A Pilot Study of a Comprehensive Financial Navigation Program in Patients With Cancer and Caregivers

Patient-reported benefit from proposed interventions to reduce financial toxicity during cancer treatment

INTRODUCTION

Financial toxicity is common and pervasive among cancer patients. Research suggests that gynecologic cancer patients experiencing financial toxicity are at increased risk for engaging in harmful cost-coping strategies, including delaying/skipping treatment because of costs, or forsaking basic needs to pay medical bills. However, little is known about patients' preferences for interventions to address financial toxicity.

METHODS

Cross-sectional surveys to assess financial toxicity [Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST)], cost-coping strategies, and preferences for intervention were conducted in a gynecologic cancer clinic waiting room. Associations with cost-coping were determined using multivariate modeling. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) explored associations between financial toxicity and intervention preferences.

RESULTS

Among 89 respondents, median COST score was 31.9 (IQR: 21-38); 35% (N = 30) scored < 26, indicating they were experiencing financial toxicity. Financial toxicity was significantly associated with cost-coping (adjusted OR = 3.32 95% CI: 1.08, 14.34). Intervention preferences included access to transportation vouchers (38%), understanding treatment costs up-front (35%), minimizing wait times (33%), access to free food at appointments (25%), and assistance with minimizing/eliminating insurance deductibles (23%). In unadjusted analyses, respondents experiencing financial toxicity were more likely to select transportation assistance (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.04, 6.90), assistance with co-pays (OR = 9.17, 95% CI: 2.60, 32.26), and assistance with deductibles (OR = 12.20, 95% CI: 3.47, 43.48), than respondents not experiencing financial toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm the presence of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancer patients, describe how patients attempt to cope with financial hardship, and provide insight into patients' needs for targeted interventions to mitigate the harm of financial toxicity.

A Scoping Review of Behavioral Interventions Addressing Medical Financial Hardship

Little information has been compiled across studies about existing interventions to mitigate issues of medical financial hardship, despite growing interest in health care delivery. The purpose of this qualitative systematic scoping review was to examine content and outcomes of interventions to address medical financial hardship. PRISMA guidelines were applied to present results using PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL, published between January 1980 and August 2020. Additional studies were identified through reference lists of selected papers. Included studies focused on mitigating medical financial hardship from out-of-pocket (OOP) health care expenses as an intervention strategy with at least 1 evaluation component. Screening 2412 articles identified 339 articles for full-text review, 12 of which met inclusion criteria. Variation was found regarding targets and outcome measurement of intervention. Primary outcomes were in the following categories: financial outcomes (eg, OOP expenses), behavioral outcomes, psychosocial, health care utilization, and health status. No included studies reported significant reduction in OOP expenses, perceptions of financial burden/toxicity, or health status. However, changes were observed for behavioral outcomes (adherence to treatment, patient needs addressed), some psychosocial outcomes (mental health symptoms, perceived support, patient satisfaction), and care utilization such as routine health care. No patterns were observed in the achievement of outcomes across studies based on intensity of intervention. Few rigorous studies exist in this emerging field, and studies have not shown consistent positive effects. Future research should focus on conceptual clarity of the intervention, align outcome measurement and achieve consensus around outcomes, and employ rigorous study designs, measurement, and outcome follow-up.

Financial toxicity in cancer care: origins, impact, and solutions

Financial toxicity describes the financial burden and distress that can arise for patients, and their family members, as a result of cancer treatment. It includes direct out-of-pocket costs for treatment and indirect costs such as travel, time, and changes to employment that can increase the burden of cancer. While high costs of cancer care have threatened the sustainability of access to care for decades, it is only in the past 10 years that the term "financial toxicity" has been popularized to recognize that the financial burdens of care can be just as important as the physical toxicities traditionally associated with cancer therapy. The past decade has seen a rapid growth in research identifying the prevalence and impact of financial toxicity. Research is now beginning to focus on innovations in screening and care delivery that can mitigate this risk. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer centers to address costs of care in order to minimize financial toxicity, promote access to high value care, and reduce health disparities. We review the evolution of concerns over costs of cancer care, the impact of financial burdens on patients, methods to screen for financial toxicity, proposed solutions, and priorities for future research to identify and address costs that threaten the health and quality of life for many patients with cancer.

Evidence of the Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of Oncology Financial Navigation: A Scoping Review

One in three cancer patients reports financial hardship. Cancer-related financial hardship is associated with diminished quality of life, treatment nonadherence, and early mortality. Over 80% of NCI-designated cancer centers provide some form of oncology financial navigation (OFN). Although interest in OFN has grown, there is little scientific evidence to guide care delivery. We conducted a scoping review to assess the evidence of OFN's feasibility and preliminary efficacy and determine its core components/functions. Papers were included that (i) evaluated a clinical intervention to reduce financial hardship in patients with cancer or caregivers by facilitating access to resources, (ii) were conducted in the United States, and (iii) were published since 2000. Of 681 titles, 66 met criteria for full-text review, and six met full inclusion/exclusion criteria. The FN literature consists of descriptive studies and pilot trials focused on feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy. The studies showed that OFN implementation and evaluation are feasible; however, efficacy was difficult to evaluate because the studies were limited by small sample sizes (attributed to low patient participation). Most studies were conducted in urban, academic medical centers-which are less likely to be used by the poor and patients of color, who have the highest risk of financial hardship. The studies did not attempt to address the issue of underlying poverty at the individual and community level and whether OFN could be effectively adapted for these care environments. Future OFN programs must be tested with underserved and racially diverse patient populations, and evaluation efforts should aim to understand patient-reported barriers to participation.

Financial assistance programs for cancer patients

Background:

The high costs of oncology care can lead to financial stress and have deleterious effects on the well-being of patients and their families. However, only a handful of financial assistance programs for cancer patients have been implemented and evaluated to date.

Recent findings:

Key features of reported programs include instrumental support through financial navigation or education for patients, and financial or charitable support for healthcare costs. Only one of the programs successfully reduced actual out-of-pocket costs for patients, though others were associated with psychosocial benefits or increased knowledge of financial resources. Four of the 5 programs evaluated to date were pilot studies with small sample sizes, and most lack control groups for comparison.

Conclusions:

Additional studies are needed that include larger sample sizes and with comparison groups of cancer patients in order to determine whether the counseling and navigator programs are effective in addressing financial distress in this patient population. Of particular interest are programs designed for low-income patients and those who lack health care insurance. Financial assistance programs that implement solutions at different levels of the healthcare system (individual patients, providers, healthcare institutions) are more likely to be effective. Multi-level interventions are needed that address the systems in which patients access care, the actual costs of services and drugs, and the individual needs of patients in order to reduce financial hardship for cancer patients.

Navigating the high costs of cancer care: opportunities for patient engagement

Over the past decade, the financial burden of cancer care on patients and their families has garnered increased attention. Many of the potential solutions have focused on system-level interventions such as adopting value-based payment models and negotiating drug prices; less consideration has been given to actions at the patient level to address cancer care costs. We argue that it is imperative to develop and support patient-level strategies that engage patients and consider their preferences, values and individual circumstances. Opportunities to meet these aims and improve the economic experience of patients in oncology are discussed, including: shared decision-making and communication, financial navigation and treatment planning, digital technology and alternative care pathways, and value-based insurance design.

Financial Toxicity in People Living with Advanced Cancer: A New, Deadly, and Poorly Addressed Effect of Cancer and Necessary Treatment

OBJECTIVES

Advances in cancer treatments have allowed improved outcomes, even with advanced disease. However, this progress has resulted in a new toxic effect termed 'financial toxicity.' Financial toxicity severely impacts quality of life, even among those insured. The purpose of this article is to gain better understanding of this relatively new concept to better care for our patients, presented primarily from a US perspective.

DATA SOURCES

These include medical databases (PubMed, Scopus) and researcher experience.

CONCLUSION

Financial toxicity is highly prevalent in patients with advanced cancer, and it is associated with multiple worsened outcomes. Those with advancing cancer are at accumulating risk of financial toxicity, exacerbated by other known risk factors. The effects of financial toxicity are debilitating, resulting in deleterious physical, psychological, spiritual, and social effects drastically affecting quality of life. Coping strategies such as taking less than prescribed therapy, delays seeking care, and poorly managed comorbid conditions potentially cause increased symptoms and worse outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Careful assessments by multidisciplinary health care teams could allow early intervention, timely referral to health professionals including social work or financial navigators, and provision of emotional support. Further studies are needed to explore solutions on an institutional and national level that can guide health policy and the creation of practice models that can reduce the harm of financial toxicity.

Correlates of financial toxicity in adult cancer patients and their informal caregivers

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity is commonly reported by cancer patients, but few studies have assessed caregiver perceptions. We aimed to validate the modified Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) in cancer caregivers, identify factors associated with financial toxicity in both patients and caregivers, and assess the association of caregiver financial toxicity with patient and caregiver outcomes.

METHODS

Using a convenience sampling method, 100 dyads of adult cancer patients and a primary caregiver visiting outpatient oncology clinics (Jan-Sep 2019) were recruited. We assessed the internal consistency and convergent and divergent validity of the modified COST. Multivariable analyses identified correlates of financial toxicity. Association of financial toxicity with care non-adherence, lifestyle-altering behaviors (e.g., home refinance/sale, retirement/saving account withdrawal), and quality of life (QOL) was investigated.

RESULTS

Recruited patient vs. caregiver characteristics were as follows: mean age: 60.6 vs. 56.5; 34% vs. 46.4% female; 79% vs. 81.4% white. The caregiver COST measure demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.91). In patients, older age (B, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.4]) and higher annual household income (B, 14.3 [95% CI, 9.3-19.4]) correlated with lower financial toxicity (P < 0.05). In caregivers, lower patient financial toxicity (B, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.2-0.6]) and cancer stages 1-3 (compared to stage 4) (B, 4.6 [95% CI, 0.4-8.8]) correlated with lower financial toxicity (P < 0.05). Increased caregiver financial toxicity correlated with higher care non-adherence in patients, increased lifestyle-altering behaviors, and lower QOL in patients and caregivers (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The COST measure can also be used to assess caregiver financial toxicity. Caregivers' financial toxicity was associated with negative outcomes for both dyad members.

Financial Counseling Is Associated with Reduced Financial Difficulty Scores in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Treated with Radiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity (FT) can be devastating to cancer patients, and solutions are urgently needed. We investigated the impact of financial counseling (FC) on FT in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients.

METHODS

Via a single-institution database, we reviewed the charts of HNC patients who underwent definitive or post-operative radiotherapy, from October 2013 to December 2020. Of these patients, 387 had provided baseline and post-treatment information regarding financial difficulty. In July 2018, a dedicated financial counselor was provided for radiation therapy patients and we subsequently examined the impact of FC on financial difficulty scores.

RESULTS

Following the hiring of a dedicated financial counselor, there was a significant increase in the proportion of patients receiving FC (5.3% vs. 62.7%, p < 0.0001). Compared with baseline scores, patients who did not undergo FC had a significant increase in reported financial difficulty at the end of treatment (p = 0.002). On the other hand, there was no difference in pre- and post-treatment scores in patients who had received FC (p = 0.588). After adjusting for gender and nodal status with a multiple linear regression model, FC was significantly associated with change in financial difficulty (β = -0.204 ± 0.096, p = 0.035). On average, patients who received FC had a 0.2 units lower change in financial difficulty score as compared with those with the same gender and nodal stage but without FC.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing a dedicated financial counselor significantly increased the proportion of HNC receiving FC, resulting in the stabilization of financial difficulty scores post-treatment. Based on a multiple linear regression model, FC was independently associated with reduced financial difficulty. The employment of a financial counselor may be a viable, hospital-based approach to begin to address FT in HNC.