Psychiatric diagnoses are common after liver transplantation and associated with increased healthcare utilization and patient financial burden.

INTRODUCTION: Psychiatric disorders after liver transplantation (LT) are associated with worse patient and graft outcomes, which may be amplified by inadequate treatment. We aimed to characterize the burden of psychiatric disorders, treatment patterns, and associated financial burden among LT recipients (LTRs). METHODS: IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics-a large health plan claims database representative of the commercially insured U.S. population-was used to identify psychiatric diagnoses among adult LTRs and assess treatment. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with post-LT psychiatric diagnoses and receipt of pharmacotherapy. Patient financial liability was estimated using adjudicated medical/pharmacy claims for LTRs with and without psychiatric diagnoses. RESULTS: Post-LT psychiatric diagnoses were identified in 395 (29.5%) of 1,338 LTRs, of which 106 (26.8%) were incident cases. Treatment varied, with 67.3% receiving pharmacotherapy, 32.1% psychotherapy, 21.0% combination therapy, and 21.5% no treatment. Among 340 LTRs on psychotropic medications before transplant, 24% did not continue them post-LT. Post-LT psychiatric diagnoses were independently associated with female sex, alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), prolonged LT hospitalization (>2 weeks), and pre-LT psychiatric diagnosis. Incident psychiatric diagnoses were associated with female sex, ALD, and prolonged LT hospitalization. Patients with a post-LT psychiatric diagnosis had higher rates of hospitalization (89.6% vs 81.5%, p<0.001) and financial liability (median $5.5K vs $4.6K USD, p=0.006). Having a psychiatric diagnosis post-LT was independently associated with experiencing high financial liability >$5K. CONCLUSION: Over 1 in 4 LTRs had a psychiatric diagnosis in a large national cohort, yet nearly a quarter received no treatment. LTRs with psychiatric diagnoses experienced increased healthcare utilization and higher financial liability. Sociodemographic and clinical risk factors could inform high-risk subgroups who may benefit from screening and mitigation strategies.

Financial Burden of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening in Patients With Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: The overall value of hepatocellular carcinoma screening is defined by the balance of benefits and harms. Studies have only reported physical harms with none describing financial harms. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter pragmatic randomized clinical trial of hepatocellular carcinoma screening outreach among 2872 patients with cirrhosis from March 2018 to April 2021. Patients with positive or indeterminate results and matched patients with negative results completed surveys at baseline and at follow-up measuring financial harms via Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire and financial burden via Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy. Univariable and multivariable longitudinal regression analyses were performed to compare changes in financial harms across groups: true positive, true negative, false positive, and indeterminate. Semistructured interviews were conducted in a subset of patients, sampled by center and test result. RESULTS: Of 311 patients who completed at least 1 follow-up survey (75% response rate), 37 had true positive, 133 true negative, 64 false positive, and 77 indeterminate results. Financial harms increased in true positive and false positive patients with no significant changes noted among those with true negative or indeterminate results. At follow-up, 21.8% of patients reported moderate-severe financial burden, which was not significantly associated with test results. Semistructured interviews revealed variation in the frequency and severity of financial harms based on test results, with increased harm in those with false positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Financial harms of hepatocellular carcinoma screening vary by test result and can pose a barrier that must be considered when determining the optimal screening program.

The financial burden after liver transplantation is significant among commercially insured adults: A large US National Cohort.

Liver transplantation (LT) is lifesaving for patients with cirrhosis; however, the resultant financial burden to patients has not been well characterized. We aimed to provide a nationally representative portrayal of patient financial burden after LT. Adult recipients of LT from 2006 to 2021 were identified using IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics-a large nationally representative claims database of commercially insured Americans. Patient financial liability (ie, what patients owe) was estimated using the difference between allowed and paid costs for adjudicated medical/pharmacy claims. Descriptive statistics were provided stratified by the financial liability group within 1 year after LT. Multivariable logistic regression modeling identified factors associated with high/extreme liability adjusting for covariates. Potential indirect costs of post-LT care were estimated based on hourly wages lost for care. Among 1412 recipients of LT, financial liability was heterogeneous-~3% had no liability and 21% had extreme liability > $10K for 1-year post-LT care; most (69%) paid between $1 and 10K, with 48% having liability >$5K. Factors associated with >$5K liability included older age, insurance/enrollment type, US region, history of HCC, and simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (for liability >$10K). Medication costs comprised ~30% of outpatient financial liability. Potential indirect costs from wages lost were $2,201-$6,073 per person, depending on an hourly wage. In a large national cohort of commercially insured recipients of LT, financial liability was highly variable across sociodemographic and clinical characteristics; nearly 1 out of 2 recipients of LT owed >$5K for 1 year of post-LT care. Transplant programs should help patients anticipate potential costs and identify vulnerable populations who would benefit from enhanced financial counseling.

Financial burden among cancer patients: A national-level perspective.

BACKGROUND: This research study aimed to evaluate the financial burden among older cancer patients and its corresponding risk factors. Factors such as increasing treatment costs and work limitations often lead cancer patients to bankruptcy and poor quality of life. These consequences, in turn, can cause higher mortality rates among these patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized data from the Health Retirement Study (HRS), conducted by the University of Michigan (N = 18,109). Eligible participants had responses captured from years 2002 to 2016. Participants were classified according to any self-reported cancer diagnosis (yes or no) and were compared on the basis of financial, work, and health-related outcomes. Propensity score (PS) matching was applied to reduce the effects of potential confounding factors. Also only, individuals with an age ≥50 and ≤85 during Wave 6 were retained. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis with random effects revealed several indicators of financial burden when comparing participants with a cancer diagnosis to those with no history of cancer. Mean out-of-pocket costs associated with a cancer diagnosis were $1058 higher when compared to participants with no history of cancer, suggesting that even cancer patients with insurance coverage faced out-of-pocket costs. Respondents with cancer patients had higher odds of encountering financial hardship if they are facing Work Limitations (OR = 2.714), Regular use of Medications (OR = 2.518), Hospital Stays (OR = 2.858), Declining Health (OR = 2.349), or were being covered under government health insurance (OR = 5.803) than respondents who did not have cancer, or suffered from mental health issues such as Depression (OR = 0.901). CONCLUSION: Cancer patients contend with increasing financial costs during their treatment. However, most newly diagnosed patients are not aware of these costs and are given few resources to handle them.

State Spending on Public Benefit Programs and Child Maltreatment.

BACKGROUND: To determine the association between states' total spending on benefit programs and child maltreatment outcomes. METHODS: This was an ecological study of all US states during federal fiscal years 2010-2017. The primary predictor was states' total annual spending on local, state, and federal benefit programs per person living ≤100% federal poverty limit, which was the sum of (1) cash, housing, and in-kind assistance, (2) housing infrastructure, (3) child care assistance, (4) refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, and (5) Medical Assistance Programs. The main outcomes were rates of maltreatment reporting, substantiations, foster care placements, and fatalities after adjustment for relevant confounders. Generalized estimating equations adjusted for federal spending and estimated adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: States' total spending was inversely associated with all maltreatment outcomes. For each additional $1000 states spent on benefit programs per person living in poverty, there was an associated -4.3% (adjusted IRR: 0.9573 [95% CI: 0.9486 to 0.9661]) difference in reporting, -4.0% (adjusted IRR: 0.903 [95% CI: 0.9534 to 0.9672]) difference in substantiations, -2.1% (adjusted IRR: 0.9795 [95% CI: 0.9759 to 0.9832]) difference in foster care placements, and -7.7% (adjusted IRR: 0.9229 [95% CI: 0.9128 to 0.9330]) difference in fatalities. In 2017, extrapolating $1000 of additional spending for each person living in poverty ($46.5 billion nationally, or 13.3% increase) might have resulted in 181 850 fewer reports, 28 575 fewer substantiations, 4168 fewer foster care placements, and 130 fewer fatalities. CONCLUSIONS: State spending on benefit programs was associated with reductions in child maltreatment, which might offset some benefit program costs.

Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination Among Health System Personnel.

INTRODUCTION: One-third of the general public will not accept Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination but factors influencing vaccine acceptance among health care personnel (HCP) are not known. We investigated barriers and facilitators to vaccine acceptance within 3 months of regulatory approval (primary outcome) among adult employees and students at a tertiary-care, academic medical center. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional survey design with multivariable logistic regression. Covariates included age, gender, educational attainment, self-reported health status, concern about COVID-19, direct patient interaction, and prior influenza immunization. RESULTS: Of 18,250 eligible persons, 3,347 participated. Two in 5 (40.5%) HCP intend to delay (n = 1020; 30.6%) or forgo (n = 331; 9.9%) vaccination. Male sex (adjusted OR [aOR], 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-2.95; P < .001), prior influenza vaccination (aOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.75-3.18; P < .001), increased concern about COVID-19 (aOR, 2.40; 95% CI, 2.07-2.79; P < .001), and postgraduate education (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.65; P < .001) - but not age, direct patient interaction, or self-reported overall health - were associated with vaccine acceptance in multivariable analysis. Barriers to vaccination included concerns about long-term side effects (n = 1197, 57.1%), safety (n = 1152, 55.0%), efficacy (n = 777, 37.1%), risk-to-benefit ratio (n = 650, 31.0%), and cost (n = 255, 12.2%).Subgroup analysis of Black respondents indicates greater hesitancy to accept vaccination (only 24.8% within 3 months; aOR 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08-0.21; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Many HCP intend to delay or refuse COVID-19 vaccination. Policymakers should impartially address concerns about safety, efficacy, side effects, risk-to-benefit ratio, and cost. Further research with minority subgroups is urgently needed.