Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Mixed Methods Approach to Identify Effective Interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Financial toxicity associated with treatments for metastatic prostate cancer remains poorly defined. We sought to understand aspects of financial toxicity not captured in a commonly employed financial toxicity questionnaire and identify potential interventions to help alleviate financial toxicity through a convergent mixed methods approach. METHODS: Patients seen at our institution's advanced prostate cancer clinic were approached for completion of the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST-FACIT) questionnaire (quantitative analysis). A maximal variation purposive sample was chosen to participate in focus group discussions (qualitative analysis). Conventional content analysis was performed using an inductive approach. COST-FACIT scores were compared between patients experiencing high and low financial toxicity using Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Three themes were identified through qualitative analysis: (1) workload, (2) coping strategies, and (3) communication. We found alignment with the existing theory of financial capacity across our findings. Two unique aspects of financial toxicity emerged that were not assessed quantitatively and deemed to be significant. Specifically, cost transparency (including health care teams knowledgeable about and willing to discuss costs) and inclusion of informal caregivers in financial toxicity screening and decision-making may guide future interventions aimed at limiting financial toxicity in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged treatment courses involving multiple lines of treatment with varying costs result in distinct financial toxicity components for patients with metastatic prostate cancer that are not assessed with COST-FACIT. Improving cost transparency, health care team knowledge and engagement, and providing resources to support informal caregivers may have a significant impact on the financial toxicity experienced by these patients.

Impact of Cost Conversations During Clinical Encounters Aided by Shared Decision-Making Tools on Medication Adherence.

Objective: To investigate the impact of cost conversations occurring with or without the use of encounter shared decision-making (SDM) tools in medication adherence. Patients and Methods: Using a coding scheme that included the occurrence and characteristics of cost conversation, we analyzed a randomly selected sample of 169 video recordings of clinical encounters. These videos were obtained during the conduct of practice-based randomized clinical trials comparing care with and without SDM tools for patients with diabetes, osteoporosis, and depression. Medication adherence was described in 2 ways: as a binary (yes/no) outcome, in which the patient met at least 80% adherence, or as a continuous variable, which was the percent of days that the patient adhered to their medication. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials that ran between 2007 and 2015. Results: Most patients were White (155, 93.4%), educated (104, 63.4% completed college), middle-aged (mean age, 58 years), female (104, 61.5%), and from diabetes (86, 50.9%), depression (43, 25.4%), and osteoporosis (40, 23.7%) trials. Cost conversations occurred in 119 clinical encounters (70%) and were more frequent in those encounters in which SDM tools were used (P=.03). Furthermore, 97 (57.4%) of the participants reported more than 80% medication adherence and 70.3±29.34 percentage of days with adherent medication of 70 days. In the multiple regression model, the only factor associated with adherence (binary or continuous) was the condition of the trial in which people participated. For the participants who had cost conversations, the use of an SDM tool, their sex, the nature of cost conversation (direct or indirect), the nature of cost concerns (treatment or patient issue), and the clinician-offered strategies (yes or no) were not associated with adherence. Conclusion: In this videographic analysis of SDM practice-based clinical trials, cost conversations were not associated with the general measures of medication adherence. Future studies should assess whether a tailored cost conversation intervention would impact the cost-related nonadherence among patients.

Association of Rurality and Neighborhood Level Socioeconomic Deprivation with Perioperative Health Status in Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients: Analysis from a Large, Tertiary Care Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Individual socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with disparities in access to care and worse outcomes in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Neighborhood-level SES measures are sometimes used as a proxy for individual-level SES, but the validity of this approach is unknown. We examined neighborhood level SES and rurality on perioperative health status in TJA. METHODS: The study population comprised 46,828 TJA surgeries performed at a tertiary care hospital. Community area deprivation index (ADI) was derived from the 2015 American Census Survey. Logistic regression was used to examine perioperative characteristics by ADI and rurality. RESULTS: Compared to patients from the least deprived neighborhoods, patients from the most deprived neighborhoods were likely to be female (odds ratioOR 1.46, 95% confidence interval CI: 1.33-1.61), non-white (OR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.13-1.64), with education high school or less (OR 4.85, 95% CI: 4.35-5.41), be current smokers (OR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.61-2.49), have BMI>30 kg/m2 (OR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.30-1.57), more limitation on instrumental activities of daily living (OR 1.75, 95% CI: 1.55-1.97) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score > II (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.11-1.37). There was a progressive association between the degree of area level deprivation with preexisting comorbidities. Patients from rural communities were more likely to be male, white, have body mass index (BMI)>30 kg/m2 and lower education levels. However, rurality was either not associated or negatively associated with comorbidities. CONCLUSION: TJA patients from lower SES neighborhoods have worse behavioral risk factors and higher comorbidity burden than patients from higher SES neighborhoods. Patients from rural communities have worse behavioral risk factors but not comorbidities.

Impact of Cost Conversation on Decision-Making Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of cost conversations on the following decision-making outcomes: patients' knowledge about their conditions and treatment options, decisional conflict, and patient involvement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2020 we performed a secondary analysis of a randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters from trials run between 2007 and 2015. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized trials and one pre-post-prospective study comparing care with and without shared decision-making (SDM) tools. RESULTS: The majority of trial participants were female (61%) and White (86%), with a mean age of 56, some college education (68%), and an income greater than or equal to $40,000 per year (75%), and who did not participate in an encounter aided by an SDM tool (52%). Cost conversations occurred in 106 encounters (48%). In encounters with SDM tools, having a cost conversation lead to lower uncertainty scores (2.1 vs 2.6, P=.02), and higher knowledge (0.7 vs 0.6, P=.04) and patient involvement scores (20 vs 15.7, P=.009) than in encounters using SDM tools where cost conversations did not occur. In a multivariate model, we found slightly worse decisional conflict scores when patients started cost conversations as opposed to when the clinicians started cost conversations. Furthermore, we found higher levels of knowledge when conversations included indirect versus direct cost issues. CONCLUSION: Cost conversations have a minimal but favorable impact on decision-making outcomes in clinical encounters, particularly when they occurred in encounters aided by an SDM tool that raises cost as an issue.

Cost Conversations About Anticoagulation Between Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Their Clinicians: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: How patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and their clinicians consider cost in forming care plans remains unknown. Objective: To identify factors that inform conversations regarding costs of anticoagulants for treatment of AF between patients and clinicians and outcomes associated with these conversations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of recorded encounters and participant surveys at 5 US medical centers (including academic, community, and safety-net centers) from the SDM4AFib randomized trial compared standard AF care with and without use of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool. Included patients were considering anticoagulation treatment and were recruited by their clinicians between January 30, 2017, and June 27, 2019. Data were analyzed between August and November 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence of and factors associated with cost conversations, and the association of cost conversations with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden and their choice of anticoagulation. Results: A total of 830 encounters (out of 922 enrolled participants) were recorded. Patients' mean (SD) age was 71.0 (10.4) years; 511 patients (61.6%) were men, 704 (86.0%) were White, 303 (40.9%) earned between $40 000 and $99 999 in annual income, and 657 (79.2%) were receiving anticoagulants. Clinicians' mean (SD) age was 44.8 (13.2) years; 75 clinicians (53.2%) were men, and 111 (76%) practiced as physicians, with approximately half (69 [48.9%]) specializing in either internal medicine or cardiology. Cost conversations occurred in 639 encounters (77.0%) and were more likely in the SDM arm (378 [90%] vs 261 [64%]; OR, 9.69; 95% CI, 5.77-16.29). In multivariable analysis, cost conversations were more likely to occur with female clinicians (66 [47%]; OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.21-6.71); consultants vs in-training clinicians (113 [75%]; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.4-11.1); clinicians practicing family medicine (24 [16%]; OR, 12.12; 95% CI, 2.75-53.38]), internal medicine (35 [23%]; OR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.25-11.70), or other clinicians (21 [14%]; OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.32-18.16) when compared with cardiologists; and for patients with an annual household income between $40 000 and $99 999 (249 [82.2%]; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29) compared with income below $40 000 or above $99 999. More patients who had cost conversations reported cost as a factor in their decision (244 [89.1%] vs 327 [69.0%]; OR 3.66; 95% CI, 2.43-5.50), but cost conversations were not associated with the choice of anticoagulation agent. Conclusions and Relevance: Cost conversations were common, particularly for middle-income patients and with female and consultant-level primary care clinicians, as well as in encounters using an SDM tool; they were associated with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden but not final treatment choice. With increasing costs of care passed on to patients, these findings can inform efforts to promote cost conversations in practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Using Shared Decision-Making Tools and Patient-Clinician Conversations About Costs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how shared decision-making (SDM) tools used during clinical encounters that raise cost as an issue impact the incidence of cost conversations between patients and clinicians. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters were analyzed. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized clinical trials and one quasi-randomized clinical trial (pre- and post-) comparing care with and without SDM tools. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials ran between 2007 and 2015. RESULTS: Most patient participants were white (85%), educated (38% completed college), middle-aged (mean age 56 years), and female (61%). There were 105 encounters with and 115 without the SDM tool. Encounters with SDM tools were more likely to include both general cost conversations (62% vs 36%, odds ratio [OR]: 9.6; 95% CI: 4 to 26) as well as conversations on medication costs specifically (89% vs 51%, P=.01). However, clinicians using SDM tools were less likely to address cost issues during the encounter (37% vs 51%, P=.04). Encounters with patients with less than a college degree were also associated with a higher incidence of cost conversations. CONCLUSION: Using SDM tools that raise cost as an issue increased the occurrence of cost conversations but was less likely to address cost issues or offer potential solutions to patients' cost concerns. This result suggests that SDM tools used during the consultation can trigger cost conversations but are insufficient to support them.

Developing an Educational Intervention to Address Financial Hardship in Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an educational intervention to empower patients to manage their financial health better. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This study was conducted from September 1, 2017, to January 31, 2019. Focus groups were held with social workers, case managers, and patient financial service staff and interviews were conducted with patients and caregivers to inform the content, delivery format, and timing of an intervention for mitigating financial hardship from treatment (phase 1). Based on qualitative data, theories of adult learning, and a review of the literature, we created an educational presentation to be delivered in a classroom setting. Two patient focus groups were then held for feedback on the presentation (phase 2). RESULTS: In phase 1, both patients and allied health care staff providers believed that an educational intervention about financial aspects of care early during treatment would help them cope and plan better. Participants' suggestions for the intervention's content included billing information, insurance, authorization processes, employment policies related to health care and disability benefits, and alternative financial resources. Based on these suggestions, a preliminary educational presentation was developed with 3 main themes: insurance issues, employment issues, and financial health. Phase 2 focus group participants suggested refinement of the presentation, including targeting specific groups, adding graphics, and more information about resources. CONCLUSION: Our study provides the basis for a patient-centered education module for emotional, instrumental, and informational support for financial distress for use in a clinical setting.

Economic and clinical outcomes of a physician-led continuous quality improvement intervention in the delivery of percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and economic outcomes associated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cohorts before and after continuous quality improvement (CQI) was instituted. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. METHODS: Clinical, angiographic, procedural, and outcome data on 1441 pre-CQI and 1760 post-CQI PCIs (performed in 1997 and 1998, respectively) were derived from an institutional PCI registry. Administrative data were used to estimate total procedural and postprocedural costs and length of stay (LOS). Logistic and generalized linear modeling was used to adjust in-hospital clinical and economic outcomes, respectively, for differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: The 2 cohorts were similar in terms of age, sex, and rate of diabetes. Post-CQI patients more often received intracoronary stents, had urgent PCIs, had a history of prior PCI, and received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Procedural success without in-hospital complications occurred in 90% of both cohorts and did not differ statistically in adjusted analyses. Compared with patients treated pre-CQI, those treated post-CQI had a reduced adjusted odds ratio for in-hospital death or any myocardial infarction (odds ratio = 0.66; 95% confidence interval = 0.46, 0.95). Models predicted a mean postprocedural LOS difference of 0.8 days (2.8 days pre-CQI vs 2.0 days post-CQI; P <.001) and an average post-CQI cost savings of $5430 (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Physician-led, multidisciplinary practice management efforts were successful at significantly reducing PCI-related costs in an era of rapid technological advances while maintaining and perhaps improving quality of care.

The cost-effectiveness of acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of rofecoxib and celecoxib compared with high-dose acetaminophen or ibuprofen with and without misoprostol for patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A decision analysis model was designed over 6 months using two measures of effectiveness: 1) number of upper gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events averted; and 2) number of patients who achieved perceptible pain relief. Separate analyses were conducted for all patients and for those who did not respond to acetaminophen. Outcome probabilities were obtained from a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Costs were derived from actual resource utilization of OA patients. RESULTS: In terms of averting GI events, acetaminophen dominates the other options for an average risk patient population. For patients who did not respond to acetaminophen, rofecoxib had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per GI event avoided (32,000 US dollars) relative to ibuprofen. In terms of pain control, ibuprofen had an ICER of 610.77 US dollars per additional patient achieving minimal perceptible clinical improvement (MPCI) relative to acetaminophen, while rofecoxib had an ICER of 12,000 US dollars relative to ibuprofen. For patients who did not respond to acetaminophen and who are at high risk of developing an adverse GI event, rofecoxib dominates ibuprofen as the preferred alternative for both measures of effectiveness. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses established that these results were generally robust. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that for average-risk knee OA patients, acetaminophen dominates the other therapies in terms of cost per GI event averted. In terms of pain relief, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate that if one values pain relief below 275 US dollars per patient achieving MPCI, acetaminophen is the therapy most likely to be optimal; between 275 US dollars and 14,150 US dollars, ibuprofen is most likely to be optimal; and above 14,150 US dollars, rofecoxib is most likely to be optimal.