Financial Toxicity and Shared Decision Making in Oncology

Oncologists are often ill-prepared for patient-provider communication about the financial costs and burden of treatment. Several barriers to cost communication exist, including provider discomfort, lack of knowledge or access to accurate information, and background historic concerns that cost discussions may negatively impact the doctor-patient relationship. However, clear and transparent cost communication can yield cost-reducing strategies that ultimately mitigate the high costs of cancer care and risk for financial toxicity.

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.

Perspectives on the Costs of Cancer Care: A Survey of the American Society of Breast Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment costs are not routinely addressed in shared decisions for breast cancer surgery. Thus, we sought to characterize cost awareness and communication among surgeons treating breast cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a self-administered, confidential electronic survey among members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons from 1 July to 15 September 2018. Questions were based on previously published or validated survey items, and assessed surgeon demographics, cost sensitivity, and communication. Descriptive summaries and cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistics were used, with exact tests where warranted, to assess findings.

RESULTS

Of those surveyed (N = 2293), 598 (25%) responded. Surgeons reported that 'risk of recurrence' (70%), 'appearance of the breast' (50%), and 'risks of surgery' (47%) were the most influential on patients' decisions for breast cancer surgery; 6% cited out-of-pocket costs as significant. Over half (53%) of the surgeons agreed that doctors should consider patient costs when choosing cancer treatment, yet the majority of surgeons (58%) reported 'infrequently' (43%) or 'never' (15%) considering patient costs in medical recommendations. The overwhelming majority (87%) of surgeons believed that patients should have access to the costs of their treatment before making medical decisions. Surgeons treating a higher percentage of Medicaid or uninsured patients were more likely to consistently consider costs (p < 0.001). Participants reported that insufficient knowledge or resources (61%), a perceived inability to help with costs (24%), and inadequate time (22%) impeded cost discussions. Notably, 20% of participants believed that discussing costs might impact the quality of care patients receive.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost transparency remains rare, however in shared decisions for breast cancer surgery, improved cost awareness by surgeons has the potential to reduce financial hardship.

Identifying existing Choosing Wisely recommendations of high relevance and importance to hematology

Choosing Wisely (CW) is a medical stewardship initiative led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with professional medical societies in the United States. In an effort to learn from and leverage the work of others, the American Society of Hematology CW Task Force developed a method to identify and prioritize CW recommendations from other medical societies of high relevance and importance to patients with blood disorders and their physicians. All 380 CW recommendations were reviewed and assessed for relevance and importance. Relevance was assessed using the MORE(TM) relevance scale. Importance was assessed with regard to six guiding principles: harm avoidance, evidence, aggregate cost, relevance, frequency and impact. Harm avoidance was considered the most important principle. Ten highly relevant and important recommendations were identified from a variety of professional societies. Recommendations focused on decreasing unnecessary imaging, blood work, treatments and transfusions, as well as on increasing collaboration across disciplines and considering value when recommending treatments. Many CW recommendations have relevance beyond the society of origin. The methods developed by the ASH CW Task Force could be easily adapted by other Societies to identify additional CW recommendations of relevance and importance to their fields. Am. J. Hematol. 91:787-792, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Discharge disposition after bariatric surgery

Weight loss continues for extended time post-bariatric surgery; thus, discharge destination is an important factor to consider when examining outcomes of surgery. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality State Inpatient Database was utilized to identify patients with bariatric surgery and to determine factors associated with and predictive of home discharge. Patients that were discharged home had shorter length of stays, lower total hospital costs, fewer chronic conditions, and lower readmission rates. Factors predictive of discharge were identified. Being discharged home could be associated with characteristics vital to patient's long-term weight loss. It is imperative to focus on factors predictive of home discharge in order to reap the most beneficial outcomes of surgery.