Cancer diagnosis and treatment in working-age adults: Implications for employment, health insurance coverage, and financial hardship in the United States.

The rising costs of cancer care and subsequent medical financial hardship for cancer survivors and families are well documented in the United States. Less attention has been paid to employment disruptions and loss of household income after a cancer diagnosis and during treatment, potentially resulting in lasting financial hardship, particularly for working-age adults not yet age-eligible for Medicare coverage and their families. In this article, the authors use a composite patient case to illustrate the adverse consequences of cancer diagnosis and treatment for employment, health insurance coverage, household income, and other aspects of financial hardship. They summarize existing research and provide nationally representative estimates of multiple aspects of financial hardship and health insurance coverage, benefit design, and employee benefits, such as paid sick leave, among working-age adults with a history of cancer and compare them with estimates among working-age adults without a history of cancer from the most recently available years of the National Health Interview Survey (2019-2021). Then, the authors identify opportunities for addressing employment and health insurance coverage challenges at multiple levels, including federal, state, and local policies; employers; cancer care delivery organizations; and nonprofit organizations. These efforts, when informed by research to identify best practices, can potentially help mitigate the financial hardship associated with 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.

Isolation, discrimination, and feeling "constant Guilt": A mixed-methods analysis of female physicians' experience with fertility, family planning, and oncology careers.

INTRODUCTION: Family planning among female physicians is harmed by high risks of infertility, workload burden, poor family leave policies, and gender discrimination. Many women report feeling unsupported in the workplace, despite national policies to protect against unfair treatment. METHODS: This secondary analysis applied a modified version of the rigorous and accelerated data reduction technique to conduct a thematic analysis of comments to an open-ended prompt. Comments were coded by multiple trained researchers then grouped and merged into illustrative themes via qualitative techniques. RESULTS: Of 1004 responses to the quantitative survey, 162 physicians completed the open-ended prompt. Initial codes (n = 16) were combined into eight groups including, from which three overarching themes were identified. Institutional barriers were highlighted with comments discussing the increased need for parental leave, part-time options and the concern for academic or professional punishment for being pregnant and/or having children. Departmental barriers were explored with comments grouped around codes of discrimination/negative culture and challenges with breastfeeding/pumping and childcare. Personal barriers were discussed in themes highlighting the difficulties that female physicians faced around the timing of family planning, challenges with reproductive health and assistance, and alternative circumstances and/or decisions against family planning. CONCLUSION: Barriers to family planning in oncology exist across career domains from dysfunctional maternity leave to poor education on infertility risk. Solutions include improving institutional support, expanding parental leave, and general cultural change to improve awareness and promotion of family and career balance.

Characterizing disparities in receipt of palliative care for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders with metastatic cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: Palliative care plays essential roles in cancer care. However, differences in receipt among individuals identifying as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islanders (AA&NHPI) with cancer are not well-characterized, especially when these diverse groups are disaggregated. We characterized disparities in receipt of palliative care among AA&NHPI patients with AJCC Stage IV prostate, breast, or lung cancer. METHODS: We performed multivariable logistic regressions were performed in this retrospective cohort analysis, using deidentified data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) of patients diagnosed with AJCC analytic group stage IV breast, lung, or prostate cancer (2004-2018) who were White or of Asian Indian/Pakistani, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Hmong, Japanese, Kampuchean, Korean, Laotian, Other Pacific Islander, Thai, or Vietnamese descent. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses in a retrospective cohort study using deidentified data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The study included patients diagnosed with AJCC analytic group Stage IV breast, lung, or prostate cancer between 2004 and 2018, who were White or identified as Asian Indian/Pakistani, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Hmong, Japanese, Kampuchean, Korean, Laotian, Other Pacific Islander, Thai, or Vietnamese descent. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of receiving palliative care were measured when comparing White vs. AA&NHPI patients as one cohort and White vs. disaggregated AA&NHPI patients, adjusting for clinical, socioeconomic, and demographic covariates. RESULTS: Among 775,289 individuals diagnosed with cancer (median age: 68 years), no significant differences in palliative care receipt were observed between White patients and aggregated AA&NHPI patients among patients with prostate, breast, or lung cancer. However, disaggregated analyses revealed reduced palliative care receipt for breast cancer patients of Asian Indian/Pakistani descent (AOR 0.75, 95% CI, 0.60-0.94, P = 0.011) and for lung cancer patients of Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, and Asian Indian/Pakistani descent compared to White patients (Chinese AOR 0.88, [0.81-0.94], P = 0.001; Vietnamese AOR 0.89, [0.80 to 0.99], P = 0.032; Thai AOR 0.64, [0.44-0.92], P = 0.016; Asian Indian/Pakistani AOR 0.83, [0.74-0.93], P = 0.001). Palliative care was greater for patients of Japanese and Hawaiian descent with prostate cancer (Japanese AOR 1.92, [1.32-2.75], P = 0.001; Hawaiian AOR 2.09, [1.20-3.66], P = 0.009), breast cancer (Japanese AOR 1.72, [1.21-2.43], P = 0.001; Hawaiian AOR 1.70, [1.08-2.67], P = 0.021), and lung cancer (Japanese AOR 1.92, [1.70-2.17], P < 0.001; Hawaiian AOR 2.95, [2.5-3.5], P < 0.001), as well as patients of Other Pacific Islander descent with lung cancer (AOR 1.62, [1.34-1.96], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our findings demonstrate disparities in receipt of palliative care upon disaggregation of diverse AA&NHPI groups, the need for disaggregated research and targeted interventions that address the unique cultural, socioeconomic, and healthcare system barriers to palliative care receipt.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Cervical cancer treatment update: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology clinical practice statement.

Cervical cancer is the most commonly diagnosed gynecologic cancer worldwide. Although the incidence has declined with increased screening and higher uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in high-income countries, this disease remains the second highest cause of cancer mortality among women in low- and middle-income countries. In this clinical practice statement, we describe therapies for cervical cancer by treatment setting, as well as quality of life, financial toxicity, and disparities associated with this disease. In addition to chemotherapy and radiation, therapeutic strategies for cervical cancer include immune checkpoint blockade, antiangiogenics, and antibody-drug conjugates. Optimal treatment for recurrent cervical cancer remains an area of unmet need, necessitating further exploration of rational and innovative treatment approaches, including cell and immune-based therapies. Importantly, development of effective therapies for cervical cancer must incorporate strategies to ensure universal equitable access to HPV vaccination, screening, and treatment. Important consequences of the disease and treatment that impact quality of life must also be addressed. Patients with cervical cancer are at increased risk for financial toxicity, which can lead to downstream detrimental effects on physical, financial, and career outcomes. Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in gynecologic oncology clinical trials highlights the urgent need for collaborative and focused initiatives to bridge the significant divide and alleviate inequalities in the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer.

A burden shared: the financial, psychological, and health-related consequences borne by family members and caregivers of people with cancer in India.

In India, approximately 1.4 million new cases of cancer are recorded annually, with 26.7 million people living with cancer in 2021. Providing care for family members with cancer impacts caregivers' health and financial resources. Effects on caregivers' health and financial resources, understood as family and caregiver "financial toxicity" of cancer, are important to explore in the Indian context, where family members often serve as caregivers, in light of cultural attitudes towards family. This is reinforced by other structural issues such as grave disparities in socioeconomic status, barriers in access to care, and limited access to supportive care services for many patients. Effects on family caregivers' financial resources are particularly prevalent in India given the increased dependency on out-of-pocket financing for healthcare, disparate access to insurance coverage, and limitations in public expenditure on healthcare. In this paper, we explore family and caregiver financial toxicity of cancer in the Indian context, highlighting the multiple psychosocial aspects through which these factors may play out. We suggest steps forward, including future directions in (1) health services research, (2) community-level interventions, and (3) policy changes. We underscore that multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral efforts are needed to study and address family and caregiver financial toxicity in India.

Do discussions of financial burdens decrease long-term financial toxicity in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors?

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the associations between patient-provider cost discussions with patient-reported out-of-pocket (OOP) spending and long-term financial toxicity (FT) among adolescent and young adult (AYA; 15-39 years old) cancer survivors. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional survey, we assessed the themes and quality of patient discussions with providers about financial needs and general survivorship preparation, quantified patients' levels of FT, and evaluated patient-reported OOP spending. We determined the association between cancer treatment cost discussion and FT using multivariable analysis. In a subset of survivors (n = 18), we conducted qualitative interviews and used thematic analysis to characterize responses. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-seven AYA survivors completed the survey at a mean of 7 years post treatment and with a median COST score of 13. 70% of AYA survivors did not recall having any cost discussion about their cancer treatment with a provider. Having any cost discussion with a provider was associated with decreased FT (ß = 3.00; p = 0.02) but not associated with reduced OOP spending (χ2 = 3.77; p = 0.44). In a second adjusted model, with OOP spending included as a covariate, OOP spending was a significant predictor of FT (ß = - 1.40; p = 0.002). Key qualitative themes included survivors' frustration about the lack of communication related to financial issues throughout treatment and in survivorship, feeling unprepared, and reluctance to seek help. CONCLUSION: AYA patients are not fully informed about the costs of cancer care and FT; the dearth of cost discussions between patients and providers may represent a missed opportunity to reduce costs.

Cannabis use among recently treated cancer patients: perceptions and experiences.

PURPOSE: To characterize cannabis use among cancer patients, we aimed to describe 1) patterns of cannabis use across multiple cancer sites; 2) perceived goals, benefits, harms of cannabis; and 3) communication about cannabis. METHODS: Patients with 9 different cancers treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between March and August 2021 completed an online or phone survey eliciting cannabis use, attitudes, and communication about cannabis. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the association of cancer type and cannabis use, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and prior cannabis use. RESULTS: Among 1258 respondents, 31% used cannabis after diagnosis, ranging from 25% for lung cancer to 59% for testicular cancer. Characteristics associated with cannabis use included younger age, lower education level, and cancer type. In multivariable analysis, compared to lung cancer patients, gastrointestinal cancer patients were more likely to use cannabis (odds ratio [OR] 2.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-5.43). Cannabis use in the year prior to diagnosis was strongly associated with cannabis use after diagnosis (OR 19.13, 95% CI 11.92-30.72). Among users, reasons for use included difficulty sleeping (48%); stress, anxiety, or depression (46%); and pain (42%). Among respondents who used cannabis to improve symptoms, 70-90% reported improvement; < 5% reported that any symptom worsened. Only 25% discussed cannabis with healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Almost a third of cancer patients use cannabis, largely for symptom management. Oncologists may not know about their patients' cannabis use. To improve decision making about cannabis use during cancer care, research is needed to determine benefits and harms of cannabis use.

Utilization of National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers by Medicare Beneficiaries with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about which patients use National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCICCs) nationally. This study aimed to identify sociodemographic characteristics associated with decreased NCICC use among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: This study examined a national cohort of 534,008 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer in 2017 using multivariable logistic regressions for NCICC use. The covariates in the study were sex, age, cancer type, race/ethnicity, dual-eligibility status for Medicaid and Medicare, and NCICC presence in the home state. RESULTS: In 2017, 19.5 % of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer used an NCICC at least once. Dual-eligible beneficiaries had 29 % lower adjusted odds of NCICC use than non-dual-eligible beneficiaries (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.71; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.73; p < 0.001). American Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries had 40 % lower odds of NCICC use than non-Hispanic white (NHW) beneficiaries (aOR, 0.60; 95 % CI, 0.53-0.68; p < 0.001). Compared with NHW beneficiaries, the odds of NCICC use were higher for black beneficiaries by 15 % (aOR, 1.15; 95 % CI, 1.12-1.18; p < 0.001), for Hispanic beneficiaries by 31 % (aOR, 1.31; 95 % CI, 1.26-1.35; p < 0.001), and for Asian/Pacific Islander beneficiaries by 126 % (aOR, 2.26; 95 % CI, 2.16-2.36; p < 0.001). Utilization declined steadily in older groups, with beneficiaries older than 95 years showing 73 % lower odds of NCICC use than beneficiaries younger than 65 years (aOR, 0.27; 95 % CI, 0.24-0.29; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid-eligible, American Indian/Alaska Native, and older patients are substantially less likely to use NCICCs. Future research should focus on defining and addressing the barriers to NCICC access for these populations.

Disparities in Primary Breast Cancer Stage at Presentation Among Hispanic Subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Although the United States (US) Hispanic population consists of diverse communities, prior breast cancer studies often analyze this group in aggregate. Our aim was to identify differences in breast cancer stage at presentation in the US population, with a particular focus on Hispanic subgroups. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2017 were used to select women with primary breast cancer; individuals were disaggregated by racial and ethnic subgroup and Hispanic country of origin. Ordinal logistic regression was used to create adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with higher odds representing presentation at later-stage breast cancer. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on tumor receptor status. RESULTS: Overall, among 2,282,691 women (5.2% Hispanic), Hispanic women were more likely to live in low-income and low-educational attainment neighborhoods, and were also more likely to be uninsured. Hispanic women were also more likely to present at later-stage primary breast cancer when compared with non-Hispanic White women (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.18-1.21; p < 0.01). Stage disparities were demonstrated when populations were disaggregated by country of origin, particularly for Mexican women (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.51-1.60; p < 0.01). Disparities worsened among both racial and country of origin subgroups in women with triple-negative disease. CONCLUSION: Later breast cancer stage at presentation was observed among Hispanic populations when disaggregated by racial subgroup and country of origin. Socioeconomic disparities, as well as uncaptured disparities in access and/or differential care, may drive these observed differences. Future studies with disaggregated data are needed to characterize outcomes in Hispanic communities and develop targeted interventions.

Catastrophic health expenditures, insurance churn, and nonemployment among gynecologic cancer patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the financial burden of severe illness, including associations with higher rates of nonemployment, uninsurance, and catastrophic out-of-pocket health spending. Patients with gynecologic cancer often require expensive and prolonged treatments, potentially disrupting employment and insurance coverage access, and putting patients and their families at risk for catastrophic health expenditures. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the prevalence of insurance churn, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures among nonelderly patients with gynecologic cancer in the United States, to compare within subgroups and to other populations and assess for changes associated with the Affordable Care Act. STUDY DESIGN: We identified respondents aged 18 to 64 years from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006 to 2017, who reported care related to gynecologic cancer in a given year, and a propensity-matched cohort of patients without cancer and patients with cancers of other sites, as comparison groups. We applied survey weights to extrapolate to the US population, and we described patterns of insurance churn (any uninsurance or insurance loss or change), catastrophic health expenditures (>10% annual family income), and nonemployment. Characteristics and outcomes between groups were compared with the adjusted Wald test. RESULTS: We identified 683 respondents reporting care related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis from 2006 to 2017, representing an estimated annual population of 532,400 patients (95% confidence interval, 462,000-502,700). More than 64% of patients reported at least 1 of 3 primary negative outcomes of any uninsurance, part-year nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, with 22.4% reporting at least 2 of 3 outcomes. Catastrophic health spending was uncommon without nonemployment or uninsurance reported during that year (1.2% of the population). Compared with patients with other cancers, patients with gynecologic cancer were younger and more likely with low education and low family income (≤250% federal poverty level). They reported higher annual risks of insurance loss (8.8% vs 4.8%; P=.03), any uninsurance (22.6% vs 14.0%; P=.002), and part-year nonemployment (55.3% vs 44.6%; P=.005) but similar risks of catastrophic spending (12.6% vs 12.2%; P=.84). Patients with gynecologic cancer from low-income families faced a higher risk of catastrophic expenditures than those of higher icomes (24.4% vs 2.9%; P<.001). Among the patients from low-income families, Medicaid coverage was associated with a lower risk of catastrophic spending than private insurance. After the Affordable Care Act implementation, we observed reductions in the risk of uninsurance, but there was no significant change in the risk of catastrophic spending among patients with gynecologic cancer. CONCLUSION: Patients with gynecologic cancer faced high risks of uninsurance, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among patients from low-income families. Catastrophic spending was uncommon in the absence of either nonemployment or uninsurance in a given year.

Risk factors for financial toxicity in patients with gynecologic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer care is high and rising. Evidence of increased patient cost burden is prevalent in the medical literature and has been defined as "financial toxicity," the financial hardship and financial concerns experienced by patients because of a disease and its related treatments. With targeted therapies and growing out-of-pocket costs, patient financial toxicity is a growing concern among patients with gynecologic cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of financial toxicity and identify its risk factors in patients with gynecologic cancer treated at a large cancer center using objective data. STUDY DESIGN: Using institutional databases, we identified patients with gynecologic cancer treated from January 2016 to December 2018. Patients with a preinvasive disease were excluded. Financial toxicity was defined according to institutionally derived metrics as the presence of ≥1 of the following: ≥2 bills sent to collections, application or granting of a payment plan, settlement, bankruptcy, financial assistance program enrollment, or a finance-related social work visit. Clinical characteristics were gathered using a 2-year look-back from the time of the first financial toxicity event or a randomly selected treatment date for those not experiencing toxicity. Risk factors were assessed using chi-squared tests. All significant variables on univariate analysis were included in the logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of the 4655 patients included in the analysis, 1155 (25%) experienced financial toxicity. In the univariate analysis, cervical cancer (35%), stage 3 or 4 disease (24% and 30%, respectively), younger age (35% for age <30 years), nonpartnered marital status (31%), Black (45%) or Hispanic (37%) race and ethnicity, self-pay (48%) or commercial insurance (30%), clinical trial participation (31%), more imaging studies (39% for ≥9), ≥1 emergency department visit (36%), longer inpatient stays (36% for ≥20 days), and more outpatient clinician visits (41% for ≥20 visits) were significantly associated with financial toxicity (P<.01). In multivariate analysis, younger age, nonpartnered marital status, Black and Hispanic race and ethnicity, commercial insurance, more imaging studies, and more outpatient physician visits were significantly associated with financial toxicity. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is an increasing problem for patients with gynecologic cancer. Our analysis, using objective measures of financial toxicity, has suggested that demographic factors and healthcare utilization metrics may be used to proactively identify at-risk patients for financial toxicity.

Financial Toxicity and Its Association With Prostate and Colon Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: The term "financial toxicity" or "hardship" is a patient-reported outcome that results from the material costs of cancer care, the psychological impacts of these costs, and the coping strategies that patients use to deal with the strain that includes delaying or forgoing care. However, little is known about the impact of financial toxicity on cancer screening. We examined the effects of financial toxicity on the use of screening tests for prostate and colon cancer. We hypothesized that greater financial hardship would show an association with decreased prevalence of cancer screening. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey-based US study included men and women aged ≥50 years from the National Health Interview Survey database from January through December 2018. A financial hardship score (FHS) between 0 and 10 was formulated by summarizing the responses from 10 financial toxicity dichotomic questions (yes or no), with a higher score associated with greater financial hardship. Primary outcomes were self-reported occurrence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood testing and colonoscopy for prostate and colon cancer screening, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 13,439 individual responses were collected. A total of 9,277 (69.03%) people had undergone colonoscopies, and 3,455 (70.94%) men had a PSA test. White, married, working men were more likely to undergo PSA testing and colonoscopy. Individuals who had not had a PSA test or colonoscopy had higher mean FHSs than those who underwent these tests (0.70 and 0.79 vs 0.47 and 0.61, respectively; P≤.001 for both). Multivariable logistic regression models demonstrated that a higher FHS was associated with a decreased odds ratio for having a PSA test (0.916; 95% CI, 0.867-0.967; P=.002) and colonoscopy (0.969; 95% CI, 0.941-0.998; P=.039). CONCLUSIONS: Greater financial hardship is suggested to be associated with a decreased probability of having prostate and colon cancer screening. Healthcare professionals should be aware that financial toxicity can impact not only cancer treatment but also cancer screening.

Health care costs for adolescents and young adults with cancer: a Wisconsin community-based hospital study between 2005 and 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer are at risk of high cumulative healthcare system costs potentially associated with poor health and financial outcomes. Although this has been studied at academic centers, little data on AYA costs at community-based practices exist. The goals of this study were to understand direct health care costs for AYA patients, identify factors for high costs, and assess how total health care costs may relate to survival. METHODS: AYA patients (15-39 years) treated at a community hospital in Wisconsin (USA) between 2005 and 2020 were identified. Patient demographics, cancer characteristics, therapies, support services, and all direct health care charges (including up to 1 year prior to diagnosis to capture any diagnostic workup) were collected. Logistic and Cox proportional hazard regression models identified factors associated with high costs and survival, respectively. RESULTS: The 388 AYA patients had a median follow-up of 9 years (97% survival). Most were 30-39 years (62%), female (61%), white (95%), diagnosed early-stage (85%), and underwent surgery (83%). Complete health care costs were available for 233 patients (60%). Median total costs per patient were $123 K (range, $73-$215 K). On adjusted analysis, higher direct health care costs (> $125 K) were associated with greater odds of hospital admissions (odds ratio [OR] = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.35-2.27), chemotherapy (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 1.44-12.70), and breast cancer diagnosis (OR = 3.8, 95% CI = 1.07-14.70). Living farther from the hospital (OR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.02-0.50), later year of diagnosis (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.55-0.77), and uninsured/unknown insurance status (OR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.01-0.57) were associated with decreased odds of having higher health care costs. On adjusted analysis, death was associated with greater odds of higher direct health care costs per $125 K (hazards ratio [HR] = 7.9, 95% CI = 2.22-27.80) and radiation (HR = 31.8, 95% CI = 3.15-321) but lower odds of hormone therapy (HR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.01-0.72) and later year of diagnosis (HR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.12-0.60). CONCLUSION: High direct health care costs among AYA patients are associated with hospital admissions, chemotherapy, breast cancer diagnosis, hospital proximity, and earlier year of diagnosis. Death was associated with high direct health care costs, earlier years of diagnosis, and radiation therapy. Total health care costs in community-based hospitals should be considered in the context of AYA patients with cancer.

Disparities in place of death for patients with primary brain tumors and brain metastases in the USA.

PURPOSE: Patients with primary or metastatic brain tumors often require intensive end-of-life care, for which place of death may serve as a quality metric. Death at home or hospice is considered a more "ideal" location. Comprehensive information on place of death of people with brain tumors is lacking. METHODS: Using CDC Wonder Database data, those who died in the USA from a solid cancer from 2003 to 2016 were included and place of death for those with primary brain, brain metastases, and solid non-brain tumors were compared. Multivariate logistic regression tested for disparities in place of death. RESULTS: By 2016, 51.1% of patients with primary brain tumors and 45.2% with brain metastases died at home. 15.9% of patients with primary brain tumors and 23.6% with brain metastases died in the hospital. Black patients were least likely to die at home or hospice. For patients with primary brain tumors, being married (OR = 2.25 (95%CI 2.16-2.34), p < 0.01) and having an advanced degree (OR = 1.204 (95%CI 1.15-1.26), p < 0.01) increased odds of home/hospice death; older age (OR = 0.50 (95%CI 0.46-0.54), p < 0.01) decreased odds for home/hospice death. For patients with brain metastases, being married (OR = 2.19 (95%CI 2.11-2.26), p < 0.01) increased odds of home/hospice death and male sex (OR = 0.87 (095%CI .85-0.89), p < 0.01) and older age (OR = 0.59 (95%CI 0.47-0.75), p < 0.01) decreased odds of home/hospice death. CONCLUSION: Disparities exist in place of death in the brain tumor population. Focused interventions are indicated to increase the utilization of hospice in those with metastatic cancer, under-represented minority groups, and the elderly population.

Shared burden: the association between cancer diagnosis, financial toxicity, and healthcare cost-related coping mechanisms by family members of non-elderly patients in the USA.

PURPOSE: There has been little research on the healthcare cost-related coping mechanisms of families of patients with cancer. Therefore, we assessed the association between a cancer diagnosis and the healthcare cost-related coping mechanisms of participant family members through their decision to forego or delay seeking medical care, one of the manifestations of financial toxicity. METHODS: Using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) between 2000 and 2018, sample weight-adjusted prevalence was calculated and multivariable logistic regressions defined adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for participant family members who needed but did not get medical care or who delayed seeking medical care due to cost in the past 12 months, adjusting for relevant sociodemographic covariates, including participant history of cancer (yes vs. no) and participant age (18-45 vs. 46-64 years old). The analysis of family members foregoing or delaying medical care was repeated using a cancer diagnosis * age interaction term. RESULTS: Participants with cancer were more likely than those without a history of cancer to report family members delaying (19.63% vs. 16.31%, P < 0.001) or foregoing (14.53% vs. 12.35%, P = 0.001) medical care. Participants with cancer in the 18 to 45 years old age range were more likely to report family members delaying (pinteraction = 0.028) or foregoing (pinteraction < 0.001) medical care. Other factors associated with cost-related coping mechanisms undertaken by the participants' family members included female sex, non-married status, poorer health status, lack of health insurance coverage, and lower household income. CONCLUSION: A cancer diagnosis may be associated with familial healthcare cost-related coping mechanisms, one of the manifestations of financial toxicity. This is seen through delayed/omitted medical care of family members of people with a history of cancer, an association that may be stronger among young adult cancer survivors. These findings underscore the need to further explore how financial toxicity associated with a cancer diagnosis can affect patients' family members and to design interventions to mitigate healthcare cost-related coping mechanisms.

Patient-reported benefit from proposed interventions to reduce financial toxicity during cancer treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Financial toxicity is common and pervasive among cancer patients. Research suggests that gynecologic cancer patients experiencing financial toxicity are at increased risk for engaging in harmful cost-coping strategies, including delaying/skipping treatment because of costs, or forsaking basic needs to pay medical bills. However, little is known about patients' preferences for interventions to address financial toxicity. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys to assess financial toxicity [Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST)], cost-coping strategies, and preferences for intervention were conducted in a gynecologic cancer clinic waiting room. Associations with cost-coping were determined using multivariate modeling. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) explored associations between financial toxicity and intervention preferences. RESULTS: Among 89 respondents, median COST score was 31.9 (IQR: 21-38); 35% (N = 30) scored < 26, indicating they were experiencing financial toxicity. Financial toxicity was significantly associated with cost-coping (adjusted OR = 3.32 95% CI: 1.08, 14.34). Intervention preferences included access to transportation vouchers (38%), understanding treatment costs up-front (35%), minimizing wait times (33%), access to free food at appointments (25%), and assistance with minimizing/eliminating insurance deductibles (23%). In unadjusted analyses, respondents experiencing financial toxicity were more likely to select transportation assistance (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.04, 6.90), assistance with co-pays (OR = 9.17, 95% CI: 2.60, 32.26), and assistance with deductibles (OR = 12.20, 95% CI: 3.47, 43.48), than respondents not experiencing financial toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the presence of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancer patients, describe how patients attempt to cope with financial hardship, and provide insight into patients' needs for targeted interventions to mitigate the harm of financial toxicity.

Economic distress, financial toxicity, and medical cost-coping in young adult cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from an online sample.

BACKGROUND: Young adult (YA) cancer survivors are at risk for financial toxicity during and after cancer treatment. Financial toxicity has been associated with medical-related cost-coping behaviors such as skipping or delaying treatment. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in dire economic consequences that may worsen financial hardship among young survivors. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey; data collection occurred online. A convenience sample was recruited through YA cancer advocacy groups and social media. Negative economic events associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (eg, income loss, increased debt, and decreased job security) and medical-related cost-coping were documented. A validated measure assessed cancer-related financial toxicity. RESULTS: Participants (N = 212) had a mean age of 35.3 years at survey completion and a mean age of 27.4 years at diagnosis. Financial toxicity (mean, 14.0; SD, 9.33) was high. Two-thirds of the sample experienced at least 1 negative economic event during COVID-19, and 71% engaged in at least 1 medical cost-coping behavior. Cost-coping and pandemic-related negative economic events were significantly correlated with cancer-related financial toxicity. In multivariable analyses, pandemic-related negative economic events and financial toxicity were associated with cost-coping. CONCLUSIONS: Acute negative economic events associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate cancer-related financial toxicity and overall financial hardship among YAs and lead to cost-coping behaviors that can compromise survivorship care and health outcomes. Multilevel, systematic interventions are needed to address the financial needs of YA survivors after the global pandemic.