Evaluation of Financial Interventions in Breast Cancer Care Worldwide: A Systematic Review.

Background: Out-of-pocket costs are burdensome for breast cancer patients. Cost-reducing interventions, though implemented, have unclear comparative efficacy. This study aimed to critically evaluate characteristics of successful versus unsuccessful interventions designed to decrease out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer patients. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA checklist. Embase, PubMed, Global Index Medicus, and Global Health were queried from inception to February 2021. Articles describing a financial intervention targeting costs for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, or treatment and addressing clinical or patient-level financial outcomes were included. Methodological quality was evaluated using the QualSyst tool. Interventions were organized in accordance with timing of implementation, with narrative description of intervention type, success, and outcomes. Results: Of the 11,086 articles retrieved, 21 were included in this review. Of these, 14 consisted of interventions during screening, and seven during diagnosis or treatment. Free/subsidized screening mammography was the most common screening intervention; 91% of these programs documented successful outcomes. Patient navigation and gift voucher programs demonstrated mixed success. The most successful intervention implemented during diagnosis/treatment was reducing medication costs. Low-cost programs and direct patient financial assistance were also successful. Limitations included lack of standardization in outcome metrics across studies. Conclusions: Financial interventions reducing prices through free screening mammography and decreasing medication costs were most successful. Less successful interventions were not contextually tailored, including gift card incentivization and low-cost treatment modalities. These findings can facilitate implementation of broader, more generalizable programs to reduce costs and improve outcomes during evaluation and management of breast cancer.

Variability in Medicaid Coverage for Gender-affirming Surgeries Across U.S. States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current Medicaid coverage landscape for gender-affirming surgery across the United States at the procedure level and identify factors associated with coverage. BACKGROUND: Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery differs by state, despite a federal ban on gender identity-based discrimination in health insurance. States that cover gender-affirming surgery also differ in which procedures are included in Medicaid coverage, leading to confusion among patients and clinicians. METHODS: State Medicaid policies in 2021 for gender-affirming surgery were queried for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.). State partisanship, state-level Medicaid protections, and coverage of gender-affirming procedures in 2021 were recorded. The linear correlation between electorate partisanship and total procedures covered was assessed. Pairwise t tests were used to compare coverage based on state partisanship and the presence or absence of state-level Medicaid protections. RESULTS: Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery was covered in 30 states and Washington, D.C. The most commonly covered procedures were genital surgeries and mastectomy (n = 31), followed by breast augmentation (n = 21), facial feminization (n = 12), and voice modification surgery (n = 4). More procedures were covered in Democrat-controlled or leaning states, as well as in states with explicit protections for gender-affirming care in Medicaid coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery is patchwork across the United States and is especially poor for facial and voice surgeries. Our study provides a convenient reference for patients and surgeons detailing which gender-affirming surgical procedures are covered by Medicaid within each state.

Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Breast Cancer Worldwide: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Financial toxicity (FT) is the negative impact of cost of care on financial well-being. Patients with breast cancer are at risk for incurring high out-of-pocket costs given the long-term need for multidisciplinary care and expensive treatments. Objective: To quantify the FT rate of patients with breast cancer and identify particularly vulnerable patient populations nationally and internationally. Data Sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Four databases-Embase, PubMed, Global Index Medicus, and Global Health (EBSCO)-were queried from inception to February 2021. Data analysis was performed from March to December 2022. Study Selection: A comprehensive database search was performed for full-text, English-language articles reporting FT among patients with breast cancer. Two independent reviewers conducted study screening and selection; 462 articles underwent full-text review. Data Extraction and Synthesis: A standardized data extraction tool was developed and validated by 2 independent authors; study quality was also assessed. Variables assessed included race, income, insurance status, education status, employment, urban or rural status, and cancer stage and treatment. Pooled estimates of FT rates and their 95% CIs were obtained using the random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: FT was the primary outcome and was evaluated using quantitative FT measures, including rate of patients experiencing FT, and qualitative FT measures, including patient-reported outcome measures or patient-reported severity and interviews. The rates of patients in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries who incurred FT according to out-of-pocket cost, income, or patient-reported impact of expenditures during breast cancer diagnosis and treatment were reported as a meta-analysis. Results: Of the 11 086 articles retrieved, 34 were included in the study. Most studies were from high-income countries (24 studies), and the rest were from low- and middle-income countries (10 studies). The sample size of included studies ranged from 5 to 2445 people. There was significant heterogeneity in the definition of FT. FT rate was pooled from 18 articles. The pooled FT rate was 35.3% (95% CI, 27.3%-44.4%) in high-income countries and 78.8% (95% CI, 60.4%-90.0%) in low- and middle-income countries. Conclusions and Relevance: Substantial FT is associated with breast cancer treatment worldwide. Although the FT rate was higher in low- and middle-income countries, more than 30% of patients in high-income countries also incurred FT. Policies designed to offset the burden of direct medical and nonmedical costs are required to improve the financial health of vulnerable patients with breast cancer.