Unmet financial needs among patients crowdfunding to support gynecologic cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Patients may use crowdfunding to solicit donations, typically from multiple small donors using internet-based means, to offset the financial toxicity of cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To describe crowdfunding campaigns by gynecologic cancer patients and to compare campaign characteristics and needs expressed between patients with cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We queried the public crowdfunding forum GoFundMe.com for "cervical cancer," "uterine cancer," and "ovarian cancer." The first 200 consecutive posts for each cancer type fundraising within the United States were analyzed. Data on campaign goals and needs expressed were manually extracted. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among the 600 fundraising pages, the median campaign goal was $10,000 [IQR $5000-$23,000]. Campaigns raised a median of 28.6% of their goal with only 8.7% of campaigns reaching their goal after a median of 54 days online. On average, ovarian cancer campaigns had higher monetary goals, more donors, and larger donation amounts than cervical cancer campaigns and raised more money than both cervical and uterine cancer campaigns. Campaigns were fundraising to support medical costs (80-85%) followed by lost wages (36-56%) or living expenses (27-41%). Cervical cancer campaigns reported need for non-medical costs more frequently than uterine or ovarian cancer campaigns. States without Medicaid expansions (31% of the national population) were over-represented among cervical cancer and uterine cancer, but not ovarian cancer campaigns. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdfunding pages reveal patients fundraising for out-of-pocket costs in the thousands of dollars and a wide range of unmet financial needs based on cancer type.

Evaluation of a Conference on Cancer-Related Financial and Legal Issues: A Potential Resource to Counter Financial Toxicity.

This study describes the conception, development, and growth of the Triage Cancer Conference hosted by Triage Cancer, a national nonprofit organization providing free legal and financial education to the cancer community. We conducted a retrospective analysis of post-conference participant surveys. Descriptive statistics were calculated for participant demographics, and acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness were evaluated. From 2016-2021, 1239 participants attended the conference and completed post-conference surveys. Participants included social workers (33%), nurses (30%), and cancer patients/survivors (21%), with representation from over 48 states. Among those who reported race, 16% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic. For acceptability, more than 90% of participants felt that the conference content, instructors, and format were suitable and useful. For feasibility, more than 90% of participants felt that the material was useful, with 93-96% reporting that they were likely to share the information and 98% reporting that they would attend another triage cancer event. Appropriateness was also high, with >80-90% reporting that the sessions met the pre-defined objectives. Triage Cancer fills an important gap in mitigating financial toxicity, and formal evaluation of these programs allows us to build evidence of the role and impact of these existing resources. Future research should focus on adding validated patient-reported outcomes, longer-term follow-up, and ensuring inclusion and evaluation of outcome metrics among vulnerable populations.

Cost sharing for oral lenvatinib among commercially insured patients.

OBJECTIVE: To use a nationwide pharmaceutical claims database to evaluate cost-sharing trends for commercially insured patients with cancer who were prescribed lenvatinib (Lenvima). STUDY DESIGN: IBM MarketScan databases were used to evaluate lenvatinib costs for patients with employer-based commercial insurance, and for patients 65 years and older, Medicare claims for fee-for-service plans. METHODS: Patients were included if they had least 1 outpatient pharmaceutical claim for lenvatinib paid on a noncapitated basis from 2015 to 2019. Median and IQR costs were estimated and inflation adjusted to 2019 US$ for 30-day supplies and reported as total, insurance liability, coordination of benefits, and out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: A total of 685 patients had at least 1 pharmaceutical claim for lenvatinib, which included patients with thyroid (n = 251; 36.6%), renal cell (n = 202; 29.5%), hepatocellular (n = 160; 23.4%), and endometrial (n = 48; 7.0%) cancer. The median (IQR) number of prescriptions per patient was 3 (2-7), and the median (IQR) total days of supply was 90 (45-210) days. The median (IQR) 30-day cost of lenvatinib was $17,253 ($15,597-$18,120). Median (IQR) 30-day insurance liability was $16,847 ($15,000-$17,981). Median (IQR) 30-day coordination of benefits was $0 ($0-$0). Median (IQR) 30-day patient out-of-pocket cost was $32 ($0-$100). However, the maximum 30-day out-of-pocket cost in our patient cohort was $12,538. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, insurance was liable for the majority of total lenvatinib drug costs, and 75% of patients paid $100 or less per month out of pocket. This information can be used by care teams to counsel insured patients. Health systems and drug manufacturers must identify patients with high out-of-pocket costs and provide convenient access to financial assistance programs so that patients are not forced to forgo the benefits of these drugs due to financial barriers. Value-based payment models and drug pricing reform are also needed to address underlying drivers of high drug costs.

Dedicated financial hardship screening adds value to routine distress screening among gynecologic cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening. METHODS: We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score ≥ 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10-item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening. RESULTS: Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported ≥1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most (n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported ≥1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone.

Cancer-Related Financial Hardship Screening as Part of Practice Transformation.

BACKGROUND: Data on financial hardship, an "adverse event" in individuals with cancer, are needed to inform policy and supportive care interventions and reduce adverse economic outcomes. METHODS: Lay navigator-led financial hardship screening was piloted among University of Alabama at Birmingham oncology patients initiating treatment in October 2020. Financial hardship screening, including reported financial distress and difficulty, was added to a standard-of-care treatment planning survey. Screening feasibility and completion and proportions of reported financial distress and difficulty were calculated overall and by patient race and rurality. The risk of financial distress by patient sociodemographics was estimated. RESULTS: Patients who completed a treatment planning survey (N=2741) were 18% Black, Indigenous, or persons of color (BIPOC) and 16% rural dwelling. The majority of patients completed financial hardship screening (90%), surpassing the target feasibility completion rate of 75%. The screening revealed 34% of patients were experiencing financial distress, including 49% of BIPOC and 30% of White patients. Adjusted models revealed BIPOC patients had a 48% higher risk of financial distress compared with those who were White (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI, 1.31-1.66). Large differences in reported financial difficulties were seen comparing patients who were BIPOC and White (utilities: 33% vs. 10%, upfront medical payments: 44% vs. 23%, transportation: 28% vs. 12%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The collection of patient-reported financial hardship data via routine clinical care was feasible and identified racial inequities at treatment initiation. Efforts to collect patient economic data should support the design, implementation, and evaluation of patient-centered interventions to improve equity and reduce the impact of financial hardship.

Expanding research on the impact of financial hardship on emotional well-being: guidance of diverse stakeholders to the Emotional Well-Being and Economic Burden of Disease (EMOT-ECON) Research Network.

The Emotional Well-Being and Economic Burden (EMOT-ECON) Research Network is one of six research networks funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to advance research about emotional well-being (EWB), and the only one that focuses on addressing how economic burden due to disease or illness affects EWB. The network convened researchers, patients, patient advocates, health care providers and other stakeholders from across the US to discuss the significance of addressing the impact of the economic burden of disease on EWB, the complexity of this prevalent problem for patients and families, and the research gaps that still need to be studied to ultimately develop strategies to reduce the impact of economic burden of disease on EWB and health. Participants identified some important future areas of research as those investigating: (i) prevalent and relevant emotions for patients experiencing economic burden of disease and financial hardship, and how their broader outlook on life is impacted; (ii) constructs and contexts that influence whether the economic burden is stressful; (iii) strategies to deal and cope and their positive or negative effects on EWB and health; and (iv) multi-level and multi-stakeholder interventions to address economic factors (e.g., costs, ability to pay), administrative burdens, education and training, and especially patients' emotional as well as financial status.

Health-care access dimensions and ovarian cancer survival: SEER-Medicare analysis of the ORCHiD study.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in ovarian cancer (OC) survival are well-documented. However, few studies have investigated how health-care access (HCA) contributes to these disparities. METHODS: To evaluate the influence of HCA on OC mortality, we analyzed 2008-2015 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between HCA dimensions (affordability, availability, accessibility) and OC-specific and all-cause mortality, adjusting for patient characteristics and treatment receipt. RESULTS: The study cohort included 7590 OC patients: 454 (6.0%) Hispanic, 501 (6.6%) Non-Hispanic (NH) Black, and 6635 (87.4%) NH White. Higher affordability (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.94), availability (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.92 to 0.99), and accessibility scores (HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.99) were associated with lower risk of OC mortality after adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. Racial disparities were observed after additional adjustment for these HCA dimensions: NH Black patients experienced a 26% higher risk of OC mortality compared with NH White patients (HR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.43) and a 45% higher risk among patients who survived at least 12 months (HR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.81). CONCLUSIONS: HCA dimensions are statistically significantly associated with mortality after OC and explain some, but not all, of the observed racial disparity in survival of patients with OC. Although equalizing access to quality health care remains critical, research on other HCA dimensions is needed to determine additional factors contributing to disparate OC outcomes by race and ethnicity and advance the field toward health equity.

Financial toxicity: A practical review for gynecologic oncology teams to understand and address patient-level financial burdens.

Financial toxicity describes the adverse impact patients experience from the monetary and time costs of cancer care. The financial burden patients experience comes from substantially increased out-of-pocket spending that often occurs concurrent with reduced income due to sick leave from work. Financial toxicity is common affecting approximately half of patients with a gynecological cancer depending on the validated instrument used for measurement. Financial toxicity is experienced by patients in three domains: economic hardship affecting patients' material conditions (i.e., medical debt), psychological response (i.e., distress), and health-related coping behaviors that patients adopt (i.e., foregoing care due to costs). Higher financial toxicity among cancer patients has been associated with decreased quality of life, impaired adherence to recommended care, and worse overall survival. In this review, we describe the current literature on financial toxicity, including how it can be assessed with validated tools, the downstream impact on patients, risk factors, and employment concerns of survivors. Whenever possible, we highlight data from research featuring patients with gynecologic cancer specifically. We also review studies with interventions aimed to mitigate financial toxicity and offer the reader real world examples of interventions currently being used. Lastly, we provide an overview of health policy developments relevant to financial toxicity and advocate for innovation in the development and implementation of strategies to decrease the financial toxicity patients experience following a diagnosis of gynecologic cancer.

Navigating financial toxicity in patients with cancer: A multidisciplinary management approach.

Approximately one-half of individuals with cancer face personal economic burdens associated with the disease and its treatment, a problem known as financial toxicity (FT). FT more frequently affects socioeconomically vulnerable individuals and leads to subsequent adverse economic and health outcomes. Whereas multilevel systemic factors at the policy, payer, and provider levels drive FT, there are also accompanying intervenable patient-level factors that exacerbate FT in the setting of clinical care delivery. The primary strategy to intervene on FT at the patient level is financial navigation. Financial navigation uses comprehensive assessment of patients' risk factors for FT, guidance toward support resources, and referrals to assist patient financial needs during cancer care. Social workers or nurse navigators most frequently lead financial navigation. Oncologists and clinical provider teams are multidisciplinary partners who can support optimal FT management in the context of their clinical roles. Oncologists and clinical provider teams can proactively assess patient concerns about the financial hardship and employment effects of disease and treatment. They can respond by streamlining clinical treatment and care delivery planning and incorporating FT concerns into comprehensive goals of care discussions and coordinated symptom and psychosocial care. By understanding how age and life stage, socioeconomic, and cultural factors modify FT trajectory, oncologists and multidisciplinary health care teams can be engaged and informative in patient-centered, tailored FT management. The case presentations in this report provide a practical context to summarize authors' recommendations for patient-level FT management, supported by a review of key supporting evidence and a discussion of challenges to mitigating FT in oncology care. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:437-453.

Piloting use of an out-of-pocket cost tracker among gynecologic cancer patients.

Objective: Our objective was to evaluate uptake and satisfaction with an out-of-pocket (OOP) cost tracker as a means for cancer patients to manage their personalized costs of care and to identify characteristics associated with usage. Methods: Within a longitudinal survey evaluating financial toxicity among gynecologic cancer patients on active systemic therapy over a 6-month period, we provided paper worksheets for participants to voluntarily track expenses. We assessed usage and satisfaction at 3 and 6 months using frequency and percentage. We used Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum analysis to evaluate patient characteristics based upon usage. Participants were encouraged to submit their completed cost tracker worksheets. Results: Fifty-three of 121 (44%) participants reported ever using the OOP cost tracker. Most users reported it was easy to use (97%, 100%) and helpful (86%, 72%); however, fewer users rated it as useful for budgeting (42%, 26%) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. More patients who knew their insurance premium were users compared to non-users (74.4% vs. 54.4%, p = 0.04). Among thirteen users who submitted their completed cost tracker worksheets, non-medical costs (i.e., transportation) had the highest monthly out of pocket costs (mean $213, range $0-587). User feedback included suggestions to enhance the cost tracker with educational tutorials or a reminder system. Conclusions: Future studies should explore if cost tracker uptake and satisfaction are enhanced with the addition of reminders and whether usage decreases financial toxicity or increases patient self-efficacy in managing the costs of cancer care.

Evaluating meaningful levels of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancers.

OBJECTIVE: The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) is a validated instrument measuring the economic burden experienced by patients with cancer. We evaluated the frequency of financial toxicity at different COST levels and stratified risk factors and associations with cost-coping strategies by financial toxicity severity. METHODS: We analyzed previously collected survey data of gynecologic oncology patients from two tertiary care institutions. Both surveys included the COST tool and questions assessing economic and behavioral cost-coping strategies. We adapted a proposed grading scale to define three groups: no/mild, moderate, and severe financial toxicity and used χ2, Fisher's exact test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare groups. We used Poisson regression to calculate crude and adjusted risk ratios for cost-coping strategies, comparing patients with moderate or severe to no/mild financial toxicity. RESULTS: Among 308 patients, 14.9% had severe, 32.1% had moderate, and 52.9% had no/mild financial toxicity. Younger age, non-white race, lower education, unemployment, lower income, use of systemic therapy, and shorter time since diagnosis were associated with worse financial toxicity (all p<0.05). Respondents with moderate or severe financial toxicity were significantly more likely to use economic cost-coping strategies such as changing spending habits (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 2.7, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.0 moderate; aRR 3.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.4 severe) and borrowing money (aRR 5.5, 95% CI 1.8 to 16.5 moderate; aRR 12.7, 95% CI 4.3 to 37.1 severe). Those with severe financial toxicity also had a significantly higher risk of behavioral cost-coping through medication non-compliance (aRR 4.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 18.1). CONCLUSIONS: Among a geographically diverse cohort of gynecologic oncology patients, nearly half reported financial toxicity (COST <26), which was associated with economic cost-coping strategies. In those 14.9% of patients reporting severe financial toxicity (COST <14) there was also an increased risk of medication non-compliance, which may lead to worse health outcomes in this group.

Measuring Financial Distress and Quality of Life Over Time in Patients With Gynecologic Cancer-Making the Case to Screen Early in the Treatment Course.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to measure the trajectory of financial distress and to determine its relationship with quality of life (QOL) among patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal survey of patients with gynecologic cancer starting a new line of systemic therapy at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Financial distress was measured using a Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) < 26, and QOL was measured using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) with lower scores indicating worse responses. One-way repeated analysis of variances, generalized estimating equation models, and correlation coefficients were used to evaluate financial distress and QOL over time. RESULTS: There were 90 of 121 (74%) baseline participants with a 6-month follow-up. The average age was 60 years, 29% were African-American, 57% had an annual income < $40,000 in US dollars, and 6% were uninsured. At baseline, 54% of patients screened positive for financial distress, which was unchanged at 3 months (50%, P = .27) but decreased at 6 months (46%, P = .04) compared with baseline. There was no change in average COST (23.6, 25.1, 25.6; P = .33) or FACT-G (70.8, 71.0, 72.8; P = .68) over time. Less financial distress was moderately correlated with better QOL (r = 0.63, 0.61, 0.60) at each time point. The presence of financial distress was associated with a 16-point decrease in FACT-G QOL score over time. CONCLUSION: Upfront screening with COST identified 90% of patients who experienced financial distress, and COST did not change significantly over time. More severe financial distress was moderately correlated with worse QOL, and its presence was associated with a clinically meaningful 16-point decrease in QOL.

The financial burden of PARP inhibitors on patients, payors, and financial assistance programs: Who bears the cost?

OBJECTIVES: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are expensive and their use is expanding. We aimed to evaluate cost sharing patterns between patients, payors, and financial assistance programs. METHODS: We identified ovarian cancer patients prescribed a PARP inhibitor from 5/2015-9/2019 using our pharmacy database. Cost information was collected for patients who filled their prescription at our specialty pharmacy. We calculated descriptive statistics for monthly PARP inhibitor costs for patients, payors, and financial assistance programs. We used Wilcoxon rank sum tests to evaluate monthly costs based on insurance characteristics. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients filled 94 different PARP inhibitor prescriptions with 42 (45%) prescriptions obtained using any type of financial assistance program. We analyzed 232 prescription months for the 41 prescriptions with available cost data. This included 18 (44%) prescriptions for rucaparib, 18 (44%) for niraparib, and 5 (12%) for olaparib. The total monthly drug cost was average $12,422 and median $13,700. The monthly out-of-pocket (OOP) cost for patients was average $46 and median $0 (IQR $0-4). Payors had the highest monthly costs with average $12,019 and median $13,662 (IQR $9914-14,709). Financial assistance programs contributed average $358 and median $0 per month (IQR $0-150). Patients with public (p<0.01) or Medicare insurance (p<0.01) had higher OOP costs than without. CONCLUSIONS: OOP costs were generally low with 75% of patients paying <$5 per month. While limited by small sample size at a single institution, financial assistance programs appear to play a critical role to ensure access to PARP inhibitors as nearly 50% of patients utilized these programs.

Total and out-of-pocket costs for PARP inhibitors among insured ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate total and out-of-pocket costs for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and differences based on insurance characteristics. METHODS: We identified ovarian cancer patients who were prescribed niraparib, olaparib, or rucaparib from the MarketScan (2014-2017) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare (2014-2016) databases. Drug costs were estimated for a 30-day supply. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed. RESULTS: 590 commercially insured beneficiaries from MarketScan and 213 SEER-Medicare beneficiaries were prescribed PARP inhibitors for a median 112 days. For commercially insured beneficiaries, median total cost was $13,342 (IQR $12,022-$14,256). Median out-of-pocket cost was $44 (IQR $0-$120) and PARP inhibitors accounted for a median 90.8% of patients' total out-of-pocket drug spending. High-deductible health plan was not associated with higher out-of-pocket costs (N = 570; median $0 vs. $45, P = 0.87). For SEER-Medicare beneficiaries, median total cost was $12,798 (IQR $11,704-$13,180). Median out-of-pocket cost was $370 (IQR $2-$1234) and PARP inhibitors accounted for a median 99.0% of patients' total out-of-pocket drug spending. Out-of-pocket costs were lower for dual-eligible patients with supplemental Medicaid prescription coverage (N = 209; median $1 vs. $911, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although insurers are responsible for a large proportion of PARP inhibitor costs, out-of-pocket costs for PARP inhibitors account for a majority of patients' drug spending. SEER-Medicare beneficiaries had higher out-of-pocket costs than patients with commercial insurance, which was offset for those with supplemental Medicaid prescription coverage.

How, When, and With Whom Should Cost of Care Conversations Occur? Preferences of Two Distinct Cancer Survivor Groups.

PURPOSE: Cost of care (CoC) conversations should occur routinely in oncology practice. However, patient preferences about with whom, when, and how to have these conversations are missing and preferences may vary across patient populations. METHODS: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of quotes from interviews with 28 cancer survivors from two health care settings (Kaiser Permanente Washington and O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of Alabama at Birmingham [UABCCC]). A targeted approach searched for three constructs: (1) Who should have CoC conversations with patients? (2) When should CoC conversations occur? and (3) How should CoC conversations happen? RESULTS: Interviewees were similar in age and education, but UABCCC participants had more racial/ethnic minority representation and financial distress. Within each construct, themes were similar across both groups. As to who should have CoC conversations, we found that (1) providers' main role is medical care, not CoC; and (2) care team staff members are a more appropriate choice to address CoC needs. About the question of when, we found that (3) individuals have strong convictions about when and if they want to discuss CoC; and (4) CoC information and resources need to be available when patients are ready. About the question of how, themes were (5) provide estimates of anticipated out-of-pocket costs and insurance coverage; (6) provide reassurance, sympathy, and concrete solutions; and (7) because of their sensitivity, conduct CoC conversations in a comfortable, private space. CONCLUSION: These findings offer general guidance as to who should conduct CoC conversations and when and how they should occur, with applicability across different patient populations.

Extensive financial hardship among gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the three domains of financial hardship (psychological response, material conditions, and coping behaviors) among gynecologic cancer patients receiving treatment. METHODS: We conducted a single-institution survey of gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy for primary or recurrent disease. Psychological response was measured using Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity, with score < 26 indicating financial distress. We measured material conditions by patient-reported changes in employment or spending and coping behaviors by patient-reported medication non-adherence. We performed descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 121 participants, the mean age was 59 years, 28% were African-American, 50% reported income < $40,000, 74% had private insurance, 20% had only public insurance, and 7% were uninsured. Sixty-five (54%) participants screened positive for financial distress. Age < 65 years (aOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.04-6.52) and income < $40,000 (aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.28-9.09) were associated with increased odds of screening positive for financial distress. Participants with financial distress were significantly more likely to report material hardship, including losing wages (46% vs. 18%, p < 0.01), not paying bills on time (40% vs. 7%, p < 0.01), and borrowing money (39% vs. 4%, p < 0.01). Financial distress was not associated with coping behaviors, such as not taking (6% vs. 2%, p = 0.37) or refilling medications (5% vs. 2%, p = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Financial distress affects over half of gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of treatment and is associated with material hardship. Younger age and lower income can be used to identify patients at increased risk.

Perspectives on Conversations About Costs of Cancer Care of Breast Cancer Survivors and Cancer Center Staff: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Despite recommendations to discuss the cost of care (CoC) with patients with cancer, little formal guidance is available on how to conduct these sensitive conversations in ways that are acceptable to both patients and providers. Objective: To explore the perspectives of patients and medical and nonmedical cancer center staff on CoC conversations. Design: In individual interviews, participants were asked to discuss the content of, timing of, and ideal person to hold CoC conversations. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Content was analyzed to identify emerging essential elements. Setting: Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham. Participants: 42 women aged 60 to 79 years with a history of breast cancer and 20 cancer center staff (6 physicians, 4 nurses, 5 patient navigators, 3 social workers, and 2 billing specialists). Results: Both patients and providers identified reassurance and action as essential elements of CoC conversations. Participants expressed the importance of reassurance that recommended medical care would not be affected by affordability challenges. Action was intended as discussions on ways to help patients cover treatment-related costs, such as discussion of payment plans or linkage to financial resources. Optimal timing for CoC conversations was felt to be after an initial consult visit but before treatment started. The person to hold these conversations should be compassionate, helpful, and knowledgeable of the patient's specific situation (for example, treatment plan, insurance coverage) and of the resources available to attain the patient's goals of care. Limitation: Interviews were limited to older breast cancer survivors and staff at 1 institution. Conclusion: Conversations about CoC extend beyond discussing costs and must be sensitive to the vulnerability experienced by patients. These findings can guide training of personnel involved in CoC conversations. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.