A proactive financial navigation intervention in patients with newly diagnosed gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Many cancer patients and caregivers experience financial hardship, leading to poor outcomes. Gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer patients are particularly at risk for financial hardship given the intensity of treatment. This pilot randomized study among gastric/GEJ cancer patients and caregivers tested a proactive financial navigation (FN) intervention to obtain a signal of efficacy to inform a larger, more rigorous randomized study. METHODS: We tested a 3-month proactive FN intervention among gastric/GEJ cancer patients and caregivers compared to usual care. Caregiver participation was optional. The primary endpoint was incidence of financial hardship, defined as follows: accrual of debt, income decline of ≥ 20%, or taking loans to pay for treatment. Data from participant surveys and documentation by partner organizations delivering the FN intervention was analyzed and outcomes were compared between study arms. RESULTS: Nineteen patients and 12 caregivers consented. Primary FN resources provided included insurance navigation, budget planning, and help with out-of-pocket medical expenses. Usual care patients were more likely to experience financial hardship (50% vs 40%) and declines in quality of life (37.5% vs 0%) compared to intervention patients. Caregivers in both arms reported increased financial stress and poorer quality of life over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive financial navigation has potentially positive impacts on financial hardship and quality of life for cancer patients and more large-scale randomized interventions should be conducted to rigorously explore the impact of similar interventions. Interventions that have the potential to lessen caregiver financial stress and burden need further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRN: NCT03986502, June 14, 2019.

Financial hardship after cancer: revision of a conceptual model and development of patient-reported outcome measures.

Aim: This qualitative study refined a conceptual model of financial hardship and developed measures corresponding to model constructs. Methods: Eighteen women with breast cancer recruited through a comprehensive cancer center completed interviews. A qualitative framework analysis was conducted of the interviews. Results: Participants experienced varying levels of financial hardship. Protective factors included good health insurance, work accommodations and social support. Participants worried about cancer care costs and employment. Programs for alleviating financial hardship had high administrative burdens. Four preliminary financial hardship measures were developed: coping, impacts, depression and worry. Conclusion: Reducing administrative barriers to benefits could reduce financial hardship after cancer. More research is needed on the effects of out-of-network/formulary care and denials of coverage and to validate the measures.

Financial hardship is common after cancer diagnosis. This study interviewed women with breast cancer about financial hardship. Financial hardship included how participants coped with healthcare costs and reduced income. Worry and depression were also aspects of financial hardship. Administrative burdens led to financial hardship. Administrative burdens were actions patients had to take to access financial support. This study also created surveys to measure financial hardship in cancer.

This study revised a conceptual model of financial burden after cancer. Measures were developed for each financial burden dimension from the model. Reducing administrative hurdles for work accommodations and insurance could prevent burden.

Financial Toxicity, Time Toxicity, and Quality of Life in Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) may be on therapy for years, which can lead to financial toxicity (FinTox) or time toxicity (TimeTox). The prevalence, predictors, and quality of life (QOL) impacts of FinTox and TimeTox during different phases of MM treatment have not been characterized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center cross-sectional survey of patients with MM who had undergone transplantation. FinTox+ was defined as a COST-FACIT score <23, TimeTox+ as MM-related interactions (including phone calls) ≥1x weekly or ≥1x monthly in-person among far-residing patients, QOL using PROMIS Global Health, and functional status using patient-reported Karnofsky performance status (KPS). RESULTS: Of 252 patients, 22% and 40% met FinTox+ and TimeTox+ criteria respectively. Respective FinTox+ and TimeTox+ proportions were 22%/37% for patients on maintenance, 22%/82% with active therapy, and 20%/14% with observation. FinTox+ predictors included annual income (P < .01) and out-of-pocket costs (P < .01). TimeTox+ predictors included disease status (P < .001), caregiver status (P = .01), far-residing status (P < .001), and out-of-pocket costs (P = .03). FinTox+ was associated with a clinically meaningful decrease in mental QOL, while TimeTox+ patients were more likely to have KPS ≤ 80. CONCLUSIONS: In our large study, monetary status but not disease status predicted FinTox. Over a third of patients on maintenance reported TimeTox. FinTox+ was associated with decreased mental health, while TimeTox+ was associated with worse performance status. These two toxicities may negatively impact patient wellbeing, and studies of strategies to mitigate their impact are in development.

Association of Major Adverse Financial Events and Later-Stage Cancer Diagnosis in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the prevalence of specific major adverse financial events (AFEs)-bankruptcies, liens, and evictions-before a cancer diagnosis and their association with later-stage cancer at diagnosis. METHODS: Patients age 20-69 years diagnosed with cancer during 2014-2015 were identified from the Seattle, Louisiana, and Georgia SEER population-based cancer registries. Registry data were linked with LexisNexis consumer data to identify patients with a history of court-documented AFEs before cancer diagnosis. The association of AFEs and later-stage cancer diagnoses (stages III/IV) was assessed using separate sex-specific multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 101,649 patients with cancer linked to LexisNexis data, 36,791 (36.2%) had a major AFE reported before diagnosis. The mean and median timing of the AFE closest to diagnosis were 93 and 77 months, respectively. AFEs were most common among non-Hispanic Black, unmarried, and low-income patients. Individuals with previous AFEs were more likely to be diagnosed with later-stage cancer than individuals with no AFE (males-odds ratio [OR], 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.14]; P < .001; females-OR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.13 to 1.24]; P < .0001) after adjusting for age, race, marital status, income, registry, and cancer type. Associations between AFEs prediagnosis and later-stage disease did not vary by AFE timing. CONCLUSION: One third of newly diagnosed patients with cancer had a major AFE before their diagnosis. Patients with AFEs were more likely to have later-stage diagnosis, even accounting for traditional measures of socioeconomic status that influence the stage at diagnosis. The prevalence of prediagnosis AFEs underscores financial vulnerability of patients with cancer before their diagnosis, before any subsequent financial burden associated with cancer treatment.