National survey of patient perspectives on cost discussions among recipients of copay assistance.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with cancer and other medical conditions often experience financial concerns from high costs-of-care and may utilize copay assistance programs (CAP). We sought to describe CAP recipients' experiences/preferences for cost discussions with clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a national, cross-sectional electronic-survey from 10/2022 to 11/2022 of CAP recipients with cancer or autoimmune conditions to assess patient perspectives on cost discussions. We used multivariable logistic regression models to explore associations of patient perspectives on cost discussions with patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes (eg, financial toxicity, depression/anxiety, and health literacy). RESULTS: Among 1,566 participants, 71% had cancer and 29% had autoimmune conditions. Although 62% of respondents desired cost discussions, only 32% reported discussions took place. Additionally, 52% of respondents wanted their doctor to consider out-of-pocket costs when deciding the best treatment, and 61% of respondents felt doctors should ensure patients can afford treatment prescribed. Participants with depression symptoms were more likely to want doctors to consider out-of-pocket costs (OR = 1.54, P = .005) and to believe doctors should ensure patients can afford treatment (OR = 1.60, P = .005). Those with severe financial toxicity were more likely to desire cost discussions (OR = 1.65, P < .001) and want doctors to consider out-of-pocket costs (OR = 1.52, P = .001). Participants with marginal/inadequate health literacy were more likely to desire cost discussions (OR = 1.37, P = .01) and believe doctors should ensure patients can afford treatment (OR = 1.30, P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: In this large sample of CAP recipients with cancer and autoimmune conditions, most reported a desire for cost discussions, but under one-third reported such discussions took place.

The Right Dose: Results of a Patient Advocate-Led Survey of Individuals With Metastatic Breast Cancer Regarding Treatment-Related Side Effects and Views About Dosage Assessment to Optimize Quality of Life.

PURPOSE: Although patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have been living longer with the advent of more effective treatments such as targeted therapy and immunotherapy, the disease remains incurable, and most patients will undergo therapy indefinitely. When beginning therapy, patients are typically prescribed dose often based upon the maximum tolerated dose identified in phase I clinical trials. However, patients' perspectives about tolerability and willingness to discuss individualized dosing of drugs upon initiation of a new regimen and throughout the course of treatment have not been comprehensively evaluated. METHODS: Patient advocates and medical oncologists from the Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative (PCDI) developed a survey to ascertain the prevalence and severity of MBC patients' treatment-related side effects, the level of patient-physician communication, mitigation strategies, perception about the relative efficacy of higher versus lower doses, and willingness to discuss alternative dosing. The PCDI distributed the anonymous confidential online survey in August 2020 to individuals with self-reported MBC. RESULTS: One thousand and two hundred twenty-one patients with MBC completed the survey. 86.1% (n = 1,051) reported experiencing at least one significant treatment-related side effect, and of these, 20.3% (n = 213) visited the emergency room/hospital and 43.2% (n = 454) missed at least one treatment. Nearly all patients with side effects (97.6%, n = 1,026) informed their doctor and 81.7% (n = 838) received assistance. Of the 556 patients given a dose reduction for side-effect mitigation, 82.6% (n = 459) reported relief. Notably, majority of patients (53.3%, n = 651) do not believe that higher dose is always more effective than lower dose, and 92.3% (n = 1,127) would be willing to discuss flexible dosing options with their physicians based upon personal characteristics to optimize quality of life. CONCLUSION: Given that the majority of patients with MBC experienced at least one substantial treatment-related side effect and most patients given a dose reduction reported improvement, innovative dosage-related strategies are warranted to sustain and improve patients' well-being. Patient-physician discussions in which the patient's unique attributes and circumstances are assessed upon initiation of new treatment and throughout the course of therapy may facilitate the identification of the most favorable dose for each patient, and the majority of patients would be receptive to this approach.

Shifting from Equality toward Equity: Addressing Disparities in Research Participation for Clinical Cancer Research.

AbstractThere is societal consensus that cancer clinical trial participation is unjust because some sociodemographic groups have been systematically underrepresented. Despite this, neither a definition nor an ethical explication for the justice norm of equity has been clearly articulated in this setting, leading to confusion over its application and goals. Herein we define equity as acknowledging sociodemographic circumstances and apportioning resource and opportunity allocation to eliminate disparities in outcomes, and we explore the issues and tensions this norm generates through practical examples. We assess how equality-based enrollment structures in clinical cancer research have perpetuated historical disparities and what equity-based alternatives are necessary to achieve representativeness and an expansive conception of participatory justice in clinical cancer research. This framework addresses the breadth from normative to applied by defining the justice norm of equity and translating it into practical strategies for addressing participation disparities in clinical cancer research.

Financial Toxicity of Medical Management of Heart Failure: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Optimal medical management of heart failure (HF) improves quality of life, decreases mortality, and decreases hospitalizations. Cost may contribute to suboptimal adherence to HF medications, especially angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Patients' experiences with HF medication cost include financial burden, financial strain, and financial toxicity. Although there has been research studying financial toxicity in patients with some chronic diseases, there are no validated tools for measuring financial toxicity of HF, and very few data on the subjective experiences of patients with HF and financial toxicity. Strategies to decrease HF-associated financial toxicity include making systemic changes to minimize cost sharing, optimizing shared decision-making, implementing policies to lower drug costs, broadening insurance coverage, and using financial navigation services and discount programs. Clinicians may also improve patient financial wellness through various strategies in routine clinical care. Future research is needed to study financial toxicity and associated patient experiences for HF.

Financial toxicity in cancer care: origins, impact, and solutions.

Financial toxicity describes the financial burden and distress that can arise for patients, and their family members, as a result of cancer treatment. It includes direct out-of-pocket costs for treatment and indirect costs such as travel, time, and changes to employment that can increase the burden of cancer. While high costs of cancer care have threatened the sustainability of access to care for decades, it is only in the past 10 years that the term "financial toxicity" has been popularized to recognize that the financial burdens of care can be just as important as the physical toxicities traditionally associated with cancer therapy. The past decade has seen a rapid growth in research identifying the prevalence and impact of financial toxicity. Research is now beginning to focus on innovations in screening and care delivery that can mitigate this risk. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer centers to address costs of care in order to minimize financial toxicity, promote access to high value care, and reduce health disparities. We review the evolution of concerns over costs of cancer care, the impact of financial burdens on patients, methods to screen for financial toxicity, proposed solutions, and priorities for future research to identify and address costs that threaten the health and quality of life for many patients with cancer.

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.

Implementation of a Brief Screening Tool to Identify Needs of Breast Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Innovation in health care delivery is needed to improve care for cancer survivors. We report our experience with adapting screening questions from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline to evaluate the needs of breast cancer survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We adapted the NCCN-recommended screening questions into a plain language, self-administered 1-page intake questionnaire. The tool was administered to a convenience sample of female breast cancer survivors at follow-up oncology and primary care visits. Domains included symptoms, lifestyle concerns, and financial issues. Frequency of concerns was assessed as "never," "rarely," "sometimes," "very frequently," and "always." We evaluated feasibility and utility of administration and the prevalence and frequency of patient-reported concerns. RESULTS: The questionnaire was highly acceptable to patients and enhanced visits for clinicians. Clinicians reported that it led to discussion of issues that may not otherwise be addressed in the visit and did not find it burdensome. The most commonly endorsed patient concerns were desire to improve fitness or nutrition, worry about cancer recurrence, and insomnia. A majority also reported feeling anxiety and aches or pains in joints or extremities. Several issues known to be underreported in clinic visits were frequently endorsed, included sexual dissatisfaction and memory impairments. Clinicians suggested incorporating the tool into the electronic health record to increase utility and awareness. CONCLUSION: Screening for individual needs among breast cancer survivors is feasible, efficient, and may identify prevalent issues that otherwise can be missed in routine survivorship care.

Perceptions of patients with early stage breast cancer toward research biopsies.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe the perspective of patients with early breast cancer toward research biopsies. The authors hypothesized that more patients at academic sites than at community-based sites would be willing to consider these procedures. METHODS: In total, 198 patients with early stage breast cancer were recruited from 3 academic centers (n = 102) and from 1 community oncology practice (n = 96). The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients willing to consider donating excess tissue biospecimens from surgery, from a clinically indicated breast biopsy, or from a research purposes-only biopsy (RPOB) between practice types. RESULTS: Most patients (93% at academic sites, 94% at the community oncology site) said they would consider donating excess tissue from surgery for research. One-half of patients from academic or community sites would consider donating tissue from a clinically indicated breast biopsy. On univariate analysis, significantly fewer patients from academic sites would consider an RPOB (22% at academic sites, 42% at the community site; P = .003); however, this difference was no longer significant on multivariate analysis (P = .96). Longer transportation times and unfavorable prior experiences were associated with less willingness to consider an RPOB on multivariate analysis. Significantly fewer patients from academic sites (14%) than from the community site (35%) would consider a research biopsy in a clinical trial (P = .04). Contributing to scientific knowledge, return of results, and a personal request by their physician were the strongest factors influencing patients' willingness to undergo research biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: The current results rejected the hypothesis that more patients with early breast cancer at academic sites would be willing to donate tissue biospecimens for research compared with those at community oncology sites. These findings identify modifiable factors to consider in biobanking studies and clinical trials.

Moving forward on all fronts: impact, patterns, and barriers to exercise in cancer survivors and patients living with advanced disease.

INTRODUCTION: Exercise is recommended for all patients with cancer, but there has been limited study of exercise habits in patients across the spectrum of illness. PURPOSE: This pragmatic survey aimed to identify the unmet supportive care needs, self-reported symptoms, and exercise habits among both cancer survivors and patients living with advanced disease to determine adherence to exercise guidelines and to identify barriers and opportunities to improve exercise. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional self-administered paper survey was distributed to patients with cancer presenting for oncology clinic visits at an academic cancer center. Survey measures included presence of symptoms and health problems in addition to weekly time spent exercising, change in exercise levels since diagnosis, interest in exercise, and self-reported barriers. Participants reporting at least 150 min of exercise per week were characterized as adherent to guidelines. RESULTS: Among 640 survey respondents, 570 (89%) completed questions about exercise. Only 44% of cancer survivors and 34% of patients living with advanced disease met current guidelines. Survivors who met exercise guidelines had a lower prevalence of fatigue and memory impairments, but this finding was not seen among patients with advanced cancer. Over 70% of patients with advanced disease and 47% of survivors reported decreasing exercise post-diagnosis compared to pre-diagnosis. Prominent barriers to exercise among both groups included burden of illness and time constraints but interest in increasing exercise was high. CONCLUSIONS: There is an opportunity to improve exercise and related outcomes among a large percentage of both cancer survivors and patients living with advanced disease.

Financial Costs and Burden Related to Decisions for Breast Cancer Surgery.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity is a well-recognized adverse effect of cancer care, yet little is known about how women consider treatment costs when facing preference-sensitive decisions for breast cancer surgery or how surgical treatment choice affects financial harm. We sought to determine how financial costs and burden relate to decisions for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Women (≥ 18 years old) with a history of breast cancer were recruited from the Army of Women and Sisters Network to complete an 88-item electronic survey. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were used to evaluate the impact of costs on surgical decisions and financial harm after breast cancer surgery. RESULTS: A total of 607 women with stage 0 to III breast cancer were included. Most were white (90%), were insured privately (70%) or by Medicare (25%), were college educated (78%), and reported household incomes of more than $74,000 (56%). Forty-three percent underwent breast-conserving surgery, 25% underwent mastectomy, 32% underwent bilateral mastectomy, and 36% underwent breast reconstruction. Twenty-eight percent reported that costs of treatment influenced their surgical decisions, and at incomes of $45,000 per year, costs were prioritized over breast preservation or appearance. Overall, 35% reported financial burden as a result of their cancer treatment, and 78% never discussed costs with their cancer team. When compared with breast-conserving surgery, bilateral mastectomy with or without reconstruction was significantly associated with higher incurred debt, significant to catastrophic financial burden, treatment-related financial hardship, and altered employment. Among the highest incomes, 65% of women were fiscally unprepared, reporting higher-than-expected (26%) treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Cancer treatment costs influenced decisions for breast cancer surgery, and comparably effective surgical treatments differed significantly in their risk of patient-reported financial burden, debt, and impact on employment. Cost transparency may inform preference-sensitive surgical decisions and improve patient-centered care.

Perspectives on the Costs of Cancer Care: A Survey of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment costs are not routinely addressed in shared decisions for breast cancer surgery. Thus, we sought to characterize cost awareness and communication among surgeons treating breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a self-administered, confidential electronic survey among members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons from 1 July to 15 September 2018. Questions were based on previously published or validated survey items, and assessed surgeon demographics, cost sensitivity, and communication. Descriptive summaries and cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistics were used, with exact tests where warranted, to assess findings. RESULTS: Of those surveyed (N = 2293), 598 (25%) responded. Surgeons reported that 'risk of recurrence' (70%), 'appearance of the breast' (50%), and 'risks of surgery' (47%) were the most influential on patients' decisions for breast cancer surgery; 6% cited out-of-pocket costs as significant. Over half (53%) of the surgeons agreed that doctors should consider patient costs when choosing cancer treatment, yet the majority of surgeons (58%) reported 'infrequently' (43%) or 'never' (15%) considering patient costs in medical recommendations. The overwhelming majority (87%) of surgeons believed that patients should have access to the costs of their treatment before making medical decisions. Surgeons treating a higher percentage of Medicaid or uninsured patients were more likely to consistently consider costs (p < 0.001). Participants reported that insufficient knowledge or resources (61%), a perceived inability to help with costs (24%), and inadequate time (22%) impeded cost discussions. Notably, 20% of participants believed that discussing costs might impact the quality of care patients receive. CONCLUSIONS: Cost transparency remains rare, however in shared decisions for breast cancer surgery, improved cost awareness by surgeons has the potential to reduce financial hardship.

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.

Defining Value of Cancer Therapeutics-A Health System Perspective.

Because of the rising costs of cancer care and ongoing challenges in ensuring access to quality care, there is an increasing need to prioritize spending and define the benefits of therapy in proportion to costs. The term "value" has gained favor as means to define the relative utility of a medical intervention in terms of benefits, risks, and financial costs, which in turn can help clinicians, patients, and policy makers prioritize "high-value" care. While numerous value concepts have been proposed, a comprehensive discussion of value initiatives along the care continuum is missing. In this Commentary, we propose a health system taxonomy of value initiatives in cancer care to discuss what the field needs to progress.

Patterns in Health Care Access and Affordability Among Cancer Survivors During Implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Importance: Cancer survivors face ongoing health issues and need access to affordable health care, yet studies examining health care access and affordability in this population are lacking. Objectives: To evaluate health care access and affordability in a national sample of cancer survivors compared with adults without cancer and to evaluate temporal trends during implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Design, Setting, and Participants: We used data from the National Health Interview Survey from 2010 through 2016 to conduct a population-based study of 30 364 participants aged 18 years or older. We grouped participants as cancer survivors (n = 15 182) and those with no reported history of cancer, whom we refer to as control respondents (n = 15 182), matched on age. We excluded individuals reporting a cancer diagnosis prior to age 18 years and those with nonmelanoma skin cancers. Main Outcomes and Measures: We compared issues with health care access (eg, delayed or forgone care) and affordability (eg, unable to afford medications or health care services) between cancer survivors and control respondents. We also explored trends over time in the proportion of cancer survivors reporting these difficulties. Results: Of the 30 364 participants, 18 356 (57.4%) were women. The mean (SD) age was 63.5 (23.5) years. Cancer survivors were more likely to be insured (14 412 [94.8%] vs 13 978 [92.2%], P < .001) and to have government-sponsored insurance (7266 [44.3%] vs 6513 [38.8%], P < .001) compared with control respondents. In multivariable models, cancer survivors were more likely than control respondents to report delayed care (odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.63), forgone medical care (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.45-2.12), and/or inability to afford medications (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.46-2.14) and health care services (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27-1.68) (P < .001 for all). From 2010 to 2016, the proportion of survivors reporting delayed medical care decreased each year (B = 0.47; P = .047), and the proportion of those needing and not getting medical care also decreased each year (B = 0.35; P = .04). In addition, the proportion of cancer survivors who reported being unable to afford prescription medication decreased each year (B=0.66; P = .004) and the proportion of those unable to afford at least 1 of 6 services decreased each year (B = 0.51; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Despite higher rates of insurance coverage, cancer survivors reported greater difficulties accessing and affording health care compared with adults without cancer. Importantly, the proportion of survivors reporting these issues continued a downward trend throughout our observation period in the years following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Our findings suggest incremental improvement in health care access and affordability after recent health care reform and provide an important benchmark as additional changes are likely to occur in the coming years.