Mobile Application to Identify Cancer Treatment-Related Financial Assistance: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Insured patients with cancer face high treatment-related, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and often cannot access financial assistance. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of Bridge, a patient-facing app designed to identify eligible financial resources for patients. We hypothesized that patients using Bridge would experience greater OOP cost reduction than controls. METHODS: We enrolled patients with cancer who had OOP expenses from January 2018 to March 2019. We randomly assigned patients 1:1 to intervention (Bridge) versus control (financial assistance educational websites). Primary and secondary outcomes were self-reported OOP costs and subjective financial distress 3 months postenrollment. In post hoc analyses, we analyzed application for and receipt of financial assistance at 3 months postenrollment. We used chi-square, Mann-Whitney tests, and logistic regression to compare study arms. RESULTS: We enrolled 200 patients. The median age was 57 years (IQR, 47.0-63.0). Most patients had private insurance (71%), and the median household income was $62,000 in US dollars (USD) (IQR, $36,000-$100,000 [USD]). Substantial missing data precluded assessment of primary and secondary outcomes. In post hoc analyses, patients in the Bridge arm were more likely than controls to both apply for and receive financial assistance. CONCLUSION: We were unable to test our primary outcome because of excessive missing follow-up survey data. In exploratory post hoc analyses, patients who received a financial assistance app were more likely to apply for and receive financial assistance. Ultimately, our study highlights challenges faced in identifying measurable outcomes and retaining participants in a randomized, controlled trial of a mobile app to alleviate financial toxicity.

Does Cancer Treatment-Related Financial Distress Worsen Over Time?

BACKGROUND Patients with cancer are at risk for both objective and subjective financial distress. Financial distress during treatment is adversely associated with physical and mental well-being. Little is known about whether patients' subjective financial distress changes during the course of their treatment.method This is a cross-sectional study of insured adults with solid tumors on anti-cancer therapy for ≥1 month, surveyed at a referral center and three rural oncology clinics. The goal was to investigate how financial distress varies depending on where patients are in the course of cancer therapy. Financial distress (FD) was assessed via a validated measure; out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were estimated and medical records were reviewed for disease/treatment data. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the potential association between treatment length and financial distress.RESULTS Among 300 participants (86% response rate), median age was 60 years (range 27-91), 52.3% were male, 78.3% had stage IV cancer or metastatic recurrence, 36.7% were retired, and 56% had private insurance. Median income was $60,000/year and median OOP costs including insurance premiums were $592/month. Median FD score (7.4/10, SD 2.5) corresponded to low FD with 16.3% reporting high/overwhelming distress. Treatment duration was not associated with the odds of experiencing high/overwhelming FD in single-predictor (OR = 1.01, CI [.93, 1.09], P = .86) or multiple predictor regression models (OR = .98, CI [.86, 1.12], P = .79). Treatment duration was not correlated with FD as a continuous variable (P = .92).LIMITATIONS This study is limited by its cross-sectional design and generalizability to patients with early-stage cancer and those being treated outside of a major referral center.CONCLUSION Severity of cancer treatment-related financial distress did not correlate with time on treatment, indicating that patients are at risk for FD throughout the treatment continuum. Screening for and addressing financial distress should occur throughout the course of cancer therapy.

Going for Broke: A Longitudinal Study of Patient-Reported Financial Sacrifice in Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at risk for substantial treatment-related costs; however, little is known about patients' willingness to sacrifice to receive cancer care and how their attitudes and burden may change with time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal survey of insured patients with solid tumor cancers receiving chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. Patients were surveyed at two time points about their willingness to make financial sacrifices and their actual sacrifices, including out-of-pocket costs. Patient attitudes and sacrifices were compared over time. RESULTS: Of 349 patients approached, 300 completed the baseline survey (86% response) and 245 completed the follow-up survey 3 months later (82% retention). Median patient-reported cancer-related out-of-pocket costs for patients who completed both surveys were $393 per month (range, $0 to $26,586 per month) at baseline and $328 per month (range, $0 to $8,210 per month) at follow-up. At baseline, 49% were willing to declare personal bankruptcy, 38% were willing to sell their homes, and ≥ 65% were willing to make other sacrifices, including borrowing money to afford their cancer care. Upon follow-up, there were minor decreases in willingness; the maximum net change was a 7% decline in patients willing to declare bankruptcy. Actual sacrifice increased over time; the greatest increase was in patients who used their savings (increased from 41% to 54%). CONCLUSION: A large proportion of insured patients with cancer were willing to make considerable personal and financial sacrifices to receive care; these attitudes did not change greatly over time. Shared decision making is important to ensure patients fully understand the goals, risks, and benefits of therapy before they make such personal sacrifices.

Development of the Quality Data Collection Tool for Prospective Quality Assessment and Reporting in Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Assessing and reporting the quality of care provided are increasingly important in palliative care, but we currently lack practical, efficient approaches for collection and reporting. OBJECTIVE: In response, the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance ("Alliance") sought to create a Quality Data Collection Tool for Palliative Care (QDACT-PC). METHODS: We collaboratively and iteratively developed QDACT-PC, an electronic, point-of-care quality monitoring system for palliative care that supports prospective quality assessment and reporting in any clinical setting. QDACT-PC is the web-based data collection and reporting interface. Quality measures selected to be used in QDACT-PC were derived from a systematic review summarizing all published palliative care quality measure sets; Alliance clinical providers prioritized measures to be included in QDACT-PC to ensure maximal clinical relevance. Data elements and variables required to ascertain conformance to all selected quality measures were included in the QDACT-PC data dictionary. Whenever possible, variables collected in QDACT-PC align with validated surveys and/or nationally recognized common data elements. QDACT-PC data elements and software programmed business rules inform real-time assessments of conformance to selected quality measures. Data are deposited into a centralized registry for future analyses. RESULTS: QDACT-PC can be used to report on >80% of all published palliative care quality measures and 100% of high-priority measure. CONCLUSION: Electronic methods for collecting point-of-care quality monitoring data can be developed using collaborative partnerships between community and academic palliative care providers. Feasibility testing and creation of feedback reports are ongoing.

The utility of cost discussions between patients with cancer and oncologists.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with cancer can experience substantial financial burden. Little is known about patients' preferences for incorporating cost discussions into treatment decision making or about the ramifications of those discussions. The objective of this study was to determine patient preferences for and benefits of discussing costs with doctors. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, survey study. METHODS: We enrolled insured adults with solid tumors on anticancer therapy who were treated at a referral cancer center or an affiliated rural cancer clinic. Patients were surveyed at enrollment and again 3 months later about cost discussions with doctors, decision making, and financial burden. Medical records were abstracted for disease and treatment data. Logistic regression investigated characteristics associated with greater desire to discuss costs. RESULTS: Of 300 patients (86% response rate), 52% expressed some desire to discuss treatment-related out-of-pocket costs with doctors and 51% wanted their doctor to take costs into account to some degree when making treatment decisions. However, only 19% had talked to their doctor about costs. Of those, 57% reported lower out-of-pocket costs as a result of cost discussions. In multivariable logistic regression, higher subjective financial distress was associated with greater likelihood to desire cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.36). Nonwhite race was associated with lower likelihood to desire cost discussions (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer varied in their desire to discuss costs with doctors, but most who discussed costs believed the conversations helped reduce their expenses. Patient-physician cost communication might reduce out-of-pocket costs even in oncology where treatment options are limited.

Bridging the gap between financial distress and available resources for patients with cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Cancer treatment-related out-of-pocket costs create substantial financial distress for many patients. However, little work has been done to describe available financial resources and barriers to connecting those resources to patients. METHODS: This was a single-center, qualitative study that used semistructured interviews and focus groups with social workers and financial care counselors. Interview guides were used to elicit feedback from study participants pertaining to the types of financial problems that their patients were experiencing, the process for addressing these issues, patient assistance resources, and access barriers. RESULTS: Four interviews and two focus group sessions (n = 15) were conducted in which four themes emerged among the social work and financial care counselor samples. Participants cited (1) frustration over the lack of financial resources and increasingly stringent eligibility criteria, (2) barriers to providing assistance such as process inefficiencies, (3) limited resources to identify at- risk patients and refer them for services, and (4) inadequate insurance coverage and availability. To bridge the gap between increasing patient need and limited resources, participants suggested development of interventions designed to aid in patient screening and resource identification. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology social workers and financial care counselors reported inadequate financial resources and faced barriers to matching appropriate resources with patients in need. Limited social work resources hindered early screening for financial distress. Interventions that focus on screening for early identification of financial distress and identification of resources are needed.