Financial navigation: Staff perspectives on patients' financial burden of cancer care.

PURPOSE: To describe perceptions of financial navigation staff concerning patients' cancer-related financial burden. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study used a semi-structured interview guide to examine perceptions of financial navigation staff concerning patients' cancer-related financial burden. Staff who provided financial navigation support services to cancer patients were interviewed from different types of cancer programs across seven states representing rural, micropolitan, and urban settings. Interviews lasted approximately one hour, were audio recorded, and transcribed. Transcripts were double coded for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-five staff from 29 cancer centers were interviewed. The first theme involved communication issues related to patient and financial navigation staff expectations, timing and the sensitive nature of financial discussions. The second theme involved the multi-faceted impact of financial burden on patients, including stress, difficulty adhering to treatments, and challenges meeting basic, non-medical needs. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer-related financial burden has a profound impact on cancer survivors' health and non-health outcomes. Discussions regarding cancer-related costs between cancer survivors and healthcare team members could help to normalize conversations and mitigate the multi-faceted determinants and effects of cancer-related financial burden. As treatment may span months and years and unexpected costs arise, having this discussion regularly and systematically is needed.

Interventions to address cancer-related financial toxicity: Recommendations from the field.

PURPOSE: Addressing financial toxicity among cancer patients is a complex process that requires a multifaceted approach, particularly for rural patients who may face additional cost-related barriers to care. In this study, we examined interventions being implemented by financial navigation staff at various cancer centers that help address financial toxicity experienced by oncology patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a convenience sample of financial navigation staff across 29 cancer centers in both rural and urban areas in 7 states. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Descriptive coding and thematic analysis techniques were used to analyze the data. FINDINGS: Thirty-five participants were interviewed, the majority of whom worked in cancer centers located in rural counties. Participants identified the use of screening tools, patient education, and access to tailored financial assistance resources as best practices. Immediate resource needs included additional financial navigation staff, including lay navigators and community health workers, to promote linkages to local resources. Suggested clinical areas for intervention included proactive and early implementation of financial assessments and discussions between providers and patients, along with training and access to regularly updated resources for those in financial navigator/counselor roles. Participants also discussed the need for policy-level interventions to reform health systems (including employment protections) and health insurance programs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing proactive methods to screen for and address financial needs of patients is essential to improving cancer-related outcomes. Additional programs and research are needed to help establish systematic and standardized methods to enhance financial navigation services, especially for underserved rural communities.

Patient navigator reported patient barriers and delivered activities in two large federally-funded cancer screening programs.

Few data are available on patient navigators (PNs) across diverse roles and organizational settings that could inform optimization of patient navigation models for cancer prevention. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and the Colorectal Cancer and Control Program (CRCCP) are two federally-funded screening programs that support clinical- and community-based PNs who serve low-income and un- or underinsured populations across the United States. An online survey assessing PN characteristics, delivered activities, and patient barriers to screening was completed by 437 of 1002 identified PNs (44%). Responding PNs were racially and ethnically diverse, had varied professional backgrounds and practice-settings, worked with diverse populations, and were located within rural and urban/suburban locations across the U.S. More PNs reported working to promote screening for breast/cervical cancers (BCC, 94%) compared to colorectal cancer (CRC, 39%). BCC and CRC PNs reported similar frequencies of individual- (e.g., knowledge, motivation, fear) and community-level patient barriers (e.g., beliefs about healthcare and screening). Despite reporting significant patient structural barriers (e.g., transportation, work and clinic hours), most BCC and CRC PNs delivered individual-level navigation activities (e.g., education, appointment reminders). PN training to identify and champion timely and patient-centered adjustments to organizational policies, practices, and norms of the NBCCEDP, CRCCP, and partner organizations may be beneficial. More research is needed to determine whether multilevel interventions that support this approach could reduce structural barriers and increase screening and diagnostic follow-up among the marginalized communities served by these two important cancer-screening programs.