Importance of Patient Health Insurance Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Genomic Testing in Oncologists' Treatment Decisions.

PURPOSE: Use of genomic testing, especially multimarker panels, is increasing in the United States. Not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance, which can result in substantial patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Little is known about oncologists' treatment decisions with respect to patient insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing. METHODS: We identified 1,049 oncologists who used multimarker tumor panels from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Separate multivariable ordinal logistic regressions examined associations of oncologist-, practice-, and area-level characteristics and oncologists' ratings of importance (very, somewhat, or a little/not important) of insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing in treatment decisions, adjusting for oncologist years of experience, sex, race and ethnicity, specialty, use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests, region, tumor boards, patient insurance mix, and area-level socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: Among oncologists, 47.3%, 32.7%, and 20.0% reported that patient insurance coverage for genomic testing was very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively, in treatment decisions. In addition, 56.9%, 28.0%, and 15.2% reported that OOP costs for testing were very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively. In adjusted analyses, oncologists who used NGS tests were more likely to report patient insurance and OOP costs as important (odds ratio [OR], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.16 to 3.45] and OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.22 to 3.68], respectively) in treatment decisions compared with oncologists who did not use these tests, as were oncologists who treated solid tumors, rather than only hematological cancers. More years of experience and higher percentages of Medicaid or self-paid/uninsured patients in the practice were associated with reporting insurance coverage (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.89]) and OOP costs (OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 to 2.01]) as important. Oncologists in practices with molecular tumor boards for genomic tests were less likely to report coverage (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.85]) and OOP costs (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.97]) as important than their counterparts in practices without these tumor boards. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists rate patient health insurance and OOP costs for genomic tests as important considerations in subsequent treatment recommendations. Modifiable factors associated with these ratings can inform interventions to support patient-physician decision making about care.

Association of Employment Disruptions and Financial Hardship Among Individuals Diagnosed with Cancer in the United States: Findings from a Nationally Representative Study.

Financial hardship (FH), defined as adverse patient effects due to cancer costs, is experienced by approximately half of individuals diagnosed with cancer. Many individuals diagnosed with cancer also experience disruptions with their employment. This study examines associations of employment disruptions and FH among a nationally representative sample of individuals diagnosed with cancer in the United States. We utilized 2016/2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer data from individuals who worked for pay following cancer diagnosis. Employment disruption included taking extended paid time off work; switching to part-time/less demanding jobs; and/or retiring early due to cancer diagnosis/treatment. FH domains included: material (e.g., borrowing money/financial sacrifices); psychologic (e.g., worrying about medical bills/income); and behavioral (delaying/forgoing healthcare services because of cost). Multivariable logistic regression analyses determined associations of employment disruption and FH. Among 732 individuals with a cancer history, 47.4% experienced employment disruptions; 55.9% experienced any FH. Any FH was significantly more common among individuals with versus without employment disruptions across multiple measures and domains (68.7% vs. 44.5%; P value of difference <0.0001). Individuals with employment disruptions were more likely to have any FH [OR, 2.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.62-3.52] and more FHs (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.96-3.89]. This study highlights that employment disruptions are common and significantly associated with multiple domains of FH among individuals with a cancer history. Employer workplace accommodation, physician discussions regarding potential impacts of cancer care on employment, and other policies to minimize employment disruptions among individuals diagnosed with cancer may reduce FH in this vulnerable population. Significance: Individuals diagnosed with cancer may have employment disruptions; they may also develop FHs. People with cancer who have employment changes are more likely to also have FHs. Physicians and employers can help individuals with cancer through advancing planning, workplace assistance, and improved medical leave and insurance policies.

"It's just not easy to understand": A mixed methods study of health insurance literacy and insurance plan decision-making in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Understanding cancer survivors' health insurance decision-making is needed to improve insurance choice, potentially resulting in reduced financial hardship. METHODS: This explanatory mixed methods study assessed health insurance decision-making in cancer survivors. Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM) captured HIL. Quantitative eye-tracking data collected from two simulated health insurance plan choice sets gauged dwell time (seconds), or interest, in benefits. Dwell time differences by HIL were estimated using adjusted linear models. Qualitative interviews explored survivors' insurance decision-making choices. RESULTS: Cancer survivors (N = 80; 38% breast cancer) had a median age of 43 at diagnosis (IQR 34-52). When comparing traditional and high-deductible health plans, survivors were most interested in drug costs (median dwell time 58 s, IQR 34-109). When comparing health maintenance organization and preferred provider organization plans, survivors were most interested in test/imaging costs (40s, IQR 14-67). Survivors with low versus high HIL had more interest in deductible (ß = 19 s, 95% CI 2-38) and hospitalization costs (ß = 14 s, 95% CI 1-27) in adjusted models. Survivors with low versus high HIL more often ranked out-of-pocket (OOP) maximums and coinsurance as the most important and confusing benefits, respectively. Interviews (n = 20) revealed survivors felt alone "to do their own research" about insurance choices. OOP maximums were cited as the deciding factor since it is "how much money is going to be taken out of my pocket." Coinsurance was considered "rather than a benefit, it's a hindrance." CONCLUSION: Interventions to aid in health insurance understanding and choice are needed to optimize plan choice and potentially reduce cancer-related financial hardship.

Influence of Cost-Related Considerations on Clinical Trial Participation: Results from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).

BACKGROUND: People experiencing financial burden are underrepresented in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: Describe the prevalence of cost-related considerations influential to trial participation and their associations with person-level characteristics. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study used and assessed how three cost-related considerations would influence the decision to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3682 US adult respondents to the Health Information National Trends Survey MAIN MEASURES: Survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between respondent characteristics and odds of reporting cost-related considerations as very influential to participation. KEY RESULTS: Among 3682 respondents, median age was 48 (IQR 33-61). Most were non-Hispanic White (60%), living comfortably or getting by on their income (74%), with ≥ 1 medical condition (61%). Over half (55%) of respondents reported at least one cost-related consideration as very influential to trial participation, including if usual care was not covered by insurance (reported by 42%), payment for participation (24%), or support for participation (24%). Respondents who were younger (18-34 vs. ≥ 75, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.3, 95% CI 2.3-8.1), more educated (high school vs.

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.

Cost-Related Medication Nonadherence and Patient Cost Responsibility for Rural and Urban Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: The relationship between out-of-pocket spending and cost-related medication nonadherence among older rural- and urban-dwelling cancer survivors is not well understood. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, Medicare claims, and the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey linked data resource linked data (2007-2015) to investigate the relationship between cancer survivors' cost responsibility in the year before and after report of delaying or not filling a prescription medication because of cost in the past 6 months (cost-related medication nonadherence). Secondary exposures and outcomes included Medicare spending and utilization. Generalized linear models assessed bidirectional relationships between cost-related medication nonadherence, spending, and utilization. Effects of residence were assessed via interaction terms. RESULTS: Of 6,591 older cancer survivors, 13% reported cost-related medication nonadherence. Survivors were a median 8 years (interquartile range, 4.5-12.5 years) from their cancer diagnosis, 15% were dually Medicare/Medicaid-eligible, and prostate (40%) and breast (32%) cancer survivors were most prevalent. With every $500 USD increase in patient cost responsibility, risk of cost-related medication nonadherence increased by 3% (risk ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.04). After report of cost-related medication nonadherence, patient cost responsibility was 22% higher (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.32) compared with those not reporting nonadherence, amounting to $523 USD (95% CI, $430 USD to $630 USD). Medicare spending and utilization were also higher before and after report of cost-related nonadherence versus none. For survivors residing in rural (18%) and urban (82%) areas, residence did not modify adherence or cost outcomes. CONCLUSION: A bidirectional relationship exists between patient cost responsibility and cost-related medication nonadherence. Interventions reducing urban- and rural-dwelling survivor health care costs and cost-related adherence barriers are needed.

Cancer-Related Care Costs and Employment Disruption: Recommendations to Reduce Patient Economic Burden as Part of Cancer Care Delivery.

Cancer survivors are frequently unprepared to manage the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs associated with undergoing cancer treatment and the potential for employment disruption. This commentary outlines a set of research recommendations stemming from the National Cancer Institute's Future of Health Economics Research Conference to better understand and reduce patient economic burden as part of cancer care delivery. Currently, there are a lack of detailed metrics and measures of survivors' OOP costs and employment disruption, and data on these costs are rarely available at the point of care to guide patient-centered treatment and survivorship care planning. Future research should improve the collection of data about survivors' OOP costs for medical care, other cancer-related expenses, and experiences of employment disruption. Methods such as microcosting and the prospective collection of patient-reported outcomes in cancer care are needed to understand the true sum of cancer-related costs taken on by survivors and caregivers. Better metrics and measures of survivors' costs must be coupled with interventions to incorporate that information into cancer care delivery and inform meaningful communication about OOP costs and employment disruption that is tailored to different clinical situations. Informing survivors about the anticipated costs of their cancer care supports informed decision making and proactive planning to mitigate financial hardship. Additionally, system-level infrastructure should be developed and tested to facilitate screening to identify survivors at risk for financial hardship, improve communication about OOP costs and employment disruption between survivors and their health-care providers, and support the delivery of appropriate financial navigation services.

Impact of Pain on Employment and Financial Outcomes Among Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Although pain is a frequently reported symptom among individuals with cancer, there is limited information on the impact of pain on employment or financial outcomes. This study used nationally representative data to examine the role of pain levels on employment and financial outcomes. METHODS: We used data from the 2016-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement to identify 1,213 adults diagnosed with cancer. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to examine association of pain levels and self-reported employment and financial outcomes. RESULTS: Approximately 43% of adults with a cancer history reported no pain, 29% mild pain, 18% moderate pain, and 10% severe pain over the past 7 days. Compared with those reporting no pain, individuals reporting any pain had significantly increased likelihood of adverse employment outcomes including early retirement, feeling less productive, and staying at a job because of concerns about losing insurance. Individuals with any pain (compared with no pain) also had significantly increased likelihood of adverse financial outcomes including borrowing money or going into debt, inability to cover medical costs, and worrying about paying medical bills. For both employment and financial outcomes, there were dose-response relationships, with worse outcomes generally associated with greater pain levels. CONCLUSION: Pain is frequently associated with adverse employment and financial outcomes among cancer survivors, and greater pain is associated with worse outcomes. Better assessment of pain severity among survivors and implementation of strategies to assist with employment and financial objectives may be important steps to enhance patient-centered care.

Distribution of Genomic Testing Resources by Oncology Practice and Rurality: A Nationally Representative Study.

PURPOSE: Oncologists are increasingly using molecular profiling to inform personalized patient treatment decisions. Despite its promising utility, the integration of genomic testing into diverse clinical health care settings across geographic settings has been understudied. METHODS: We used data from the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment, a nationally representative sample of practicing US oncologists, to assess the availability of six genomic testing resources, including on-site pathology, contracts with outside laboratories, on-site genetic counselors, internal policies or protocols for using genomic and biomarker testing, electronic medical record alerts, and genomic or molecular tumor boards. We used multivariate logistic regression models to examine differences in the availability of each genomic testing resource by practice type and rurality while adjusting for payer mix and patient volume. RESULTS: A larger proportion of multispecialty group and academic practices had genomic testing resources available compared with solo and nonacademic practices. Electronic medical record alerts were the least available resource, whereas contracts with outside laboratories were the most available resource. Compared with urban practices, there were significantly fewer practices located in rural areas that had on-site pathology, on-site genetic counselors, protocols for genomic tests, and molecular tumor boards. CONCLUSION: Genomic testing resources varied by practice type and geography among a nationally representative sample of practicing oncologists. This variation has important implications for the development of interventions and policies to support the more equitable delivery of precision oncology to patients with cancer.

Delivery of Financial Navigation Services Within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

Background: Cancer centers have a responsibility to help patients manage the costs of their cancer treatment. This article describes the availability of financial navigation services within the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. Methods: Data were obtained from the NCI Survey of Financial Navigation Services and Research, an online survey administered to NCI-designated cancer centers from July to September 2019. Of the 62 eligible centers, 57 completed all or most of the survey, for a response rate of 90.5%. Results: Nearly all cancer centers reported providing help with applications for pharmaceutical assistance programs and medical discounts (96.5%), health insurance coverage (91.2%), assistance with nonmedical costs (96.5%), and help understanding medical bills and out-of-pocket costs (85.9%). Although other services were common, in some cases they were only available to certain patients. These services included direct financial assistance with medical and nonmedical costs and referrals to outside organizations for financial assistance. The least common services included medical debt management (63.2%), detailed discussions about the cost of treatment (54.4%), and guidance about legal protections (50.1%). Providing treatment cost transparency to patients was reported as a common challenge: 71.9% of centers agreed or strongly agreed that it is difficult to determine how much a cancer patient's treatment will cost, and 70.2% of oncologists are reluctant to discuss financial issues with patients. Conclusions: Cancer centers provide many financial services and resources. However, there remains a need to build additional capacity to deliver comprehensive financial navigation services and to understand the extent to which patients are referred and helped by these services.

Oncologist-Reported Reasons for Not Ordering Multimarker Tumor Panels: Results From a Nationally Representative Survey.

This study examines oncologist-reported reasons for not using multimarker tumor panel testing and the association between these reasons and oncologist-level, facility-level, and patient-mix characteristics. METHODS: We used data collected from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,281) of medical oncologists participating in the National Cancer Institute's National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. RESULTS: In addition to testing not being seen as relevant (87%) and no evidence of test utility (77%), the most frequently reported reasons for not ordering a multimarker tumor panel test was difficulty in obtaining sufficient tissue (57%) and using individual gene tests (72%). These reasons were more likely to be reported by oncologists practicing in rural clinics and less likely to be reported by oncologists with an academic affiliation or with access to genetic services such as on-site genetic counselors and internal genetic testing policies. CONCLUSION: Modifiable, organizational factors were associated with ordering multimarker tumor panels. Receipt of genomics training and organizational policies related to the use of genomics were associated with lower reporting of barriers to ordering multimarker tumor panels, pointing to potential targets for future studies aimed at increasing appropriate multimarker tumor panel testing in cancer treatment management.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the United States: Correlates and Time Trends by Type of Test.

BACKGROUND: It is strongly recommended that adults aged 50-75 years be screened for colorectal cancer. Recommended screening options include colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or the more recently introduced FIT-DNA (FIT in combination with a stool DNA test). Colorectal cancer screening programs can benefit from knowledge of patterns of use by test type and within population subgroups. METHODS: Using 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data, we examined colorectal cancer screening test use for adults aged 50-75 years (N = 10,595). We also examined time trends in colorectal cancer screening test use from 2010-2018. RESULTS: In 2018, an estimated 66.9% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years had a colorectal cancer screening test within recommended time intervals. However, the prevalence was less than 50% among those aged 50-54 years, those without a usual source of health care, those with no doctor visits in the past year, and those who were uninsured. The test types most commonly used within recommended time intervals were colonoscopy within 10 years (61.1%), FOBT or FIT in the past year (8.8%), and FIT-DNA within 3 years (2.7%). After age-standardization to the 2010 census population, the percentage up-to-date with CRC screening increased from 61.2% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2018, driven by increased use of stool testing, including FIT-DNA. CONCLUSIONS: These results show some progress, driven by a modest increase in stool testing. However, colorectal cancer testing remains low in many population subgroups. IMPACT: These results can inform efforts to achieve population colorectal cancer screening goals.

Understanding the characteristics of US cancer survivors with informal caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Although informal caregivers such as family and friends provide people with cancer needed physical care and emotional support, little is known about which individuals have access to such caregivers. The purpose of this article is to provide a nationally representative description of the sociodemographic characteristics of cancer survivors who have or had an informal caregiver in the United States. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were taken from the Experiences With Cancer Survivorship Supplement of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey in 2011, 2016, and 2017. People were cancer survivors from diagnosis until the end of life. The study population consisted of adult survivors of cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer who were treated for cancer less than 3 years before the survey and were living in the community (n = 720). The main outcome measure was whether or not the cancer survivor reported having an informal caregiver. RESULTS: In the United States, 55.2% of cancer survivors reported having an informal caregiver during or after their cancer treatment. The relationship of the caregiver to the survivor varied by sex: males were more likely to have a spouse as their caregiver, and females were more likely to have a child as their caregiver. In multivariate analyses, cancer survivors who were female, were married, were of a race/ethnicity other than White, or were in poor health were more likely to have an informal caregiver. CONCLUSIONS: Future research can examine whether those without informal caregivers might need more formal support as they undergo cancer treatment and transition into cancer survivorship.

Evidence Gaps in Cancer Survivorship Care: A Report From the 2019 National Cancer Institute Cancer Survivorship Workshop.

Today, there are more than 16.9 million cancer survivors in the United States; this number is projected to grow to 22.2 million by 2030. Although much progress has been made in describing cancer survivors' needs and in improving survivorship care since the seminal 2006 Institute of Medicine report "From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition," there is a need to identify evidence gaps and research priorities pertaining to cancer survivorship. Thus, in April 2019, the National Cancer Institute convened grant-funded extramural cancer survivorship researchers, representatives of professional organizations, cancer survivors, and advocates for a 1-day in-person meeting. At this meeting, and in a subsequent webinar aimed at soliciting input from the wider survivorship community, evidence gaps and ideas for next steps in the following 6 areas, identified from the 2006 Institute of Medicine report, were discussed: surveillance for recurrence and new cancers, management of long-term and late physical effects, management of long-term and late psychosocial effects, health promotion, care coordination, and financial hardship. Identified evidence gaps and next steps across the areas included the need to understand and address disparities among cancer survivors, to conduct longitudinal studies as well as longer-term (>5 years postdiagnosis) follow-up studies, to leverage existing data, and to incorporate implementation science strategies to translate findings into practice. Designing studies to address these broad evidence gaps, as well as those identified in each area, will expand our understanding of cancer survivors' diverse needs, ultimately leading to the development and delivery of more comprehensive evidence-based quality care.

Employment Outcomes Among Cancer Survivors in the United States: Implications for Cancer Care Delivery.

The national prevalence of employment changes after a cancer diagnosis has not been fully documented. Cancer survivors who worked for pay at or since diagnosis (n = 1490) were identified from the 2011, 2016, and 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and Experiences with Cancer supplement. Analyses characterized employment changes due to cancer and identified correlates of those employment changes. Employment changes were made by 41.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 38.0% to 44.6%) of cancer survivors, representing more than 3.5 million adults in the United States. Of these, 75.4% (95% CI = 71.3% to 79.2%) took extended paid time off and 46.1% (95% CI = 41.6% to 50.7%) made other changes, including switching to part-time or to a less demanding job. Cancer survivors who were younger, female, non-White, or multiple races and ethnicities, and younger than age 20 years since last cancer treatment were more likely to make employment changes. Findings highlight the need for patient-provider communication about the effects of cancer and its treatment on employment.

Information Sources Used by Oncologists to Understand Multi-marker Tumor Panel Tests for Cancer Patients.

Precision medicine using multi-marker tumor panel (MMTP) testing can help inform cancer treatment decisions. Oncologists' knowledge of these tests and their ability to find up-to-date information about their application in clinical care is essential. This study aimed to (1) describe information sources used by oncologists to learn about new genomic tests and (2) examine characteristics associated with the use of each information source. The National Cancer Institute's National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment surveyed a nationally representative sample of oncologists about MMTP testing. We examined the use of 11 information sources among oncologists that reported using MMTP tests (n = 1222). Bivariate analyses were used to examine whether information sources differed by oncologist- and practice-level characteristics and type of MMTP test. Most oncologists reported using peer-reviewed medical literature (88.8%), scientific conferences (87.9%), and medical professional societies (83.8%) to learn about MMTPs. In contrast, government websites, FDA inserts, and foundation resources were each used by < 36% of oncologists. The use of information sources differed by oncologist and practice characteristics. For example, a greater percentage of oncologists with an academic affiliation used peer-reviewed medical literature and scientific conferences, as compared to those without an academic affiliation (p = 0.006). As the number and type of MMTP tests increase, providing oncologists with current information about their appropriate application is essential. Further understanding of how oncologists use specific information sources may improve the dissemination and effective implementation of new MMTPs and help tailor educational interventions based on provider characteristics.

Involving patients and their families in deciding to use next generation sequencing: Results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. oncologists.

OBJECTIVE: Next generation sequencing (NGS) may aid in tumor classification and treatment. Barriers to shared decision-making may influence use of NGS. We examined, from oncologists' perspectives, whether barriers to involving patients/families in decision-making were associated with NGS use. METHODS: Using data from the first national survey of medical oncologists' perspectives on precision medicine (N = 1281), we approached our analyses in two phases. Bivariate analyses initially evaluated associations between barriers to involving patients/families in deciding to use NGS and provider- and organizational-level characteristics. Modified Poisson regressions then examined associations between patient/family barriers and NGS use. RESULTS: Approximately 59 % of oncologists reported at least one barrier to involving patients/families in decision-making regarding NGS use. Those reporting patient/family barriers tended to have fewer genomic resources at their practices, to be in rural or suburban areas, and to have a higher proportion of Medicaid patients. However, these barriers were not associated with NGS use. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists encounter barriers to involving patients/families in NGS testing decisions. Organizational barriers may also potentially play a role in testing decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To foster patient-centered care, strategies to support patient involvement in genomic testing decisions are needed, particularly among practices in low-resource settings.

Oncologist Confidence in Genomic Testing and Implications for Using Multimarker Tumor Panel Tests in Practice.

PURPOSE: The evolution of precision oncology increasingly requires oncologists to incorporate genomic testing into practice. Yet, providers' confidence with genomic testing is poorly documented. This article describes medical oncologists' confidence with genomic testing and the association between genomic confidence and test use. METHODS: We used data from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment to characterize oncologists' confidence with genomic testing. Genomic confidence was examined separately by type of test user: next-generation sequencing (NGS) only, gene expression (GE) only, both NGS and GE, or nonuser. Predictors of genomic confidence were examined with multinomial logistic regression. The association between genomic confidence and test use was examined with multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: More than 75% of genomic test users were either moderately or very confident about using results from multimarker tumor panel tests to guide patient care. Confidence with using multimarker tumor panel tests was highest among both NGS and GE test users, with 60.1% very confident in using test results, and lowest among NGS-only test users, with 38.2% very confident in using test results. Oncologists were most confident in using single-gene tests and least confident in using whole-genome or -exome sequencing to guide patient care. Genomic confidence was positively associated with self-reported test use. In adjusted models, training in genomics, larger patient volume, and treating patients with solid tumors predicted higher genomic confidence. Onsite pathology services and receipt of electronic medical record alerts for genomic testing predicted lower genomic confidence. CONCLUSION: Oncologists' confidence varies by testing platform, patient volume, genomic training, and practice infrastructure. Research is needed to identify modifiable factors that can be targeted to enhance provider confidence with genomic testing.

Patient-Provider Discussions About Out-of-Pocket Costs of Cancer Care in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the importance of cost-related discussions in cancer care, little is known about the prevalence or drivers of these discussions in clinical practice. This study estimates the prevalence and examines the correlates of cancer survivors' discussions about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care with providers. METHODS: The 2016 and 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Surveys were used to identify 1,550 survivors who responded to the question on discussion about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. Multivariable multinomial logistic regression examined the correlates of discussions about out-of-pocket costs. Analyses were performed in 2019. RESULTS: Approximately one quarter of cancer survivors reported having discussed the out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. In multivariable analyses, respondents in the following categories were less likely to report no cost discussion than any cost discussion: black non-Hispanic/other race (RRR=0.67, 95% CI=0.45, 0.98; white non-Hispanic race as reference), no health insurance at diagnosis (RRR=0.51, 95% CI=0.27, 0.95; private health insurance as reference), and any experience of financial hardship (RRR=0.48, 95% CI=0.35, 0.66; no financial hardship as reference). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported discussions about out-of-pocket costs for cancer care are infrequent in the U.S. The findings highlight the needs to improve the understanding of the barriers and facilitators for effective discussions about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care.