sex, race and ethnicity, annual household income, Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA), Area Deprivation Index (ADI), employment status, cancer type, and number of comorbidities were independent variables of interest. The association between these variables and patient-reported healthcare discrimination was estimated using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from a multivariable modified Poisson regression model with robust standard errors. FINDINGS: A total of 587 cancer survivors were included in our analysis. Most respondents were female (72%) and aged ≥56 (62%); while 33% were Black, Indigenous, or Person of Color. Overall, 23% reported receipt of discrimination, with the majority reporting doctor, nurse, or healthcare provider as the source (58%). Most common reasons for discrimination included disease status (42%), income/ability to pay (36%), and race and ethnicity (17%). In the adjusted model, retired survivors were 62% less likely to report discrimination compared to those employed (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.23-0.64). Additionally, survivors with ≥3 comorbidities were 86% more likely to report discrimination compared to those survivors with no non-cancer comorbidities (RR 1.86; 95% CI 1.26-2.72). IMPLICATIONS: Cancer survivors with limited resources reported substantial discrimination most often from a healthcare provider and most commonly for disease status and income. Discrimination should be mitigated to provide equitable and high-quality cancer care.

Factors associated with completeness in documentation of diagnostic work-up and treatment in patients with breast cancer in Sudan.

Purpose: This study evaluates the relationship between geography and ethnicity on the completeness of documentation of diagnostic work-up and treatment modalities in Sudan for patients with breast cancer. Methods: This retrospective study used data abstracted from patients with breast cancer receiving cancer care at Sudan's largest cancer centre (Radiation and Isotopes Center Khartoum) in 2017. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were abstracted from paper medical records. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated to evaluate complete diagnostic work-up on ethnic group, origin and residence using binomial logistic regression models. Results: Of 237 patients, the median age was 52 (interquartile range 43-61). Most often patients identified as Arab (68%), originated from Central, Northeastern and Khartoum regions (all 28%) and lived in the Khartoum region (52%). Overall, 49% had incomplete diagnostic work-up, with modest differences by ethnicity and geography. In adjusted analyses, non-statistical differences were found between the ethnic group, geographic origin and residence and having complete diagnostic work-up. For treatment modality, significant differences were observed between receptor status and receiving hormone therapy (p = 0.004). Only 28% of patients with HR+ breast cancer received hormonal therapy. For those with HR- or undocumented breast cancer subtype, 36% and 17% received hormone therapy, respectively. Conclusion: Approximately half of Sudanese patients with breast cancer had incomplete diagnostic work-up, irrespective of ethnicity and geography. Moreover, a high proportion of patients received inappropriate treatment. This underlines a considerable systems-based quality gap in care delivery, demanding efforts to improve diagnostic work-up for all patients with breast cancer in Sudan.

Vaccine Hesitancy versus Vaccine Behavior in Patients with Chronic Illness.

While vaccine hesitancy has been described for the general population, vaccine hesitancy among the chronically ill has not been well explored. This study assesses COVID­19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake among individuals with chronic illness using nationwide survey data. We analyzed vaccine hesitancy prior to and after approval of the vaccines using multinomial logistic regression and binomial logistic regression, respectively. In the first survey, 39% reported they were unlikely or unsure about receiving the vaccine. In adjusted analyses, female sex, Black race, anti­vaccination attitudes, media mistrust, and not following the media were associated with vaccine hesitancy. Despite this hesitance, in the follow­up survey, 89% reported vaccine receipt, with those more fearful of COVID­19, with more trust in the media, and closely following the development of the vaccine were most likely to move from hesitance to acceptance. Vaccine hesitancy is a mutable characteristic, underscoring the need for high-quality public health messaging.

Adaptation of Remote Symptom Monitoring Using Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Implementation in Real-World Settings.

PURPOSE: Despite evidence of clinical benefits, widespread implementation of remote symptom monitoring has been limited. We describe a process of adapting a remote symptom monitoring intervention developed in a research setting to a real-world clinical setting at two cancer centers. METHODS: This formative evaluation assessed core components and adaptations to improve acceptability and fit of remote symptom monitoring using Stirman's Framework for Modifications and Adaptations. Implementation outcomes were evaluated in pilot studies at the two cancer centers testing technology (phase I) and workflow (phase II and III) using electronic health data; qualitative evaluation with semistructured interviews of clinical team members; and capture of field notes from clinical teams and administrators regarding barriers and recommended adaptations for future implementation. RESULTS: Core components of remote symptom monitoring included electronic delivery of surveys with actionable symptoms, patient education on the intervention, a system to monitor survey compliance in real time, the capacity to generate alerts, training nurses to manage alerts, and identification of personnel responsible for managing symptoms. In the pilot studies, while most patients completed > 50% of expected surveys, adaptations were identified to address barriers related to workflow challenges, patient and clinician access to technology, digital health literacy, survey fatigue, alert fatigue, and data visibility. CONCLUSION: Using an implementation science approach, we facilitated adaptation of remote symptom monitoring interventions from the research setting to clinical practice and identified key areas to promote effective uptake and sustainability.

Associations between geography, decision-making style, and interest in cancer clinical trial participation.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials offer novel treatments, which are essential to high quality cancer care. Patients living in rural areas are often underrepresented in clinical trials due to several factors. This study evaluated the association between rurality and interest in clinical trial participation, change in interest, and treatment decision-making style preference. METHODS: This cohort study included patients with cancer receiving oncology care at the University of Alabama at Birmingham from 2017 to 2019. Associations between treatment decision-making preference and the interaction between rurality and area deprivation were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. Initial interest in clinical trial participation and change in interest were analyzed using modified Poisson regressions with robust standard errors. Initial interest model was stratified by Area Deprivation Index (ADI; higher vs. lower disadvantaged). RESULTS: In adjusted models, patients in rural versus urban areas had similar initial interest in clinical trials, both those in higher (40% vs. 50%) and lower disadvantaged settings (54% vs. 62%). Additionally, rural versus urban patients had similar change of clinical trial interest for both those who changed from uninterested-to-interested (31% vs. 26%) and interested-to-uninterested (47% vs. 42%). CONCLUSION: This study compares the interest in clinical trial participation among patients living in rural and urban settings. Lack of interest may be secondary to barriers that patients in rural areas face (e.g., transportation, financial, access). Most rural patients prefer a shared treatment decision-making style, which should be considered when identifying interventions to increase enrollment of underserved rural patients in clinical trials.

Ineligible, Unaware, or Uninterested? Associations Between Underrepresented Patient Populations and Retention in the Pathway to Cancer Clinical Trial Enrollment.

PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trials can benefit current and future patients; however, Black patients, rural residents, and patients living in disadvantaged areas are often underrepresented. Using an adapted version of Unger and colleagues' model of the process of clinical trial enrollment, we evaluated the relationship between underrepresented patient populations and trial end points. METHODS: This retrospective study included 512 patients with breast or ovarian cancer who were prescribed a therapeutic drug at the University of Alabama at Birmingham from January 2017 to February 2020. Patient eligibility was assessed using open clinical trials. We estimated odds ratios and 95% CIs using logistic regression models to examine the relationship between underrepresented patient populations and trial enrollment end points: eligibility, interest, offer, enrollment, and declining enrollment. RESULTS: Of the patients in our sample, 27% were Black, 18% were rural residents, and 19% lived in higher disadvantaged neighborhoods. In adjusted models, each comparison group had similar odds of being eligible for a clinical trial. Black versus White patients had 0.40 times the odds of interest in clinical trials and 0.56 times the odds of enrollment. Patients living in areas of higher versus lower disadvantage had 0.46 times the odds of enrolling and 3.40 times the odds of declining enrollment when offered. CONCLUSION: Eligibility did not drive clinical trial enrollment disparities in our sample; however, retention in the clinical trial enrollment process appears to vary by group. Additional work is needed to understand how interventions can be tailored to each population's specific needs.

Health insurance and financial hardship in cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Uninsured or underinsured individuals with cancer are likely to experience financial hardship, including forgoing healthcare or non-healthcare needs such as food, housing, or utilities. This study evaluates the association between health insurance coverage and financial hardship among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-sectional analysis used Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) survey data from May to July 2020. Cancer survivors who previously received case management or financial aid from PAF self-reported challenges paying for healthcare and non-healthcare needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Associations between insurance coverage and payment challenges were estimated using Poisson regression with robust standard errors, which allowed for estimation of adjusted relative risks (aRR). Of 1,437 respondents, 74% had annual household incomes <$48,000. Most respondents were enrolled in Medicare (48%), 22% in employer-sponsored insurance, 13% in Medicaid, 6% in an Affordable Care Act (ACA) plan, and 3% were uninsured. Approximately 31% of respondents reported trouble paying for healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents who were uninsured (aRR 2.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.83-3.64), enrolled in an ACA plan (aRR 1.86, 95% CI 1.28-2.72), employer-sponsored insurance (aRR 1.70, 95% CI 1.23-2.34), or Medicare (aRR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09-2.03) had higher risk of trouble paying for healthcare compared to Medicaid enrollees. Challenges paying for non-healthcare needs were reported by 57% of respondents, with 40% reporting trouble paying for food, 31% housing, 28% transportation, and 20% internet. In adjusted models, Medicare and employer-sponsored insurance enrollees were less likely to have difficulties paying for non-healthcare needs compared to Medicaid beneficiaries. Despite 97% of our cancer survivor sample being insured, 31% and 57% reported trouble paying for healthcare and non-healthcare needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively. Greater attention to both medical and non-medical financial burden is needed given the economic pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Determinants of telemedicine adoption among financially distressed patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from a nationwide study.

PURPOSE: Telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic among financially distressed patients with cancer, with respect to the determinants of adoption and patterns of utilization, has yet to be delineated. We sought to systematically characterize telemedicine utilization in financially distressed patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationwide survey data assessing telemedicine use in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic collected by Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) in December 2020. Patients were characterized as financially distressed by self-reporting limited financial resources to manage out-of-pocket costs, psychological distress, and/or adaptive coping behaviors. Primary study outcome was telemedicine utilization during the pandemic. Secondary outcomes were telemedicine utilization volume and modality preferences. Multivariable and Poisson regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with telemedicine use. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 627 patients with cancer responded to the PAF survey. Telemedicine adoption during the pandemic was reported by 67% of patients, with most (63%) preferring video visits. Younger age (19-35 age compared to ≥ 75 age) (OR, 6.07; 95% CI, 1.47-25.1) and more comorbidities (≥ 3 comorbidities compared to cancer only) (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.13-2.65) were factors associated with telemedicine adoption. Younger age (19-35 years) (incidence rate ratios [IRR], 1.78; 95% CI, 24-115%) and higher comorbidities (≥ 3) (IRR; 1.36; 95% CI, 20-55%) were factors associated with higher utilization volume. As area deprivation index increased by 10 units, the number of visits decreased by 3% (IRR 1.03, 95% CI, 1.03-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid adoption of telemedicine may exacerbate existing inequities, particularly among vulnerable financially distressed patients with cancer. Policy-level interventions are needed for the equitable and efficient provision of this service.

Evaluating the implementation and impact of navigator-supported remote symptom monitoring and management: a protocol for a hybrid type 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms in patients with advanced cancer are often inadequately captured during encounters with the healthcare team. Emerging evidence demonstrates that weekly electronic home-based patient-reported symptom monitoring with automated alerts to clinicians reduces healthcare utilization, improves health-related quality of life, and lengthens survival. However, oncology practices have lagged in adopting remote symptom monitoring into routine practice, where specific patient populations may have unique barriers. One approach to overcoming barriers is utilizing resources from value-based payment models, such as patient navigators who are ideally positioned to assume a leadership role in remote symptom monitoring implementation. This implementation approach has not been tested in standard of care, and thus optimal implementation strategies are needed for large-scale roll-out. METHODS: This hybrid type 2 study design evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of remote symptom monitoring for all patients and for diverse populations in two Southern academic medical centers from 2021 to 2026. This study will utilize a pragmatic approach, evaluating real-world data collected during routine care for quantitative implementation and patient outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to conduct a qualitative evaluation at key time points to assess barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, fidelity to implementation strategies, and perceived utility of these strategies. We will use a mixed-methods approach for data interpretation to finalize a formal implementation blueprint. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic evaluation of real-world implementation of remote symptom monitoring will generate a blueprint for future efforts to scale interventions across health systems with diverse patient populations within value-based healthcare models. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04809740 ; date of registration 3/22/2021.

Building Sustainable Practice Transformation Through Payment Reform Initiatives.

PURPOSE: Novel value-based payment approaches provide an opportunity to deploy and sustain health care delivery interventions, such as treatment planning documentation. However, limited data are available on implementation costs. METHODS: We described key factors affecting the cost of implementing care improvements under value-based payments, using treatment planning and Medicare's Oncology Care Model as examples. We estimated expected costs of implementing treatment plans for years 1 and 2-6 under (1) different staffing models, (2) use of technology, and (3) differences in the patients engaged. We compared costs to the payment amounts under the Oncology Care Model. RESULTS: Team-based models where staffing is aligned with skills needed for key tasks (eg, a combination of lay navigator, nurse, and physician) are more financially feasible when compared with using physicians or nurses alone. When existing staff are at or near capacity, hiring new staff focused on practice transformation activities allows adequate time for new initiatives without negative impacts on existing services. Investments in information technology can enhance staff productivity, but initial costs may be high. Interventions may not be financially feasible if implemented for a small patient volume or only for patients insured by a particular payer. Finally, costs may be higher for disadvantaged populations, and equity in care delivery may require higher payments from payers. CONCLUSION: Estimating the cost of implementing an intervention in different types of practice settings with various types of patients is essential to ensure that a value-based payment system will adequately support desired improvements in quality of care for all patients.