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.

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.

Financial burden, distress, and toxicity in cardiovascular disease.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major source of financial burden and distress, which has 3 main domains: (1) psychological distress; (2) cost-related care non-adherence or medical care deferral, and (3) tradeoffs with basic non-medical needs. We propose 4 ways to reduce financial distress in CVD: (1) policymakers can expand insurance coverage and curtail underinsurance; (2) health systems can limit expenditure on low-benefit, high-cost treatments while developing services for high-risk individuals; (3) physicians can engage in shared-decision-making for high-cost interventions, and (4) community-based initiatives can support patients with system navigation and financial coping. Avenues for research include (1) analysis of how healthcare policies affect financial burden; (2) comparative effectiveness studies examining high and low-cost strategies for CVD management; and (3) studying interventions to reduce financial burden, financial coaching, and community health worker integration.

Does social health insurance prevent financial hardship in Mongolia? Inpatient care: A case in point.

BACKGROUND: Protecting people from financial hardship and impoverishment due to health care costs is one of the fundamental purposes of the Mongolian health system. However, the inefficient, oversized hospital sector is considered one of the main shortcomings of the system. The aim of this study is to contribute to policy discussions by estimating the extent of catastrophic health expenditure and impoverishment due to inpatient care at secondary-level and tertiary-level public hospitals and private hospitals. METHODS: Data were derived from a nationally representative survey, the Household Socio-Economic Survey 2012, conducted by the National Statistical Office of Mongolia. A total of 12,685 households were involved in the study. "Catastrophic health expenditure" is defined as out-of-pocket payments for inpatient care that exceed a threshold of 40% of households' non-discretionary expenditure. The "impoverishment" effect of out-of-pocket payments for inpatient care was estimated as the difference between the poverty level before health care payments and the poverty level after these payments. RESULTS: At the threshold of 40% of capacity to pay, 0.31%, 0.07%, and 0.02% of Mongolian households suffered financially as a result of their member(s) staying in tertiary-level and secondary-level public hospitals and private hospitals respectively. About 0.13% of the total Mongolian population was impoverished owing to out-of-pocket payments for inpatient care at tertiary-level hospitals. Out-of-pocket payments for inpatient care at secondary-level hospitals and private hospitals were responsible for 0.10% and 0.09% respectively of the total population being pushed into poverty. CONCLUSIONS: Although most inpatient care at public hospitals is covered by the social health insurance benefit package, patients who utilized inpatient care at tertiary-level public hospitals were more likely to push their households into financial hardship and poverty than the inpatients at private hospitals. Improving the hospital sector's efficiency and financial protection for inpatients would be a crucial means of attaining universal health coverage in Mongolia.

Living Kidney Donors' Financial Expenses and Mental Health.

BACKGROUND: Living kidney donors incur donation-related expenses, but how these expenses impact postdonation mental health is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, the association between mental health and donor-incurred expenses (both out-of-pocket costs and lost wages) was examined in 821 people who donated a kidney at one of the 12 transplant centers in Canada between 2009 and 2014. Mental health was measured by the RAND Short Form-36 Health Survey along with Beck Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory. RESULTS: A total of 209 donors (25%) reported expenses of >5500 Canadian dollars. Compared with donors who incurred lower expenses, those who incurred higher expenses demonstrated significantly worse mental health-related quality of life 3 months after donation, with a trend towards worse anxiety and depression, after controlling for predonation mental health-related quality of life and other risk factors for psychological distress. Between-group differences for donors with lower and higher expenses on these measures were no longer significant 12 months after donation. CONCLUSIONS: Living kidney donor transplant programs should ensure that adequate psychosocial support is available to all donors who need it, based on known and unknown risk factors. Efforts to minimize donor-incurred expenses and to better support the mental well-being of donors need to continue. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of donor reimbursement programs, which mitigate donor expenses, on postdonation mental health.

Community intervention strategies to reduce the impact of financial strain and promote financial well-being: a comprehensive rapid review.

Financial well-being describes when people feel able to meet their financial obligations, feel financially secure and are able to make choices that benefit their quality of life. Financial strain occurs when people are unable to pay their bills, feel stressed about money and experience negative impacts on their quality of life and health. In the face of the global economic repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, community-led approaches are required to address the setting-specific needs of residents and reduce the adverse impacts of widespread financial strain. To encourage evidence-informed best practices, a provincial health authority and community-engaged research centre collaborated to conduct a rapid review. We augmented the rapid review with an environmental scan and interviews. Our data focused on Western Canada and was collected prior to the pandemic (May-September 2019). We identified eight categories of community-led strategies to promote financial well-being: systems navigation and access; financial literacy and skills; emergency financial assistance; asset building; events and attractions; employment and educational support; transportation; and housing. We noted significant gaps in the evidence, including methodological limitations of the included studies (e.g. generalisability, small sample size), a lack of reporting on the mechanisms leading to the outcomes and evaluation of long-term impacts, sparse practice-based data on evaluation methods and outcomes, and limited intervention details in the published literature. Critically, few of the included interventions specifically targeted financial strain and/or well-being. We discuss the implications of these gaps in addition to possibilities and priorities for future research and practice. We also consider the results in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic consequences.

Does health insurance protect against risk of financial catastrophe for pancreatic tumor care? A cost-based review of patients undergoing pancreatic resection at an academic institution.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of financial insolvency and cancer related deaths in the United States. The risk of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) was calculated for patients undergoing pancreatic resection at an academic institution. METHODS: Patients who underwent pancreatic resection between 2013 and 2017 were identified through an institutional cancer registry. A CHE was an out-of-pocket payment (OOP) > 10% of the estimated median household income. RESULTS: 319 patients met inclusion criteria. Hospital median charge was $76,700. 99% of patients had insurance and hospital bill adjustments. As a result, 61% (n = 193) made no OOP. Only 3 patients risked CHE. For all tumors combined there were no differences in survival outcomes by OOP. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to use institutional financial data to calculate CHE risk for pancreatic resection patients. Insurance adjustments to hospital charges that accompany health insurance and voluntary hospital adjustments for the uninsured protect patients against CHE.

A theoretical model of financial burden after cancer diagnosis.

Current models of financial burden after cancer do not adequately define types of financial burden, moderators or causes. We propose a new theoretical model to address these gaps. This model delineates the components of financial burden as material and psychological as well as healthcare-specific (affording treatment) versus general (affording necessities). Psychological financial burden is further divided into worry about future costs and rumination about past and current financial burden. The model hypothesizes costs and employment changes as causes, and moderators include precancer socioeconomic status and post-diagnosis factors. The model outlines outcomes affected by financial burden, including depression and mortality. Theoretically derived measures of financial burden, interventions and policy changes to address the causes of financial burden in cancer are needed.

Medical-Financial Partnerships: Cross-Sector Collaborations Between Medical and Financial Services to Improve Health.

Financial stress is the root cause of many adverse health outcomes among poor and low-income children and their families, yet few clinical interventions have been developed to improve health by directly addressing patient and family finances. Medical-Financial Partnerships (MFPs) are novel cross-sector collaborations in which health care systems and financial service organizations work collaboratively to improve health by reducing patient financial stress, primarily in low-income communities. Financial services provided by MFPs include individually tailored financial coaching, free tax preparation, budgeting, debt reduction, savings support, and job assistance, among others. MFPs have been shown to improve finances and, in the few existing studies available, health outcomes. We describe the rationale for MFPs and examine 8 established MFPs providing financial services under 1 of 3 models: full-scope on-site service partnerships; targeted on-site service partnerships; and partnerships facilitating referral to off-site financial services. The services MFPs provide complement clinical social risk screening and navigation programs by preventing or repairing common financial problems that would otherwise lead to poverty-related social needs, such as food and housing insecurity. We identify common themes, as well as unique strengths and solutions to a variety of implementation challenges MFPs commonly encounter. Given that the financial circumstances and health outcomes of socially marginalized patients and families are closely linked, MFPs represent a promising and feasible cross-sector service delivery approach and a new model for upstream health care to promote synergistic financial well-being and health improvement.