Dedicated financial hardship screening adds value to routine distress screening among gynecologic cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening. METHODS: We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score ≥ 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10-item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening. RESULTS: Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported ≥1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most (n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported ≥1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone.

Physician-patient communication of costs and financial burden of cancer and its treatment: a systematic review of clinical guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Optimising the care of individuals with cancer without imposing significant financial burden related to their anticancer treatment is becoming increasingly difficult. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has recommended clinicians discuss costs of cancer care with patients to enhance shared decision-making. We sought information to guide oncologists' discussions with patients about these costs. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE and clinical practice guideline databases from January 2009 to 1 June 2019 for recommendations about discussing the costs of care and financial burden. Guideline quality was assessed with the AGREE-II instrument. RESULTS: Twenty-seven guidelines met our eligibility criteria, including 16 from ASCO (59%). 21 of 27 (78%) guidelines included recommendations about discussion or consideration of treatment costs when prescribing, with information about actual costs in four (15%). Recognition of the risk of financial burden or financial toxicity was described in 81% (22/27) of guidelines. However, only nine guidelines (33%) included information about managing the financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: Current clinical practice guidelines have little information to guide physician-patient discussions about costs of anticancer treatment and management of financial burden. This limits patients' ability to control costs of treatment, and for the healthcare team to reduce the incidence and severity of financial burden. Current guidelines recommend clinician awareness of price variability and high costs of treatment. Clinicians are recommended to explore cost concerns and address financial worries, especially in high risk groups. Future guidelines should include advice on facilitating cost transparency discussions, with provision of cost information and resources.

Understanding the Relationship between Breast Reconstruction Subtype and Risk of Financial Toxicity: A Single-Institution Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of breast reconstruction on financial toxicity remains poorly understood despite growing awareness. The authors sought to illustrate the relationship between breast reconstruction subtypes and the risk of financial toxicity. METHODS: The authors conducted a single-institution cross-sectional survey of all female breast cancer patients undergoing any form of breast reconstruction between January of 2018 and June of 2019. Financial toxicity was measured by means of the validated Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity instrument. Demographics, clinical course, and coping strategies were abstracted from a purpose-built survey and electronic medical records. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify associations with financial toxicity. RESULTS: The authors' analytical sample was 350 patients. One hundred eighty-four (52.6 percent) underwent oncoplastic reconstruction, 126 (36 percent) underwent implant-based reconstruction, and 40 (11.4 percent) underwent autologous reconstruction. Oncoplastic reconstruction recipients were older, had a higher body mass index, and were more likely to have supplemental insurance and receive adjuvant hormonal therapy. No significant differences in the risk of financial toxicity were uncovered across breast reconstruction subtypes (p = 0.53). Protective factors against financial toxicity were use of supplemental insurance (p = 0.0003) and escalating annual household income greater than $40,000 (p < 0.0001). Receipt of radiation therapy was positively associated with worsening financial toxicity (-2.69; 95 CI percent, -5.22 to -0.15). Financial coping strategies were prevalent across breast reconstruction subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction subtype does not differentially impact the risk of financial toxicity. Increasing income and supplemental insurance were found to be protective, whereas receipt of radiation therapy was positively associated with financial toxicity. Prospective, multicenter studies are needed to identify the main drivers of out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity in breast cancer care.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Self-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Adrenal Insufficiency.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare environment. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the pandemic on self-reported outcomes in patients with adrenal insufficiency (AI). DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective longitudinal survey study at 2 tertiary centers. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with AI. INTERVENTION: Patient-centered questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21, Short Form-36, and AI self-management. RESULTS: Of 342 patients, 157 (46%) had primary AI, 109 (32%) had secondary AI, and 76 (22%) had glucocorticoid-induced AI. When compared to prepandemic, daily glucocorticoid dose and number of adrenal crises did not change. However, patients reported a higher financial impact from AI (34% vs 23%, P = 0.006) and difficulty accessing medical care (31% vs 7%, P < 0.0001) during the pandemic. A third of patients reported difficulty managing AI during the pandemic. After adjusting for duration and subtypes of AI, younger patients [odds ratio (OR) 2.3, CI 95% 1.3-4.1], women (OR 3.7, CI 95% 1.9-7.1), poor healthcare access(OR 4.2, CI 95% 2.3-7.7), lack of good insurance support (OR 2.8, CI 95% 1.3-5.9), and those with a higher financial impact (OR 2.3, CI 95% 1.3-4.3) reported greater difficulties managing AI. Patients were more likely to report a higher anxiety score (≥8) if they found managing AI challenging during the pandemic (OR 3.0, CI 95% 1.3-6.9), and had lower Physical Component Summary (OR 4.9, CI 95% 2.2-11.0) and Mental Component Summary (OR 4.1, CI 95% 1.8-9.5) scores prior to the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: A third of patients with AI reported difficulties with management of AI during the pandemic, particularly in younger patients, women, and those with poor healthcare access.

"The Financial Impact Is Depressing and Anxiety Inducing": A Qualitative Exploration of the Personal Financial Toll of Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The financial experience faced by working-age people with arthritis includes living below the poverty line for many. Financial distress among people with arthritis is known to contribute to poorer health outcomes, including high psychological distress and more severe pain. Despite the demonstrated societal cost of arthritis care and management, the personal costs borne by the individual are not well understood. The aim of this study was to explore the perceived financial impacts of living with arthritis among younger adults (defined as those ages 18-50 years). METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study design was used. Participants with inflammatory arthritis or osteoarthritis were recruited from the community, including urban and rural settings. An interview schedule was developed, informed by existing literature, which was piloted prior to data collection. Deductive and inductive coding techniques were used to identify financial-related themes arising from the data. RESULTS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 adults (90% female) with a mix of arthritis conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and osteoarthritis. Four themes were identified: direct arthritis-attributable medical costs, indirect arthritis-attributable costs, insurance and pension costs, and broader financial impacts on the family. Nonsubsidized costs were frequently referenced by participants as burdensome and existed even within the publicly funded Australian health care system. CONCLUSION: Adults with arthritis experience significant arthritis-attributable financial burden and related distress. Financial concerns should be actively identified and considered within shared clinical decision-making to provide more patient-centered care for these individuals.

Economic Hardship, Ocular Complications, and Poor Self-reported Visual Function are Predictors of Mental Problems in Patients with Uveitis.

Purpose: To characterize the quality of life and mental health status of patients with uveitis and investigate predictors of psychological problems.Methods: A total of 245 patients and 105 controls were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Quality of life, psychological status, socio-demographic and clinical data were obtained from questionnaires and medical records. Multivariate regression analyses and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) were applied to obtain the model predicting psychological problems of patients.Results: Of 245 patients, 16.7% and 26.5% (P< .0001) screened positive for anxiety and depression, respectively. The model predicting anxiety was comprised of low annual household income and poor self-reported visual function (P= .029,P< .0001, respectively), with an AUC of ROC of 0.744. The model predicting depression was comprised of poor self-reported visual function and ocular complications (P< .0001, P= .012, respectively), with an AUC of 0.78.Conclusions: Economic hardship, ocular complications, and poor self-reported visual function are predictors of mental problems in patients with uveitis.

Psychological factors associated with financial hardship and mental health: A systematic review.

A review of the literature investigating the role of psychological factors in the relationship between financial hardship and mental health was completed. The review sought to identify which factors have been most consistently and reliably indicated, and the mechanisms by which these factors are proposed to contribute to the association between hardship and mental health. Although the review identified that a broad variety of factors have been investigated, skills related to personal agency, self-esteem and coping were most frequently and reliably associated with the relationship between financial hardship and mental health outcomes. Just over half of the studies reviewed concluded that the psychological factor investigated was either eroded by financial hardship, increasing vulnerability to mental health difficulties, or protected mental health by remaining intact despite the effects of financial hardship. The remaining studies found no such effect or did not analyse their data in a manner in which a mechanism of action could be identified. The methodological quality of the research included in the review was variable. The valid and reliable measurement of financial hardship, and conclusions regarding causation due to the use of predominantly cross-sectional design were areas of particular weakness.