The effect of limited english proficiency on prostate-specific antigen screening in American men.

PURPOSE: To evaluate how limited English proficiency (LEP) impacts the prevalence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in a contemporary, nationally representative cohort of men in the USA. METHODS: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey was utilized to identify the prevalence of PSA screening between 2013 and 2016 among men ≥ 55. Men who speak a language other than English at home were stratified by self-reported levels of English proficiency (men who speak English very well, well, not well, or not at all). Survey weights were applied, and groups were compared using the adjusted Wald test. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of PSA screening adjusting for patient-level covariates. RESULTS: The cohort included 2,889 men, corresponding to a weighted estimate of 4,765,682 men. 79.6% of men who speak English very well reported receiving at least one lifetime PSA test versus 58.4% of men who do not speak English at all (p < 0.001). Men who reported not speaking English at all had significantly lower prevalence of PSA screening (aOR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35-0.91; p = 0.019). Other significant predictors of PSA screening included older age, income > 400% of the federal poverty level, insurance coverage, and healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Limited English proficiency is associated with significantly lower prevalence of PSA screening among men in the USA. Interventions to mitigate disparities in prostate cancer outcomes should account for limited English proficiency among the barriers to guideline-concordant care.

Predictors of Financial Toxicity Among United States Prostate Cancer Survivors: Results From a National Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing attention to financial toxicity associated with prostate cancer, national rates of subjective and objective financial toxicity have not been well characterized, and it remains unknown which prostate cancer survivors are at highest risk for undue financial burden. METHODS: Men with a history of prostate cancer were identified from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The proportion of men reporting catastrophic health care expenditures (out-of-pocket spending >10% of income) and other measures of financial toxicity were assessed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of financial toxicity. RESULTS: Of a weighted estimate of 2,349,532 men with a history of prostate cancer, 13.5% reported catastrophic health care expenditures, 16% reported subjective worry about ability to pay medical bills, and 15% reported work changes due to their cancer diagnosis. Significant predictors of catastrophic expenditures included private insurance (OR 4.62, 95% CI 1.29-16.49) and medical comorbidities (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05-1.82), while high income was protective (>400% vs <100% federal poverty level, OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02-0.19). Each year of older age was associated with decreased odds of subjective worry about medical bills. Only 12% of men reported their doctor discussed the costs of care in detail. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 7 prostate cancer survivors experience catastrophic health care expenditures, and a larger proportion report subjective manifestations of financial toxicity. Many men report their physicians did not address the financial side effects of treatment. These results highlight the patient characteristics associated with this important side effect of prostate cancer care.

Assessing Patient-Reported Financial Hardship in Patients With Cancer in Routine Clinical Care.

PURPOSE: Financial hardship (FH) in cancer care is a growing challenge for patients, their caregivers, and health care providers with impact on morbidity and mortality. In this study, we report on a standardized approach to describe the prevalence and predictors for FH as part of routine clinical workflow. We also report on the association of FH with survival in our cancer patient population. METHODS: This study includes patients who completed a FH screen at least once between 2018 and 2020. Demographics, disease state, and mortality data were extracted from the medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine association of sociodemographic and disease variables with FH. By using propensity score weighting to account for differences in demographic and clinical factors between patients with and without FH, we then fit Cox proportional hazards models to examine the relationship between FH and survival. RESULTS: The study cohort included 31,154 patients. FH was reported by 14% (n = 4,250) of the patients. A significantly higher likelihood of having FH (P < .001 for all) was reported by racial/ethnic minority patients; those who were unemployed/disabled, single, or divorced; patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods; and those who were self-pay or had government insurance. Older age, being retired, and living farther from the cancer center were associated with significantly less likelihood of endorsing FH. Patients who endorsed FH had a lower survival (hazard ratio for mortality 1.46). CONCLUSION: Our study identified key groups more likely to report FH in a relatively affluent population at a large cancer center and showed an adverse association between FH and survival. Further research is needed to develop clinical care pathways for patients at high risk for worse financial and clinical outcomes.