Projected Costs of Informal Caregiving for Cardiovascular Disease: 2015 to 2035: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.

INTRODUCTION: In a recent report, the American Heart Association estimated that medical costs and productivity losses of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are expected to grow from $555 billion in 2015 to $1.1 trillion in 2035. Although the burden is significant, the estimate does not include the costs of family, informal, or unpaid caregiving provided to patients with CVD. In this analysis, we estimated projections of costs of informal caregiving attributable to CVD for 2015 to 2035. METHODS: We used data from the 2014 Health and Retirement Survey to estimate hours of informal caregiving for individuals with CVD by age/sex/race using a zero-inflated binomial model and controlling for sociodemographic factors and health conditions. Costs of informal caregiving were estimated separately for hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart failure, stroke, and other heart disease. We analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of 16 731 noninstitutionalized adults ≥54 years of age. The value of caregiving hours was monetized by the use of home health aide workers' wages. The per-person costs were multiplied by census population counts to estimate nation-level costs and to be consistent with other American Heart Association analyses of burden of CVD, and the costs were projected from 2015 through 2035, assuming that within each age/sex/racial group, CVD prevalence and caregiving hours remain constant. RESULTS: The costs of informal caregiving for patients with CVD were estimated to be $61 billion in 2015 and are projected to increase to $128 billion in 2035. Costs of informal caregiving of patients with stroke constitute more than half of the total costs of CVD informal caregiving ($31 billion in 2015 and $66 billion in 2035). By age, costs are the highest among those 65 to 79 years of age in 2015 but are expected to be surpassed by costs among those ≥80 years of age by 2035. Costs of informal caregiving for patients with CVD represent an additional 11% of medical and productivity costs attributable to CVD. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of informal caregiving for patients with CVD is significant; accounting for these costs increases total CVD costs to $616 billion in 2015 and $1.2 trillion in 2035. These estimates have important research and policy implications, and they may be used to guide policy development to reduce the burden of CVD on patients and their caregivers.

Stakeholder perspectives on addressing adverse events from adjuvant cancer therapy: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: With increasing survival rates, a growing population of patients with cancer have received or will receive adjuvant therapy to prevent cancer recurrences. Patients and caregivers will confront the complexities of balancing the preventative benefits of adjuvant therapy with possible near-term or long-term adverse events (AEs). Adjuvant treatment-related AEs (from minimal to severe) can impact therapeutic adherence, quality of life, emotional and physical health, and survival. However, to the authors' knowledge, limited information is available regarding how stakeholders use or desire to use adjuvant-related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer. METHODS: A qualitative, purposeful sampling approach was used to elicit stakeholder feedback via semistructured interviews (24 interviews). Drug development, drug regulatory, clinical, payer, and patient/patient advocacy stakeholders were questioned about the generation, dissemination, and use of adjuvant treatment-related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer. Transcripts were coded independently by 2 senior health care researchers and reconciled to identify key themes. RESULTS: All stakeholder groups in the current study identified needed improvements in each of the following 4 areas: 1) improving the accessibility and relevance of AE-related information; 2) better integrating and implementing available information regarding AEs for decisions; 3) connecting contemporary cultural and economic value systems to the generation and use of information regarding adjuvant treatment-related AEs; and 4) addressing a lack of alignment and ownership of stakeholder efforts to improve the use of AE information in the adjuvant setting. CONCLUSIONS: Despite commonalities in the overall needs identified by the diverse stakeholders in the current study, broad systemic change has been stymied. The current study identified the lack of alignment and the absence of a central "owner" of these diffuse efforts as a previously unrecognized hurdle to realizing the desired systemic improvements. Future initiatives aimed at improving quality of life and outcomes for patients receiving adjuvant therapy through the improved use of AE information must address this challenge through innovative collectives and novel leadership strategies.

Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care: critical components in the delivery of high-quality oncology services.

Palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are important collaborative referral sources for each other who can work together to improve the lives of cancer patients, survivors, and caregivers by improving both quality of care and quality of life. Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care involve the delivery of important but underutilized medical services to oncology patients by interdisciplinary teams. These subspecialties are similar in many respects, including their focus on improving cancer-related symptoms or cancer treatment-related side effects, improving health-related quality of life, lessening caregiver burden, and valuing patient-centered care and shared decision-making. They also aim to improve healthcare efficiencies and minimize costs by means such as reducing hospital lengths of stay and unanticipated readmissions. Although their goals are often aligned, different specialized skills and approaches are used in the delivery of care. For example, while each specialty prioritizes goal-concordant care through identification of patient and family preferences and values, palliative care teams typically focus extensively on using patient and family communication to determine their goals of care, while also tending to comfort issues such as symptom management and spiritual concerns. Rehabilitation clinicians may tend to focus more specifically on functional issues such as identifying and treating deficits in physical, psychological, or cognitive impairments and any resulting disability and negative impact on quality of life. Additionally, although palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are trained to diagnose and treat medically complex patients, rehabilitation clinicians also treat many patients with a single impairment and a low symptom burden. In these cases, the goal is often cure of the underlying neurologic or musculoskeletal condition. This report defines and describes cancer rehabilitation and palliative care, delineates their respective roles in comprehensive oncology care, and highlights how these services can contribute complementary components of essential quality care. An understanding of how cancer rehabilitation and palliative care are aligned in goal setting, but distinct in approach may help facilitate earlier integration of both into the oncology care continuum-supporting efforts to improve physical, psychological, cognitive, functional, and quality of life outcomes in patients and survivors.

Physician Workforce Disparities and Patient Care: A Narrative Review.

Background: Ensuring the strength of the physician workforce is essential to optimizing patient care. Challenges that undermine the profession include inequities in advancement, high levels of burnout, reduced career duration, and elevated risk for mental health problems, including suicide. This narrative review explores whether physicians within four subpopulations represented in the workforce at levels lower than predicted from their numbers in the general population-women, racial and ethnic minorities in medicine, sexual and gender minorities, and people with disabilities-are at elevated risk for these problems, and if present, how these problems might be addressed to support patient care. In essence, the underlying question this narrative review explores is as follows: Do physician workforce disparities affect patient care? While numerous articles and high-profile reports have examined the relationship between workforce diversity and patient care, to our knowledge, this is the first review to examine the important relationship between diversity-related workforce disparities and patient care. Methods: Five databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and EBSCO Discovery Service) were searched by a librarian. Additional resources were included by authors, as deemed relevant to the investigation. Results: The initial database searches identified 440 potentially relevant articles. Articles were categorized according to subtopics, including (1) underrepresented physicians and support for vulnerable patient populations; (2) factors that could exacerbate the projected physician deficit; (3) methods of addressing disparities among underrepresented physicians to support patient care; or (4) excluded (n=155). The authors identified another 220 potentially relevant articles. Of 505 potentially relevant articles, 199 (39.4%) were included in this review. Conclusions: This report demonstrates an important gap in the literature regarding the impact of physician workforce disparities and their effect on patient care. This is a critical public health issue and should be urgently addressed in future research and considered in clinical practice and policy decision-making.

Enhancing quality of life as a goal for anticancer therapeutics.

Translational cancer research requires a quality-of-life-driven agenda.

Reducing the toxicity of cancer therapy: recognizing needs, taking action.

Our understanding of the biology of cancer and the application of this knowledge to cancer treatment has greatly outpaced what we know of the biology underlying the symptoms and toxic effects that therapies produce. These adverse effects of therapy cause substantial discomfort and distress to patients and their families, limit treatment tolerability and can persist indefinitely in post-treatment survivorship. Despite these concerns, little research effort is targeted at documenting the nature of these effects. Similarly, limited efforts are being made in the drug-development arena to identify or develop treatments that might prevent or reduce toxicities. A panel of clinicians and researchers as well as representatives from advocacy groups, federal agencies and the pharmaceutical industry was convened to identify gaps in cancer treatment toxicity research and to provide direction for future action. With an emphasis on coordinating multidisciplinary efforts, this panel has presented a strategy to increase funding for the field and develop a coherent research agenda.