Search

PURPOSE: The financial toxicity of cancer care is a source of significant distress for patients with cancer. The purpose of this study is to understand factors associated with financial toxicity in three distinct care systems. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients in three care systems, Stanford Cancer Institute (SCI), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS), and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC), from October 2017 to May 2019. We assessed demographic factors, employment status, and out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) and administered the validated COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity tool. We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted linear regression models to analyze factors associated with financial toxicity. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-four of 578 patients (77%) completed the entire COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity tool and were included in the analysis. Most respondents at SCI were White, with annual household income (AHI) > $50,000 USD and Medicare insurance. At the VAPAHCS, most were White, with AHI ≤ $50,000 USD and insured by the Veterans Administration. At SCVMC, most were Asian and/or Pacific Islander, with AHI ≤ $25,000 USD and Medicaid insurance. Low AHI ( P < .0001), high OOPCs ( P = .003), and employment changes as a result of cancer diagnosis ( P < .0001) were associated with financial toxicity in the pooled analysis. There was variation in factors associated with financial toxicity by site, with employment changes significant at SCI, OOPCs at SCVMC, and no significant factors at the VAPAHCS. CONCLUSION: Low AHI, high OOPCs, and employment changes contribute to financial toxicity; however, there are variations based on site of care. Future studies should tailor financial toxicity interventions within care delivery systems.

e18362 Background: Financial toxicity (FT) is a major cause of distress for cancer patients. We have previously reported that FT was high among patients at a county hospital and a tertiary academic center. In this study, we sought to compare factors associated with FT at these institutions. Methods: Patients with clinic visits were asked to fill out an 11-item validated FT survey, the COST tool, and demographic questions from 10/2017 - 2/2018 at the county hospital and 7/2015 - 10/2018 at the academic center. We used a logistic regression model to analyze demographic factors associated with FT. Results: Mean COST score was significantly higher at the county hospital (28.7) compared to the academic center (20.4) (p < 0.001). Distribution of cancer stage was similar between the institutions. Patients at the county hospital were more likely to have an annual household income (AHI) < $25K (p < 0.001), and be insured by Medi-cal (p < 0.001). Patients at the academic center were more likely to be White (p < 0.001). Monthly OOP spending was more likely to be > $500 at the academic center (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Overall, FT was higher at the county hospital as compared to the academic center. FT at both institutions was associated with higher OOP spending and lower AHI. However, variations in FT among other demographic factors may reflect differences in care delivery systems and patient populations. Our study demonstrates that demographic groups at risk for FT differs between institutions suggesting the factors that contribute financial toxicity are complex and variable. Thus local assessments of FT may be necessary for individual health systems to develop targeted interventions to improve FT among their patients.[Table: see text]