Evaluation of a Conference on Cancer-Related Financial and Legal Issues: A Potential Resource to Counter Financial Toxicity.

This study describes the conception, development, and growth of the Triage Cancer Conference hosted by Triage Cancer, a national nonprofit organization providing free legal and financial education to the cancer community. We conducted a retrospective analysis of post-conference participant surveys. Descriptive statistics were calculated for participant demographics, and acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness were evaluated. From 2016-2021, 1239 participants attended the conference and completed post-conference surveys. Participants included social workers (33%), nurses (30%), and cancer patients/survivors (21%), with representation from over 48 states. Among those who reported race, 16% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic. For acceptability, more than 90% of participants felt that the conference content, instructors, and format were suitable and useful. For feasibility, more than 90% of participants felt that the material was useful, with 93-96% reporting that they were likely to share the information and 98% reporting that they would attend another triage cancer event. Appropriateness was also high, with >80-90% reporting that the sessions met the pre-defined objectives. Triage Cancer fills an important gap in mitigating financial toxicity, and formal evaluation of these programs allows us to build evidence of the role and impact of these existing resources. Future research should focus on adding validated patient-reported outcomes, longer-term follow-up, and ensuring inclusion and evaluation of outcome metrics among vulnerable populations.

A proactive financial navigation intervention in patients with newly diagnosed gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Many cancer patients and caregivers experience financial hardship, leading to poor outcomes. Gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer patients are particularly at risk for financial hardship given the intensity of treatment. This pilot randomized study among gastric/GEJ cancer patients and caregivers tested a proactive financial navigation (FN) intervention to obtain a signal of efficacy to inform a larger, more rigorous randomized study. METHODS: We tested a 3-month proactive FN intervention among gastric/GEJ cancer patients and caregivers compared to usual care. Caregiver participation was optional. The primary endpoint was incidence of financial hardship, defined as follows: accrual of debt, income decline of ≥ 20%, or taking loans to pay for treatment. Data from participant surveys and documentation by partner organizations delivering the FN intervention was analyzed and outcomes were compared between study arms. RESULTS: Nineteen patients and 12 caregivers consented. Primary FN resources provided included insurance navigation, budget planning, and help with out-of-pocket medical expenses. Usual care patients were more likely to experience financial hardship (50% vs 40%) and declines in quality of life (37.5% vs 0%) compared to intervention patients. Caregivers in both arms reported increased financial stress and poorer quality of life over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive financial navigation has potentially positive impacts on financial hardship and quality of life for cancer patients and more large-scale randomized interventions should be conducted to rigorously explore the impact of similar interventions. Interventions that have the potential to lessen caregiver financial stress and burden need further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRN: NCT03986502, June 14, 2019.

Assessing the pre-implementation context for financial navigation in rural and non-rural oncology clinics.

Background: Financial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based intervention designed to address financial toxicity for cancer patients. FN's success depends on organizations' readiness to implement and other factors that may hinder or support implementation. Tailored implementation strategies can support practice change but must be matched to the implementation context. We assessed perceptions of readiness and perceived barriers and facilitators to successful implementation among staff at nine cancer care organizations (5 rural, 4 non-rural) recruited to participate in the scale-up of a FN intervention. To understand differences in the pre-implementation context and inform modifications to implementation strategies, we compared findings between rural and non-rural organizations. Methods: We conducted surveys (n = 78) and in-depth interviews (n = 73) with staff at each organization. We assessed perceptions of readiness using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale. In-depth interviews elicited perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing FN in each context. We used descriptive statistics to analyze ORIC results and deductive thematic analysis, employing a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to synthesize themes in barriers and facilitators across sites, and by rurality. Results: Results from the ORIC scale indicated strong perceptions of organizational readiness across all sites. Staff from rural areas reported greater confidence in their ability to manage the politics of change (87% rural, 76% non-rural) and in their organization's ability to support staff adjusting to the change (96% rural, 75% non-rural). Staff at both rural and non-rural sites highlighted factors reflective of the Intervention Characteristics (relative advantage) and Implementation Climate (compatibility and tension for change) domains as facilitators. Although few barriers to implementation were reported, differences arose between rural and non-rural sites in these perceived barriers, with non-rural staff more often raising concerns about resistance to change and compatibility with existing work processes and rural staff more often raising concerns about competing time demands and limited resources. Conclusions: Staff across both rural and non-rural settings identified few, but different, barriers to implementing a novel FN intervention that they perceived as important and responsive to patients' needs. These findings can inform how strategies are tailored to support FN in diverse oncology practices.

Interventions for financial toxicity among cancer survivors: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Financial toxicity impairs cancer survivors' material condition, psychological wellbeing and quality of life. This scoping review aimed to identify interventions for reducing cancer-related financial toxicity (FT), and to summarize their main findings. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, Clinical Trials, China National Knowledge Internet, Wanfang and SinoMed from January 2010 to September 2022 following the PRISMA-ScR checklist. RESULTS: From 2842 identified articles, a total of 15 were included in this review. Existing interventions can be classified into four types: financial navigation, financial counseling, insurance education and others. Previous interventions preliminarily affirmed the feasibility, satisfaction, and improvement in financial worries and knowledge. However, the effectiveness on FT was controversial. CONCLUSIONS: Previous interventions affirmed the feasibility and primary effect of these interventions. Studies with more rigorous design are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and generalizability of interventions on FT across diverse healthcare systems.

Building Organizational Capacity to Deliver Oncology Financial Advocacy.

Background: Cancer-related financial hardship is linked to poor health outcomes and early mortality. Oncology financial advocacy (OFA) aims to prevent cancer-related financial hardship in oncology settings by assessing patients' needs and connecting them to available financial resources. Despite promising evidence, OFA remains underutilized. Objectives: Describe oncology financial advocates' perceptions about the challenges to and opportunities for implementing oncology financial advocacy (OFA) in community cancer centers. Methods: Nine virtual focus groups were conducted with 45 oncology financial advocates. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using template-based thematic analysis informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR); two study team members coded each transcript and all six team members identified emergent themes. Results: Salient themes were identified across all five domains of the CFIR framework: (1) intervention characteristics: participants described challenges of adapting OFA to meet the needs of the medical system instead of needs of the patients; (2) outer setting: growing awareness of health and cancer disparities could bring more attention to and investment in OFA; (3) inner setting: programs are under-resourced to assist all at-risk patients, staffing, technology integration, and network/communication workflows are needed; (4) characteristics of individuals: advocates believe strongly in the effectiveness and would like to see their credibility enhanced with professional certification; (5) process: implementation strategies that target the engagement of leadership, key stakeholders, and patients to increase program reach are needed. Conclusions: OFA cannot reach all at-risk patients because of understaffing, poor communication between departments, and a lack of understanding OFA as an intervention among colleagues, key stakeholders, and patients. To reach full implementation, advocates need assistance in making the case for more resources, research on patient outcomes, professional certification, and the use of policy to incentivize financial advocacy as a standard of care in medicine.

Financial toxicity: A practical review for gynecologic oncology teams to understand and address patient-level financial burdens.

Financial toxicity describes the adverse impact patients experience from the monetary and time costs of cancer care. The financial burden patients experience comes from substantially increased out-of-pocket spending that often occurs concurrent with reduced income due to sick leave from work. Financial toxicity is common affecting approximately half of patients with a gynecological cancer depending on the validated instrument used for measurement. Financial toxicity is experienced by patients in three domains: economic hardship affecting patients' material conditions (i.e., medical debt), psychological response (i.e., distress), and health-related coping behaviors that patients adopt (i.e., foregoing care due to costs). Higher financial toxicity among cancer patients has been associated with decreased quality of life, impaired adherence to recommended care, and worse overall survival. In this review, we describe the current literature on financial toxicity, including how it can be assessed with validated tools, the downstream impact on patients, risk factors, and employment concerns of survivors. Whenever possible, we highlight data from research featuring patients with gynecologic cancer specifically. We also review studies with interventions aimed to mitigate financial toxicity and offer the reader real world examples of interventions currently being used. Lastly, we provide an overview of health policy developments relevant to financial toxicity and advocate for innovation in the development and implementation of strategies to decrease the financial toxicity patients experience following a diagnosis of gynecologic cancer.

Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT): a protocol for a multi-site, single-arm trial examining the effect of financial navigation on financial toxicity in adult patients with cancer in rural and non-rural settings.

BACKGROUND: Almost half of the patients with cancer report cancer-related financial hardship, termed "financial toxicity" (FT), which affects health-related quality of life, care retention, and, in extreme cases, mortality. This increasingly prevalent hardship warrants urgent intervention. Financial navigation (FN) targets FT by systematically identifying patients at high risk, assessing eligibility for existing resources, clarifying treatment cost expectations, and working with patients and caregivers to develop a plan to cope with cancer costs. This trial seeks to (1) identify FN implementation determinants and implementation outcomes, and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of FN in improving patient outcomes. METHODS: The Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT) study is a multi-site Phase 2 clinical trial. We use a pre-/post- single-arm intervention to examine the effect of FN on FT in adults with cancer. The LIFT trial is being conducted at nine oncology care settings across North Carolina in the United States. Sites vary in geography (five rural, four non-rural), size (21-974 inpatient beds), and ownership structure (governmental, non-profit). The study will enroll 780 patients total over approximately 2 years. Eligible patients must be 18 years or older, have a confirmed cancer diagnosis (any type) within the past 5 years or be living with advanced disease, and screen positive for cancer-related financial distress. LIFT will be delivered by full- or part-time financial navigators and consists of 3 components: (1) systematic FT screening identification and comprehensive intake assessment; (2) connecting patients experiencing FT to financial support resources via trained oncology financial navigators; and (3) ongoing check-ins and electronic tracking of patients' progress and outcomes by financial navigators. We will measure intervention effectiveness by evaluating change in FT (via the validated Comprehensive Score of Financial Toxicity, or COST instrument) (primary outcome), as well as health-related quality of life (PROMIS Global Health Questionnaire), and patient-reported delayed or forgone care due to cost. We also assess patient- and stakeholder-reported implementation and service outcomes post-intervention, including uptake, fidelity, acceptability, cost, patient-centeredness, and timeliness. DISCUSSION: This study adds to the growing evidence on FN by evaluating its implementation and effectiveness across diverse oncology care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04931251. Registered on June 18, 2021.

Treatment out-of-pocket cost communication and remote financial navigation in patients with cancer: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a pilot study assessing the feasibility of a personalized out-of-pocket cost communication, remote financial navigation, and counseling (CostCOM) intervention in cancer patients. METHODS: Twenty-three adult, newly diagnosed cancer patients at a single community oncology practice were asked to complete a survey and participate in a CostCOM intervention, including patient-specific out-of-pocket cost communication, remote financial navigation, and counseling. Feasibility was defined as patient participation in CostCOM, and its impact on financial worry measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) (higher score = less worry) was assessed. Eight patients' and two providers' experience with CostCOM was evaluated using qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 61 (78.3% female; 100% white). Of 23 CostCOM patients, 86.9% completed CostCOM, 60% of them completed a financial assistance application, and 25% of those who applied were enrolled in a co-pay assistance program. Patients' financial worry significantly improved following CostCOM (COST score of 10.0 ± 9.6 at enrollment vs. 16.9 ± 8.1 at follow-up; p < 0.001). Mean general satisfaction (out of 5) with CostCOM was 4.1 ± 0.7. In qualitative interviews following OOPC communication, 75% felt a positive impact on their mental health, and all patients reported no change in their treatment plan; 83.3% found financial navigation beneficial. In providers' interviews, buy-in from relevant stakeholders, integration of the CostCOM with existing workflow, and larger studies to assess the effectiveness of CostCOM were identified as factors needed for CostCOM implementation in practice. CONCLUSION: CostCOM interventions are feasible and acceptable and decrease financial worry in patients with cancer.

Navigating financial toxicity in patients with cancer: A multidisciplinary management approach.

Approximately one-half of individuals with cancer face personal economic burdens associated with the disease and its treatment, a problem known as financial toxicity (FT). FT more frequently affects socioeconomically vulnerable individuals and leads to subsequent adverse economic and health outcomes. Whereas multilevel systemic factors at the policy, payer, and provider levels drive FT, there are also accompanying intervenable patient-level factors that exacerbate FT in the setting of clinical care delivery. The primary strategy to intervene on FT at the patient level is financial navigation. Financial navigation uses comprehensive assessment of patients' risk factors for FT, guidance toward support resources, and referrals to assist patient financial needs during cancer care. Social workers or nurse navigators most frequently lead financial navigation. Oncologists and clinical provider teams are multidisciplinary partners who can support optimal FT management in the context of their clinical roles. Oncologists and clinical provider teams can proactively assess patient concerns about the financial hardship and employment effects of disease and treatment. They can respond by streamlining clinical treatment and care delivery planning and incorporating FT concerns into comprehensive goals of care discussions and coordinated symptom and psychosocial care. By understanding how age and life stage, socioeconomic, and cultural factors modify FT trajectory, oncologists and multidisciplinary health care teams can be engaged and informative in patient-centered, tailored FT management. The case presentations in this report provide a practical context to summarize authors' recommendations for patient-level FT management, supported by a review of key supporting evidence and a discussion of challenges to mitigating FT in oncology care. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:437-453.

Patient-Specific Out-of-Pocket Cost Communication and Remote Financial Navigation in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a randomized controlled trial evaluating the feasibility of a personalized out-of-pocket cost communication, remote financial navigation and counseling (CostCOM) intervention in decreasing financial hardship among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: Sixty-two adult patients with diagnosis of MS and a prescription for a disease modifying therapy were randomized into: (1) Usual care (n=30) and (2) CostCOM (n=32). CostCOM included patient-specific out-of-pocket cost communication, remote financial navigation and counseling delivered at enrollment and 3 months. Usual care included routine neurology visits, use of available ancillary staff, and internal or external resources for financial assistance per normal clinic procedures. Feasibility outcomes included participation in and satisfaction with CostCOM. Exploratory financial hardship outcomes included cost-related care nonadherence, material hardship, and financial worry using Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST). RESULTS: Mean age was 41.5 (81.0% female; 41.4% White and 51.7% Black race). Of 32 CostCOM patients, 96.8% and 68.7% completed baseline and follow-up intervention. A financial assistance application was completed for 80%. Mean general satisfaction (out of 5) with CostCOM was 3.1±1.0. In multivariable analyses, CostCOM patients had less financial worry (i.e., higher COST scores) at 3 months compared to usual care patients (B coefficient, 3.6; 95% CI (0.1 - 7.1). While CostCOM patients had significant decreases in 3 months non-adherence (72.7%) compared to enrollment (50%), their 3 months nonadherence and material hardship were not significantly different between the two arms. CONCLUSION: CostCOM interventions are feasible, acceptable, and yield potential benefits in decreasing financial hardship. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04257071).

Core functions of a financial navigation intervention: An in-depth assessment of the Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT) intervention to inform adaptation and scale-up in diverse oncology care settings.

Background: Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT) is an intervention designed to address financial toxicity (FT) and improve cancer care access and outcomes through financial navigation (FN). FN identifies patients at risk for FT, assesses eligibility for financial support, and develops strategies to cope with those costs. LIFT successfully reduced FT and improved care access in a preliminary study among patients with high levels of FT in a single large academic cancer center. Adapting LIFT requires distinguishing between core functions (components that are key to its implementation and effectiveness) and forms (specific activities that carry out core functions). Our objective was to complete the first stage of adaptation, identifying LIFT core functions. Methods: We reviewed LIFT's protocol and internal standard-operating procedures. We then conducted 45-90 min in-depth interviews, using Kirk's method of identifying core functions, with key LIFT staff (N = 8), including the principal investigators. Interviews focused on participant roles and intervention implementation. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim. Using ATLAS.ti and a codebook based on the Model for Adaptation Design and Impact, we coded interview transcripts. Through thematic analysis, we then identified themes related to LIFT's intervention and implementation core functions. Two report back sessions with interview participants were incorporated to further refine themes. Results: Six intervention core functions (i.e., what makes LIFT effective) and five implementation core functions (i.e., what facilitated LIFT's implementation) were identified to be sufficient to reduce FT. Intervention core functions included systematically cataloging knowledge and tracking patient-specific information related to eligibility criteria for FT relief. Repeat contacts between the financial navigator and participant created an ongoing relationship, removing common barriers to accessing resources. Implementation core functions included having engaged sites with the resources and willingness necessary to implement FN. Developing navigators' capabilities to implement LIFT-through training, an established case management system, and connections to peer navigators-were also identified as implementation core functions. Conclusion: This study adds to the growing evidence on FN by characterizing intervention and implementation core functions, a critical step toward promoting LIFT's implementation and effectiveness.

Interventions to address cancer-related financial toxicity: Recommendations from the field.

PURPOSE: Addressing financial toxicity among cancer patients is a complex process that requires a multifaceted approach, particularly for rural patients who may face additional cost-related barriers to care. In this study, we examined interventions being implemented by financial navigation staff at various cancer centers that help address financial toxicity experienced by oncology patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a convenience sample of financial navigation staff across 29 cancer centers in both rural and urban areas in 7 states. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Descriptive coding and thematic analysis techniques were used to analyze the data. FINDINGS: Thirty-five participants were interviewed, the majority of whom worked in cancer centers located in rural counties. Participants identified the use of screening tools, patient education, and access to tailored financial assistance resources as best practices. Immediate resource needs included additional financial navigation staff, including lay navigators and community health workers, to promote linkages to local resources. Suggested clinical areas for intervention included proactive and early implementation of financial assessments and discussions between providers and patients, along with training and access to regularly updated resources for those in financial navigator/counselor roles. Participants also discussed the need for policy-level interventions to reform health systems (including employment protections) and health insurance programs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing proactive methods to screen for and address financial needs of patients is essential to improving cancer-related outcomes. Additional programs and research are needed to help establish systematic and standardized methods to enhance financial navigation services, especially for underserved rural communities.

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.

Lay abstract The financial burden of cancer care on patients and their families is a growing problem and action is critically needed to alleviate the high costs of such care. So far, potential solutions have focused on system-level interventions, with less consideration given to solutions at the patient level. This review argues that it is imperative to develop and support patient-level strategies that engage patients. Next, the review presents evidence of the interplay between patient preferences and values and the costs of cancer care. Finally, opportunities to enhance engagement 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.

Financial Support Models: A Case for Use of Financial Navigators in the Oncology Setting.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity causes significant psychological and practical distress for patients and can affect their ability and willingness to undertake optimal treatment. Although different models of financial support are typically available to patients undergoing cancer treatments, not all models can offer equal amounts of support and effective solutions, particularly to those patients at the highest levels of risk for this toxicity. OBJECTIVES: This article discusses the two most prevalent models available to healthcare institutions to provide financial support (financial counseling and financial advocacy) and makes recommendations for implementation of a more comprehensive, proactive financial navigation model. METHODS: This article reviews current and emerging financial support models. FINDINGS: Financial toxicity is on the rise, and the financial navigation model shows promise in decreasing the number of patients experiencing financial hardship.