Toward identification and intervention to address financial toxicity and unmet health-related social needs among adolescents and emerging adults with cancer and their caregivers: A cross-cultural perspective.

PURPOSE: We qualitatively explored the unique needs and preferences for financial toxicity screening and interventions to address financial toxicity among adolescents and emerging adults (younger AYAs: 15-25 years) with cancer and their caregivers. METHODS: We recruited English- or Spanish-speaking younger AYAs who were treated for cancer within the past 2 years and their caregivers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore preferences for screening and interventional study development to address financial toxicity. The data were coded using conventional content analysis. Codes were reviewed with the study team, and interviews continued until saturation was reached; codes were consolidated into categories and themes during consensus discussions. RESULTS: We interviewed 17 participants; nine were younger AYAs. Seven of the 17 preferred to speak Spanish. We identified three cross-cutting themes: burden, support, and routine, consistent, and clear. The burden came in the form of unexpected costs such as transportation to appointments, as well as emotional burdens such as AYAs worrying about how much their family sacrificed for their care or caregivers worrying about the AYA's physical and financial future. Support, in the form of familial, community, healthcare institution, and insurance, was critical to mitigating the effects of financial toxicity in this population. Participants emphasized the importance of meeting individual financial needs by routinely and consistently asking about financial factors and providing clear guidance to navigate these needs. CONCLUSION: Younger AYAs and their caregivers experience significant financial challenges and unmet health-related social needs during cancer treatment and often rely on key supports to alleviate these unmet needs. When developing interventions to mitigate financial toxicity, clinicians and health systems should prioritize clear, consistent, and tailorable approaches to support younger AYA cancer survivors and their families.

The suffering is expensive: comparison of therapeutic costs between palliative care and dysthanasia patients / El sufrimiento es caro: comparación de costos terapéuticos entre pacientes en cuidados paliativos y distanasia

Objectives: Several studies highlight benefits of palliative care for patients with life-threatening illnesses, especially in terms of pain control and improving life quality. However, there is still research gap, particularly in the Brazilian context, regarding its ability to reduce costs associated with unnecessary invasive tests and procedures often invested in dysthanasia patients, thereby relieving the burden on the healthcare system. Given this scenario, the objective was to determine whether there is a significant difference in healthcare costs between cancer patients receiving palliative care and those in dysthanasia. Method: Documentary research, analyzing 94 medical records of patients who died from cancer in a hospital, divided into two groups: 47 in palliative care and 47 in dysthanasia. The groups had their average costs compared by surveying all tests and procedures recorded in the last 30 days of each patient’s life, with values scored based on the price table of the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde). Results: Patients receiving curative care in dysthanasia incurred an average cost of 2,316.92 Brazilian Reais (SD = 3,146.60) for tests and procedures in the last 30 days of life. Patients in palliative care had an average cost of 945.40 Brazilian Reais (SD = 2,508.01). There is a statistically significant difference in the invested values between patients in palliative care and those in dysthanasia (U = 620.00; Z = -4.334; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Implementing palliative care can be considered an effective strategy for reducing hospital costs, leading to significant savings within the healthcare system.AU)

Objetivo: Varios estudios destacan los beneficios de los cuidados paliativos para pacientes con enfermedades potencialmente mortales, especialmente en términos de control del dolor y mejora de la calidad de vida. Sin embargo, todavía existe un vacío de investigación, particularmente en el contexto brasileño, con respecto a su capacidad para reducir los costos asociados con pruebas y procedimientos invasivos innecesarios que a menudo se invierten en pacientes con distanasia, aliviando así la carga sobre el sistema de salud. Ante este escenario, el objetivo fue determinar si existe una diferencia significativa en los costos de atención médica entre los pacientes con cáncer que reciben cuidados paliativos y aquellos en distanasia. Método: Investigación documental, analizando 94 historias clínicas de pacientes que fallecieron por cáncer en un hospital, divididas en dos grupos: 47 en cuidados paliativos y 47 en distanasia. Los grupos compararon sus costos promedio encuestando todas las pruebas y procedimientos registrados en los últimos 30 días de vida de cada paciente, con valores puntuados con base en la tabla de precios del Sistema Único de Salud. Resultados: Los pacientes que recibieron atención curativa en distanasia incurrieron en un costo promedio de 2,316,92 reales brasileños (SD=3.146,60) por pruebas y procedimientos en los últimos 30 días de vida. Los pacientes en cuidados paliativos tuvieron un costo promedio de 945,40 reales brasileños (DE=2,508,01). Existe una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en los valores invertidos entre pacientes en cuidados paliativos y aquellos en distanasia (U=620,00; Z=-4,334; p<0,001). Conclusiones: La implementación de cuidados paliativos puede considerarse una estrategia eficaz.(AU)

Cost-Utility Analysis of Geriatric Assessment and Management in Older Adults With Cancer: Economic Evaluation Within 5C Trial.

PURPOSE: Geriatric assessment (GA) is a guideline-recommended approach to optimize cancer management in older adults. We conducted a cost-utility analysis alongside the 5C randomized controlled trial to compare GA and management (GAM) plus usual care (UC) against UC alone in older adults with cancer. METHODS: The economic evaluation, conducted from societal and health care payer perspectives, used a 12-month time horizon. The Canadian 5C study randomly assigned patients to receive GAM or UC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using the EuroQol five dimension-5L questionnaire and health care utilization using cost diaries and chart reviews. We evaluated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for the full sample and preselected subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were included, of whom 173 received GAM and 177 UC. At 12 months, the average QALYs per patient were 0.728 and 0.751 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔQALY, -0.023 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.028]). Considering a societal perspective, the total average costs (in 2021 Canadian dollars) per patient were $46,739 and $45,177 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔCost, $1,563 [95% CI, -$6,583 to $10,403]). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, GAM was not cost-effective compared with UC (INMB, -$2,713 [95% CI, -$11,767 to $5,801]). The INMB was positive ($2,984 [95% CI, -$7,050 to $14,179]; probability of being cost-effective, 72%) for patients treated with curative intent, but remained negative for patients treated with palliative intent (INMB, -$9,909 [95% CI, -$24,436 to $4,153]). Findings were similar considering a health care payer perspective. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first cost-utility analysis of GAM in cancer. GAM was cost-effective for patients with cancer treated with curative but not with palliative intent. The study provides further considerations for future adoption of GAM in practice.

The Effect of Health Insurance on Pediatric Cancer Survival: An Analysis of Children Evaluated for Radiation Therapy in Diverse Multicenter Health Systems.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the role of health insurance in cancer survival in a diverse population of pediatric radiation oncology patients could help to identify patients at risk of adverse outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from cancer patients evaluated for radiation therapy, age < 19, diagnosed from January 1990 to August 2019. Predictors of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by univariable and multivariable Cox regression. Variables included health insurance, diagnosis type, sex, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status deprivation index. RESULTS: The study included 459 patients with a median diagnosis age of 9 years. Demographic breakdown was 49.5% Hispanic, 27.2% non-Hispanic White, and 20.7% non-Hispanic Black. There were 203 recurrences and 86 deaths observed over a median follow-up of 2.4 years. Five-year RFS was 59.8% (95% CI, 51.6, 67.0) versus 36.5% (95% CI, 26.6, 46.6), and 5-year OS was 87.5% (95% CI, 80.9, 91.9) versus 71.0% (95% CI, 60.3, 79.3) in private pay insurance versus Medicaid/Medicare, respectively. Multivariable showed Medicaid/Medicare patients experienced a 54% higher risk of recurrence (hazard ratio: 1.54, 95% CI, 1.08, 2.20) and 79% higher risk of death (hazard ratio: 1.79, 95% CI, 1.02, 3.14) than privately insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: Significant disadvantages in RFS and OS were identified in radiation oncology patients with Medicaid/Medicare insurance, even after adjusting for clinical and demographic variables.

Financial toxicity assessment and associated factors analysis of patients with cancer in China.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related expenditures present a lasting economic burden on patients and their families and may exert long-term adverse effects on the patients' life and quality of life. In this study, the comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST) was used to investigate the financial toxicity (FT) levels and related risk factors in Chinese patients with cancer. METHODS: Quantitative data were collected through a questionnaire covering three aspects: sociodemographic information, economic and behavioral cost-coping strategies, and the COST scale. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with FT. RESULTS: According to 594 completed questionnaires, the COST score ranged 0-41, with a median of 18 (mean±SD, 17.98±7.978). Over 80% of patients with cancer reported at least moderate FT (COST score <26). A multivariate model showed that urban residents, coverage by other health insurance policies, and higher household income and consumption expenditures were significantly associated with higher COST scores, indicative of lower FT. The middle-aged (45-59 years old), higher out-of-pocket (OOP) medication expenditures and hospitalizations, borrowed money, and forgone treatment were all significantly associated with lower COST scores, indicating higher FT. CONCLUSION: Severe FT was associated with sociodemographic factors among Chinese patients with cancer, family financial factors, and economic and behavioral cost-coping strategies. Government should identify and manage the patients with high-risk characteristics of FT and work out better health policies for them.

Cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit in Ethiopia.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit in Ethiopia to inform the revision of the Ethiopia Essential Health Service Package (EEHSP), which ranks the treatment of childhood cancers at a low and medium priority. METHODS: We built a decision analytical model-a decision tree-to estimate the cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit compared with a do-nothing scenario (no paediatric oncology care) from a healthcare provider perspective. We used the recently (2018-2019) conducted costing estimate for running the paediatric oncology unit at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH) and employed a mixed costing approach (top-down and bottom-up). We used data on health outcomes from other studies in similar settings to estimate the disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted of running a paediatric oncology unit compared with a do-nothing scenario over a lifetime horizon. Both costs and effects were discounted (3%) to the present value. The primary outcome was incremental cost in US dollars (USDs) per DALY averted, and we used a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50% of the Ethiopian gross domestic product per capita (USD 477 in 2019). Uncertainty was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The incremental cost and DALYs averted per child treated in the paediatric oncology unit at TASH were USD 876 and 2.4, respectively, compared with no paediatric oncology care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of running a paediatric oncology unit was USD 361 per DALY averted, and it was cost-effective in 90% of 100 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a USD 477 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of paediatric cancer services using a specialised oncology unit is most likely cost-effective in Ethiopia, at least for easily treatable cancer types in centres with minimal to moderate capability. We recommend reassessing the priority-level decision of childhood cancer treatment in the current EEHSP.

Radiotherapy Deserts: The Impact of Race, Poverty, and the Rural-Urban Continuum on Density of Providers and the Use of Radiation Therapy in the US.

PURPOSE: Prior efforts to characterize disparities in radiation therapy access and receipt have not comprehensively investigated interplay between race, socioeconomic status, and geography relative to oncologic outcomes. This study sought to define these complex relationships at the US county level for prostate cancer (PC) and invasive breast (BC) cancer to build a tool that facilitates identification of "radiotherapy deserts"-regions with mismatch between radiation therapy resources and oncologic need. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An ecologic study model was constructed using national databases to evaluate 3,141 US counties. Radiation therapy resources and use densities were operationalized as physicians to persons at risk (PPR) and use to persons at risk (UPR): the number of attending radiation oncologists and Medicare beneficiaries per 100,000 persons at risk, respectively. Oncologic need was defined by "hot zone" counties with ≥2 standard deviations (SDs) above mean incidence and death rates. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions examined links between PPR and UPR densities, epidemiologic variables, and hot zones for oncologic outcomes. Statistics are reported at a significance level of P < .05. RESULTS: The mean (SD) PPR and UPR densities were 2.1 (5.9) and 192.6 (557.6) for PC and 1.9 (5.3) and 174.4 (501.0) for BC, respectively. Counties with high PPR and UPR densities were predominately metropolitan (odds ratio [OR], 2.9-4.4), generally with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents (OR, 1.5-2.3). Incidence and death rate hot zones were largely nonmetropolitan (OR, 0.3-0.6), generally with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents (OR, 3.2-6.3). Lower PPR density was associated with death rate hot zones for both types of cancer (OR, 0.8-0.9); UPR density was generally not linked to oncologic outcomes on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The study found that mismatch between oncologic need with PPR and UPR disproportionately affects nonmetropolitan communities with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents. An interactive web platform (bit.ly/densitymaps) was developed to visualize "radiotherapy deserts" and drive targeted investigation of underlying barriers to care in areas of highest need, with the goal of reducing health inequities in this context.

Understanding the role of access in Hispanic cancer screening disparities.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic populations in the United States experience numerous barriers to care access. It is unclear how cancer screening disparities between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White individuals are explained by access to care, including having a usual source of care and health insurance coverage. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the 2019 National Health Interview Survey was conducted and included respondents who were sex- and age-eligible for cervical (n = 8316), breast (n = 6025), or colorectal cancer screening (n = 11,313). The proportion of ever screened and up to date for each screening type was compared.  Regression models evaluated whether controlling for reporting a usual source of care and type of health insurance (public, private, none) attenuated disparities between Hispanics and non-Hispanic White individuals. RESULTS: Hispanic individuals were less likely than non-Hispanic White individuals to be up to date with cervical cancer screening (71.6% vs. 74.6%) and colorectal cancer screening (52.9% vs. 70.3%), but up-to-date screening was similar for breast cancer (78.8% vs. 76.3%). Hispanic individuals (vs. non-Hispanic White) were less likely to have a usual source of care (77.9% vs. 86.0%) and more likely to be uninsured (23.6% vs. 7.1%). In regressions, insurance fully attenuated cervical cancer disparities. Controlling for both usual source of care and insurance type explained approximately half of the colorectal cancer screening disparities (adjusted risk difference: -8.3 [-11.2 to -4.8]). CONCLUSION: Addressing the high rate of uninsurance among Hispanic individuals could mitigate cancer screening disparities. Future research should build on the relative successes of breast cancer screening and investigate additional barriers for colorectal cancer screening. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study uses data from a national survey to compare cancer screening use those who identify as Hispanic with those who identify as non-Hispanic White. Those who identify as Hispanic are much less likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening than those who identify as non-Hispanic White, slightly less likely to be up to date on cervical cancer screening, and similarly likely to receive breast cancer screening. Improving insurance coverage is important for health equity, as is further exploring what drives higher use of breast cancer screening and lower use of colorectal cancer screening.

Defining the Role of the Modern Oncology Provider in Mitigating Financial Toxicity.

Financial toxicity, the cumulative financial hardships resulting from cancer diagnosis and treatment, is a growing problem in the United States. With the proliferation of costly novel therapeutics and improved cancer survival, financial toxicity will remain a major issue in cancer care delivery. Frontline oncology providers serve as gatekeepers in the medical system and, as such, could play essential roles in recognizing and addressing financial toxicity. Providers and health systems could help mitigate financial toxicity through routine financial toxicity screening, financial navigation, and advocacy. Specific strategies include developing and implementing financial screening instruments that can be integrated in electronic medical records and establishing team-based financial navigation programs to help patients with out-of-pocket medical costs, nonmedical spending, and insurance optimization. Finally, providers should continue to advocate for policies and legislation that decrease cost and promote value-based care. In this review, we examine opportunities for provider engagement in these areas and highlight gaps for future research.

Describing financial toxicity among cancer patients in different income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: There is limited evidence of financial toxicity (FT) among cancer patients from countries of various income levels. Hence, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of objective and subjective FT and their measurements in relation to cancer treatment. Methods: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched to find studies that examined FT. There was no limit on the design or setting of the study. Random-effects meta-analysis was utilized to obtain the pooled prevalence of objective FT. Results: Out of 244 identified studies during the initial screening, only 64 studies were included in this review. The catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) method was often used in the included studies to determine the objective FT. The pooled prevalence of CHE was 47% (95% CI: 24.0-70.0) in middle- and high-income countries, and the highest percentage was noted in low-income countries (74.4%). A total of 30 studies focused on subjective FT, of which 9 used the Comprehensive Score for FT (COST) tool and reported median scores ranging between 17.0 and 31.9. Conclusion: This study shows that cancer patients from various income-group countries experienced a significant financial burden during their treatment. It is imperative to conduct further studies on interventions and policies that can lower FT caused by cancer treatment.

A scoping review on patient heterogeneity in economic evaluations of precision medicine based on basket trials.

INTRODUCTION: Considerable challenges in the economic evaluation of precision medicines have been mentioned in previous studies. However, they have not addressed how an economic assessment would be conducted based on basket trials (novel studies for evaluation of precision medicine effects) in which the included populations have specific biomarkers and various cancers. Since basket trial populations have remarkable heterogeneity, this study aims to investigate the concept of heterogeneity and specific method(s) for considering it in economic evaluations through guidelines and studies that could be applicable in economic evaluation based on basket trials. AREA COVERED: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google to find studies and pharmacoeconomics guidelines. The inclusion criteria included subjects of patient heterogeneity and suggested explicit method(s). Thirty-nine guidelines and 43 studies were included and evaluated. None of these materials mentioned disease types in a target population as a factor causing heterogeneity. Moreover, in economic evaluations, patient heterogeneity has been considered with four general approaches subgroup analysis, individual-based models, sensitivity analysis, and regression models. EXPERT OPINION: Type of disease is not considered a contributing factor in population heterogeneity, and the probable appropriate method for this issue could be individual-based models.

Current State of Funded National Cancer Institute Grants That Include Economic Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Health economics research is an integral part of the transdisciplinary research supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). To better understand NCI activities in this area, we conducted a portfolio analysis of funded NCI grants including health economics research. METHODS: We examined all competitive grants funded by NCI from fiscal years 2015 to 2020 that included economic analyses or outcomes. Grant titles, abstracts, and specific aims were independently reviewed by 2 study team members; content of included grants was then coded for analysis. RESULTS: A total 212 grants were identified from searches; 146 of these included economic analyses and were included in the portfolio analysis. These 146 grants represent approximately 0.9% of all NCI competitively funded grants awarded 2015-2020. Of these grants, 100 were R01 awards, representing approximately 2.4% of all NCI R01 grants funded 2015-2020. The most common study type was interventional randomized controlled-trial, followed by simulation or model. Screening and prevention were the most frequent grant cancer continuum topic; survivorship was included in only 16 grants (11.0%). Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most frequently listed economic outcome (97 grants, 66.4%), whereas policy impact (20 grants, 13.7%) and financial hardship (15 grants, 10.3%) were less-frequently included economic outcomes. However, economic outcomes differed by cancer control continuum topic, with financial hardship being included in a greater proportion of treatment and survivorship grants. CONCLUSIONS: Although relatively small, the NCI portfolio of funded grants including economic analyses is diverse, covering a range of cancer types, methods, and economic outcomes, and increasing over time.

Short- and long-term impact of cancer on employment and financial outcomes of adolescents and young adults (AYAs): a large population-based case-control registry study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors, 18-39 years at initial cancer diagnosis, often self-report negative consequences of cancer (treatment) for their career. Less is known, however, about the objective impact of cancer on employment and financial outcomes. This study examines the employment and financial outcomes of AYA cancer survivors with nationwide population-based registry data and compares the outcomes of AYAs with cancer with an age- and sex-matched control population at year of diagnosis, 1 year later (short-term) and 5 years later (long-term). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2527 AYAs, diagnosed in 2013 with any invasive tumor type and who survived for 5 years, were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (clinical and demographic data) and linked to Statistics Netherlands (demographic, employment and financial data). AYAs were matched 1 : 4 with a control population based on age and sex (10 108 controls). Analyses included descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, independent samples t-tests, McNemar tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: AYA cancer survivors were significantly less often employed compared with their controls 1 year (76.1% versus 79.5%, P < 0.001) and 5 years (79.3% versus 83.5%, P < 0.001) after diagnosis, and received more often disability benefits (9.9% versus 3.1% 1 year after diagnosis, P < 0.001; 11.2% versus 3.8% 5 years after diagnosis, P < 0.001). Unemployed AYAs were more often diagnosed with higher disease stages (P < 0.001), treated with chemotherapy (P < 0.001), radiotherapy (P < 0.001) or hormone therapy (P < 0.05) and less often with local surgery (P < 0.05) compared with employed AYAs 1 and 5 years after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Based on objective, nationwide, population-based registry data, AYAs' employment and financial outcomes are significantly affected compared with age- and sex-matched controls, both short and long-term after cancer diagnosis. Providing support regarding employment and financial outcomes from diagnosis onwards may help AYAs finding their way (back) into society.

Disparities in healthcare expenditures according to economic status in cancer patients undergoing end-of-life care.

BACKGROUNDS: A desire for better outcome influences cancer patients' willingness to pay. Whilst cancer-related costs are known to have a u-shaped distribution, the actual level of healthcare utilized by patients may vary depending on income and ability to pay. This study examined patterns of healthcare expenditures in the last year of life in patients with gastric, colorectal, lung, and liver cancer and analyzed whether differences exist in the level of end-of-life costs for cancer care according to economic status. METHODS: This study is a retrospective cohort study which used data from the Korean National Elderly Sampled Cohort, 2002 to 2015. End-of-life was defined as 1 year before death. Economic status was classified into three categorical variables according to the level of insurance premium (quantiles). The relationship between the dependent and independent variables were analyzed using multiple gamma regression based on the generalized estimated equation (GEE) model. RESULTS: This study included 3083 cancer patients, in which total healthcare expenditure was highest in the high-income group. End-of-life costs increased the most in the last 3 months of life. Compared to individuals in the 'middle' economic status group, those in the 'high' economic status group (RR 1.095, 95% CI 1.044-1.149) were likely to spend higher amounts. The percentage of individuals visiting a general hospital was highest in the 'high' economic status group, followed by the 'middle' and 'low' economic status groups. CONCLUSION: Healthcare costs for cancer care increased at end-of-life in Korea. Patients of higher economic status tended to spender higher amounts of end-of-life costs for cancer care. Further in-depth studies are needed considering that end-of-life medical costs constitute a large proportion of overall expenditures. This study offers insight by showing that expenditures for cancer care tend to increase noticeably in the last 3 months of life and that differences exist in the amount spent according economic status.