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.

Addressing financial toxicity in cancer treatment-An opportunity for the 340B drug pricing program.

Cancer treatment has become increasingly expensive, partially due to the use of specialty drugs. The costs of these drugs are often passed down to patients, who may face the consequences of paying for more than they can afford, leading to financial toxicity. The 340B drug pricing program is a health care policy that may provide an opportunity to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer care. The 340B program requires manufacturers to sell outpatient drugs at a discount to hospitals caring for a significant number of socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. The program intended for hospitals to use savings from discounted purchases to expand their safety net to vulnerable patients. Some studies have shown that participating hospitals do this by offering more charity and discounted care, whereas others have demonstrated that hospitals fail to sufficiently expand their safety net. A potential flaw of the program is the lack of guidance from governing bodies on how hospitals should use savings from discounted purchases. There has been growing discussion among stakeholders to reform the 340B program given the mixed findings of its effectiveness. With the rising costs of specialty drugs and associated prevalence of financial toxicity in patients with cancer, there is an opportunity to address these issues through reform that improves the program. Directing hospitals to offer specific safety net opportunities, such as passing along discounted drug prices to vulnerable populations, could help the growing number of patients who are financially burdened by medications at the core of the 340B program.

Financial hardship among siblings of long-term survivors of childhood cancer: A Childhood Cancer Survivor Study report.

BACKGROUND: Siblings of children with cancer may experience adverse household economic consequences, but their financial outcomes in adulthood are unknown. METHODS: A total of 880 siblings (aged 18-64 years) of adult-aged childhood cancer survivors were surveyed to estimate the prevalence of financial hardship by three established domains (behavioral, material, and psychological). For individual financial hardship items matching the contemporaneous National Health Interview Survey or Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, siblings were compared with the general population by calculating adjusted prevalence odds ratios (ORs) to sample-weighted responses. Multivariable logistic regression models examined associations between sibling characteristics and each hardship domain and between sibling hardship and survivors' cancer/treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Behavioral, material, and psychological hardship was reported by 24%, 35%, and 28%, respectively. Compared with national survey respondents, siblings were more likely to report worries about medical bills (OR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.22), difficulty affording nutritious foods (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.54-2.07), and forgoing needed medical care (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.73), prescription medications (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.99-3.20), and dental care (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.15-1.57) because of cost. Sibling characteristics associated with reporting financial hardship in one or more domains included female sex, older age, chronic health conditions, lower income, not having health insurance, high out-of-pocket medical expenditures, and nonmedical/nonhome debt. No survivor cancer/treatment characteristics were associated with sibling financial hardship. CONCLUSIONS: Adult siblings of childhood cancer survivors were more likely to experience financial hardship compared with the general population. Childhood cancer may adversely affect entire households, with potentially lasting implications.

Financial toxicity in living donor liver transplantation: A call to action for financial neutrality.

After 2 decades of limited growth, living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been increasingly accepted as a promising solution to the growing organ shortage in the US. With experience, LDLT offers superior graft and patient survival with low rates of rejection. However, not all waitlisted patients have equal access to LDLT, with financial toxicity representing a substantial barrier. Potential living liver donors face indirect, direct, and opportunity costs associated with donation as well as insurance-based discrimination and variable employer leave policies. There are multiple potential national, local, and patient-centered solutions to address some of the cost-related issues associated with living LDLT. These include standardization of employer leave policies, creation of federal and state-led tax relief programs, optimization of National Living Donor Assistance Center use, engagement of independent living donor advocates, creation of financial toolkits, and encouragement of recipient or donor-led fundraising. In this piece, members of the North American Living Liver Donation Group, a consortium of 37 LDLT programs, explore these financial challenges and discuss solutions to achieve financial neutrality, where individuals can donate free from financial constraints or gains. As a community, it is imperative that we confront factors driving financial toxicity to improve equity and access to LDLT.

Financial Toxicity: Unveiling the Burden of Cancer Care on Patients in Rwanda.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is a major public health problem in Rwanda and other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While there have been some improvements in access to cancer treatment, the cost of care has increased, leading to financial toxicity and treatment barriers for many patients. This study explores the financial toxicity of cancer care in Rwanda. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at 3 referral hospitals in Rwanda, which deliver most of the country's cancer care. Data were collected over 6 months from June 1 to December 1, 2022 by trained research assistants (RAs) using a modified validated data collection tool. RAs interviewed consecutive eligible patients with breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who were on active systemic therapy. The study aimed to identify sources of financial burden. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 239 patients were included; 75% (n = 180/239) were female and mean age was 51 years. Breast, cervix, and colorectal cancers were the most common diagnoses (42%, 100/239; 24%, 58/239; and 24%, 57/239, respectively) and 54% (n = 129/239) were diagnosed with advanced stage (stages III-IV). Financial burden was high; 44% (n = 106/239) of respondents sold property, 29% (n = 70/239) asked for charity from public, family, or friends, and 16% (n = 37/239) took loans with interest to fund cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite health insurance which covers many elements of cancer care, a substantial proportion of patients on anti-cancer treatment in Rwanda experience major financial toxicity. Novel health financing solutions are needed to ensure accessible and affordable cancer care.

Breast Cancer-Related Financial Toxicity in Sri Lanka: Insights From a Lower Middle-Income Country With Free Universal Public Healthcare.

Financial toxicity (FT) describes either objective or perceived excess financial strain due to a cancer diagnosis on the well-being of patients, families, and society. The consequences of FT have been shown to span countries of varied economic tiers and diverse healthcare models. This study attempts to describe FT and its effects in a lower- to middle-income country delivering predominantly public nonfee-levying healthcare. This was a cross-sectional study involving 210 patients with breast cancer of any stage (I to IV), interviewed between 6 and 18 months from the date of diagnosis. Financial toxicity was highly prevalent with 81% reporting 3 or more on a scale of 1 to 5. Costs incurred for travelling (94%), out-of-hospital investigations (87%), and consultation fees outside the public system (81%) were the most common contributors to FT. Daily compromises for food and education were made by 30% and 20%, respectively, with loss of work seen in over one-third. Greater FT was seen with advanced cancer stage and increasing distance to the nearest radiotherapy unit (P = .008 and .01, respectively). Family and relatives were the most common form of financial support (77.6%). In conclusion, FT is substantial in our group, with many having to make daily compromises for basic needs. Many opt to visit the fee-levying private sector for at least some part of their care, despite the availability of an established public nonfee-levying healthcare.

Oncology drug pricing: potential Medicare savings on cancer-directed and supportive care medications through the Mark Cuban cost plus drug model.

Prescription drug costs within oncology remain a challenge for many patients with cancer. The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) launched in 2022, aiming to provide transparently priced medications at reduced costs. In this study, we sought to describe the potential impact of MCCPDC on Medicare Part-D oncology spending related to cancer-directed (n = 7) and supportive care (n = 26) drugs. We extracted data for drug-specific Part-D claims and spending for 2021. Using 90-count purchases from MCCPDC, we found potential Part-D savings of $857.8 million (91% savings) across the 7 cancer-directed drugs and $28.7 million (67% savings) across 21/26 (5/26 did not demonstrate savings) supportive care drugs. Collectively, our findings support that alternative purchasing models like MCCPDC may promote substantial health care savings.

Statewide Cancer Drug Repository Reducing Waste in the Setting of Shortage Crisis.

Disparities in cancer treatment, including access to medications, continue to exist. Rising drug prices and cancer drug shortages are 2 causes of inequitable access to treatment. This article introduces pilot outcomes for a solution to improve access to medications while also decreasing medication waste. Cancer drug repositories are an innovative patient-centered model where donations of unused cancer medications from patients are repurposed and provided to patients who are most vulnerable and disproportionately harmed by financial toxicity. This model demonstrates efficiency and sustainability that complements integrated care and provides an approach to increase medication access and decrease medication waste.

National survey of patient perspectives on cost discussions among recipients of copay assistance.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with cancer and other medical conditions often experience financial concerns from high costs-of-care and may utilize copay assistance programs (CAP). We sought to describe CAP recipients' experiences/preferences for cost discussions with clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a national, cross-sectional electronic-survey from 10/2022 to 11/2022 of CAP recipients with cancer or autoimmune conditions to assess patient perspectives on cost discussions. We used multivariable logistic regression models to explore associations of patient perspectives on cost discussions with patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes (eg, financial toxicity, depression/anxiety, and health literacy). RESULTS: Among 1,566 participants, 71% had cancer and 29% had autoimmune conditions. Although 62% of respondents desired cost discussions, only 32% reported discussions took place. Additionally, 52% of respondents wanted their doctor to consider out-of-pocket costs when deciding the best treatment, and 61% of respondents felt doctors should ensure patients can afford treatment prescribed. Participants with depression symptoms were more likely to want doctors to consider out-of-pocket costs (OR = 1.54, P = .005) and to believe doctors should ensure patients can afford treatment (OR = 1.60, P = .005). Those with severe financial toxicity were more likely to desire cost discussions (OR = 1.65, P < .001) and want doctors to consider out-of-pocket costs (OR = 1.52, P = .001). Participants with marginal/inadequate health literacy were more likely to desire cost discussions (OR = 1.37, P = .01) and believe doctors should ensure patients can afford treatment (OR = 1.30, P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: In this large sample of CAP recipients with cancer and autoimmune conditions, most reported a desire for cost discussions, but under one-third reported such discussions took place.

Rates of price disclosure associated with the surgical treatment of early-stage breast cancer one year after implementation of federal regulations.

PURPOSE: Mastectomy, breast reconstruction (BR) and breast conserving therapy (BCT) are core components of the treatment paradigm for early-stage disease but are differentially associated with significant financial burdens. Given recent price transparency regulations, we sought to characterize rates of disclosure for breast cancer-related surgery, including mastectomy, BCT, and BR (oncoplastic reconstruction, implant, pedicled flap and free flap) and identify associated factors. METHODS: For this cross-sectional analysis, cost reports were obtained from the Turquoise Health price transparency platform for all U.S. hospitals meeting national accreditation standards for breast cancer care. The Healthcare Cost Report Information System was used to collect facility-specific data. Addresses were geocoded to identify hospital referral and census regions while data from CMS was also used to identify the geographic practice cost index. We leveraged a Poisson regression model and relevant Medicare billing codes to analyze factors associated with price disclosure and the availability of an OOP price estimator. RESULTS: Of 447 identified hospitals, 221 (49.4%) disclosed prices for mastectomy and 188 42.1%) disclosed prices for both mastectomy and some form of reconstruction including oncoplastic reduction (n = 184, 97.9%), implants (n = 187, 99.5%), pedicled flaps (n = 89, 47.3%), and free flaps (n = 81, 43.1%). Non-profit status and increased market competition were associated with price nondisclosure. 121 hospitals (27.1%) had an out-of-pocket price estimator that included at least one breast surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Most eligible hospitals did not disclose prices for breast cancer surgery. Distinct hospital characteristics were associated with price disclosure. Breast cancer patients face persistent difficulty in accessing costs.

Characterizing "collateral damage" in men and women with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds in New York City.

PURPOSE: Patients from diverse racial, ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds may be particularly vulnerable to experiencing undue social and financial burdens ("collateral damage") from a metastatic breast cancer (mBC) diagnosis; however, these challenges have not been well explored in diverse populations. METHODS: From May 2022 to May 2023, English- or Spanish-speaking adults with mBC treated at four New York-Presbyterian (NYP) sites were invited to complete a survey that assessed collateral damage, social determinants of health, physical and psychosocial well-being, and patient-provider communication. Fisher's exact and the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum tests assessed differences by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Of 87 respondents, 14% identified as Hispanic, 28% non-Hispanic Black (NHB), 41% non-Hispanic White (NHW), 7% Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI), and 10% other/multiracial. While 100% of Hispanic, NHW, and AAPI participants reported stable housing, 29% of NHB participants were worried about losing housing (p = 0.002). Forty-two percent of Hispanic and 46% of NHB participants (vs. 8%, NHW and 0%, AAPI, p = 0.005) were food insecure; 18% of Hispanic and 17% of NHB adults indicated lack of reliable transportation in the last year (vs. 0%, NHW/AAPI, p = 0.033). Participants were generally satisfied with the quality of communication that they had with their healthcare providers and overall physical and mental well-being were modestly poorer relative to healthy population norms. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, NHB and Hispanic mBC patients reported higher levels of financial concern and were more likely to experience food and transportation insecurity compared to NHW patients. Systematically connecting patients with resources to address unmet needs should be prioritized to identify feasible approaches to support economically vulnerable patients following an mBC diagnosis.

A point-of-care pilot randomized intervention to connect patients with cancer-induced financial toxicity to telehealth financial counseling.

PURPOSE: Elevated costs of cancer treatment can result in economic and psychological "financial toxicity" distress. This pilot study assessed the feasibility of a point-of-care intervention to connect adult patients with cancer-induced financial toxicity to telehealth-delivered financial counseling. METHODS: We conducted a three-armed parallel randomized pilot study, allocating newly referred patients with cancer and financial toxicity to individual, group accredited telehealth financial counseling, or usual care with educational material (1:1:1). We assessed the feasibility of recruitment, randomization, retention, baseline and post-intervention COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), and Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) scores. RESULTS: Of 382 patients screened, 121 were eligible and enrolled. 58 (48%) completed the intervention (9 individual, 9 group counseling, 40 educational booklet). 29 completed follow-up surveys: 45% female, 17% African American, 79% white, 7% Hispanic, 55% 45-64 years old, 31% over 64, 34% lived in rural areas, 24% had cancer stage I, 21% II, 7% III, 31% IV. Baseline characteristics were balanced across arms, retention status, surveys completion. Mean (SD) COST was 12.4 (6.1) at baseline and 16.0 (8.4) post-intervention. Mean (SD) COST score differences were 6.3 (11.6) after individual counseling, 5.8 (8.5) after group counseling, and 2.5 (6.4) after usual care. Mean TUQ score among nine counseling participants was 5.5 (0.9) over 7.0. Non-parametric comparisons were not statistically meaningful. CONCLUSION: Recruitment and randomization were feasible, while study retention presented challenges. Nine participants reported good usability and satisfaction with telehealth counseling. Larger-scale trials focused on improving participation, retention, and impact of financial counseling among patients with cancer are justified.

Predictors of Financial Toxicity Risk Among Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC).

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) is the preferred treatment for select patients with peritoneal malignancies. However, the procedure is resource intensive and costly. This study aimed to determine the risk of financial toxicity for patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC at a single institution from 2016 to 2022. We utilized insurance status, out-of-pocket expenditures, and estimated post-subsistence income to determine risk of financial toxicity. A multivariable logistic regression was used to determine risk factors for financial toxicity. RESULTS: Our final study cohort consisted of 163 patients. Average age was 58 [standard deviation 10] years, and 52.8% (n = 86) were male. A total of 52 patients (31.9%) were at risk of financial toxicity. A total of 36 patients (22.1%) were from the lower income quartiles (first or second) and 127 patients (77.9%) were from the higher income quartiles (third or fourth). A total of 47 patients (29%) were insured by Medicare, and 116 patients (71%) had private insurance. The median out-of-pocket expenditure across the study cohort was $3500, with a median of $5000 ($3341-$7350) for the at-risk group and $3341 ($2500-$4022) for the not at-risk group (p < 0.001). Risk factors for financial toxicity included high out-of-pocket expenditures and a lower income quartile. CONCLUSIONS: An estimated one-third of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC at our institution were at risk for financial toxicity. Several preoperative factors were associated with an increased risk and could be utilized to identify patients who might benefit from interventions.

Prevalence of and Factors Associated with Financial Toxicity After Pancreatectomy and Gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity (FT) refers to the adverse impact of cancer treatment costs on patients' experiences, potentially leading to poor adherence to treatment and outcomes. However, the prevalence of FT among patients undergoing major upper gastrointestinal cancer operations, as well as factors associated with FT, remain unclear. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study by sending the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) survey and Surgery-Q (a survey specifically developed for this study) to patients who underwent gastrectomy or pancreatectomy for malignant disease at our institution in 2019-2021. RESULTS: We sent the surveys to 627 patients and received responses from 101 (16%) patients. The FT prevalence (COST score <26) was 48 (48%). Patients likely to experience FT were younger than 50 years of age, of non-White race, earned an annual income <$75,000, and had credit scores <740 (all p < 0.05). Additionally, longer hospital stay (p = 0.041), extended time off work for surgery (p = 0.011), and extended time off work for caregivers (p = 0.005) were associated with FT. Procedure type was not associated with FT; however, patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) had a lower FT probability (p = 0.042). In a multivariable analysis, age <50 years (p = 0.031) and credit score <740 (p < 0.001) were associated with high FT risk, while MIS was associated with low FT risk (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer have a major risk of FT. In addition to predicting the FT risk before surgery, facilitating quicker functional recovery with the appropriate use of MIS is considered important to reducing the FT risk.

Unmet financial needs among patients crowdfunding to support gynecologic cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Patients may use crowdfunding to solicit donations, typically from multiple small donors using internet-based means, to offset the financial toxicity of cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To describe crowdfunding campaigns by gynecologic cancer patients and to compare campaign characteristics and needs expressed between patients with cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We queried the public crowdfunding forum GoFundMe.com for "cervical cancer," "uterine cancer," and "ovarian cancer." The first 200 consecutive posts for each cancer type fundraising within the United States were analyzed. Data on campaign goals and needs expressed were manually extracted. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among the 600 fundraising pages, the median campaign goal was $10,000 [IQR $5000-$23,000]. Campaigns raised a median of 28.6% of their goal with only 8.7% of campaigns reaching their goal after a median of 54 days online. On average, ovarian cancer campaigns had higher monetary goals, more donors, and larger donation amounts than cervical cancer campaigns and raised more money than both cervical and uterine cancer campaigns. Campaigns were fundraising to support medical costs (80-85%) followed by lost wages (36-56%) or living expenses (27-41%). Cervical cancer campaigns reported need for non-medical costs more frequently than uterine or ovarian cancer campaigns. States without Medicaid expansions (31% of the national population) were over-represented among cervical cancer and uterine cancer, but not ovarian cancer campaigns. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdfunding pages reveal patients fundraising for out-of-pocket costs in the thousands of dollars and a wide range of unmet financial needs based on cancer type.

An absence of translated consent forms limits oncologic clinical trial enrollment for limited English proficiency participants.

OBJECTIVES: A lack of diversity amongst participants in cancer clinical trials has raised scrutiny over the past decade. Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) are further excluded. One modifiable reason for low LEP participation is a lack of non-English consent forms. METHODS: We queried the clinical trials registry database at an academic hospital serving a predominantly Spanish-speaking patient population. Clinical trials related to gynecology oncology were evaluated for the availability of fully translated Spanish consent forms, the racial and ethnic identification of enrolled patients, and the number of signed Spanish consents. Enrolment data was compared before and after 2019, when institutional financial support for document translation was withdrawn. RESULTS: Sixteen gynecologic oncology clinical trials were opened between 2014 and 2022, with 10 trials enrolling 128 patients. Eight trials opened prior to 2019, all with fully translated consent forms. Seven of these trials enrolled 99 participants, 70% of whom identified as Hispanic and 60% who signed a Spanish consent. Eight trials opened after 2019 and one had a fully translated consent form. Three of the trials enrolled 29 participants, with 10% of subjects identifying as Hispanic and none signing a Spanish consent form. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decrease in fully translated clinical trial consent forms for gynecologic oncology studies following the loss of subsidized translation services in our single institution with a predominantly LEP population. This correlated with a decrease in enrollment of Hispanic subjects. To increase enrollment of diverse participants, including those with LEP, simple actions such as fully translating consent forms would help maintain equity in research conduct and improve clinical outcomes through trial involvement.

Implementation of a financial navigation program in gynecologic oncology.

BACKGROUND: "Financial Toxicity" (FT) is the financial burden imposed on patients due to disease and its treatment. Approximately 50% of gynecologic oncology patients experience FT. This study describes the implementation and outcomes of a novel financial navigation program (FNP) in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: Patients presenting for initial consultation with a gynecologic oncologist from July 2022 to September 2023 were included. A FNP was launched inclusive of hiring a financial navigator (FN) in July 2022, and implementing FT screening in October 2022. We prospectively captured patient referrals to the FN, collecting clinical, demographic, financial and social needs information, along with FN interventions and institutional support service referrals. Referrals to the FN and support services were quantified before and after screening implementation. RESULTS: There were 1029 patients with 21.6% seen before and 78.4% after screening initiation. Median age was 58 (IQR 46-68). The majority were non-Hispanic white (60%) with private insurance (61%). A total of 10.5% patients were referred to the FN. Transportation (32%), financial assistance (20.5%) and emotional support (15.4%) were the most common needs identified. A higher proportion of patients referred to the FN identified as Black, had government-funded insurance or diagnoses of uterine or cervical cancers (p < 0.05). Post-screening referrals to FN increased (5% vs. 12.9%, p < 0.001), while referrals to other support services decreased (9.5% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the FNP was feasible, though presence of both a FN and FT screening maximized its effectiveness. Further investigation is needed to understand screening barriers and evaluate longer-term impact.

Dedicated financial hardship screening adds value to routine distress screening among gynecologic cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening. METHODS: We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score ≥ 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10-item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening. RESULTS: Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported ≥1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most (n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported ≥1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone.

Cost in the United States of FDA-approved small molecule protein kinase inhibitors used in the treatment of neoplastic and non-neoplastic diseases.

Because genetic alterations including mutations, overexpression, translocations, and dysregulation of protein kinases are involved in the pathogenesis of many illnesses, this enzyme family is the target of many drug discovery programs worldwide. The FDA has approved 80 small molecule protein kinase inhibitors with 77 drugs orally bioavailable. The data indicate that 69 of these medicinals are approved for the management of neoplasms including solid tumors such as breast and lung cancer as well as non-solid tumors such as leukemia. Moreover, the remaining 11 drugs target non-neoplastic diseases including psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis. The cost of drugs was obtained from www.pharmacychecker.com using the FDA label to determine the dosage and number of tablets required per day. This methodology excludes any private or governmental insurance coverage, which would cover the entire cost or more likely a fraction of the stated price. The average monthly cost for the treatment of neoplastic diseases was $17,900 with a price of $44,000 for futibatinib (used to treat cholangiocarcinomas with FGFR2 fusions) and minimum of $5100 for binimetinib (melanoma). The average monthly cost for the treatment of non-neoplastic diseases was $6800 with a maximum of $17,000 for belumosudil (graft vs. host disease) and a minimum of $200 for netarsudil eye drops (glaucoma). There is a negative correlation of the cost of the drugs and the incidence of the targeted disease. Many of these agents are or were designated as orphan drugs meaning that there are fewer than 200,000 potential patients in the United States.

A dyadic analysis of financial toxicity and health-related quality of life among bone marrow transplant patients and their caregivers.

OBJECTIVE: Relatively few dyad-based studies have evaluated the shared psychosocial and financial toxicity (FT) experiences of hematologic patients and their caregivers, especially those undergoing bone marrow transplantations (BMTs). This study evaluated the association of FT with health-related quality of life (QOL) among BMT patient-caregiver dyads. METHODS: Survey and electronic health record data were collected between April 2021 and January 2022 from BMT patients and their caregivers pre- (T1) and post-intervention (T2). Thirty-four patient-caregiver dyads completed surveys; all dyads included a patient experiencing elevated T1 FT. The effect of the total FT score (i.e., the combination of psychological response, coping behaviors, and material conditions domain scores) on physical health, mental health, anxiety, depression and distress scores was evaluated using Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM). RESULTS: Patients and caregivers who reported lower total FT scores had better physical and mental health, and lower anxiety, depressive symptoms, distress (APIM actor effects). None of the partner effects were significant in the APIM models. Other model findings indicated that compared with caregivers, patients had lower reported physical health; mental health scores were higher, on average, for all participants at the T2 compared with T1; and members of dyads whose caregiver took time off work reported better physical health and lower depressive symptoms and distress than those whose caregiver did not. CONCLUSIONS: Our study addresses a significant gap in dyad-based cancer FT studies; the findings underscore the need for additional research to help develop tailored dyad-level FT interventions for improving health-related QOL among BMT patients.