Search

Clinicians increasingly believe they should discuss costs with their patients. We aimed to learn what strategies clinicians, clinic leaders, and health systems can use to facilitate vital cost-of-care conversations.We conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with outpatient clinicians at two US academic medical centers. Clinicians recalled previous cost conversations and described strategies that they, their clinic, or their health system could use to facilitate cost conversations. Independent coders recorded, transcribed, and coded focus groups and interviews.Twenty-six clinicians participated between December 2019 and July 2020: general internists (23%), neurologists (27%), oncologists (15%), and rheumatologists (35%). Clinicians proposed the following strategies: teach clinicians to initiate cost conversations; systematically collect financial distress information; partner with patients to identify costs; provide accurate insurance coverage and/or out-of-pocket cost information via the electronic health record; develop local lists of lowest-cost pharmacies, laboratories, and subspecialists; hire financial counselors; and reduce indirect costs (e.g., parking).Despite considerable barriers to discussing, identifying, and reducing patient costs, clinicians described a variety of strategies for improving cost communication in the clinic.Health systems and clinic leadership can and should implement these strategies to improve the financial health of the patients they serve.

Mobile health interventions can improve patient care. We developed the Digital Supportive Care Awareness and Navigation (D-SCAN) application (app) to facilitate symptom monitoring and use/awareness of cancer supportive care resources. This study tested feasibility, usability/satisfaction, and preliminary efficacy of D-SCAN.We randomized 50 patients with advanced cancer to receive the D-SCAN intervention or usual care; 10 caregivers also received D-SCAN. The primary feasibility outcome was determined by weekly symptom survey completion and end of study procedures. We assessed secondary outcomes including usability/satisfaction, awareness/use of supportive care resources, patient activation, and quality of life via various questionnaires including the Net Promoter Score (NPS), Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), and Caregiver Oncology Quality of Life (CarGOQOL) questionnaire.Seventy-six percent of intervention patients met feasibility criteria, exceeding our pre-determined threshold of 75%. Usability/satisfaction by NPS was high, at 14.3% and 12.5% for patients and caregivers, respectively. Intervention patient and caregiver resource awareness increased by a mean of 3.7 (p = 0.27) and 4.1 items, respectively. Supportive care resource utilization increased by a mean of 0.8 items for intervention patients (p = 0.70) and 0.6 for caregivers. PAM-13 increased by a mean of 1.6 for intervention patients (p = 0.65). FACT-G increased by a mean of 1.1 for intervention patients (p = 0.91), and CarGOQoL increased by a mean of 2.2 (p = 0.41).D-SCAN is a feasible, usable, and satisfactory intervention for augmenting patient and caregiver supportive care. Further testing is necessary to formally assess D-SCAN's efficacy and impact on patients and caregivers.NCT03628794. Registered on August 14th, 2018.

PURPOSE: Insured patients with cancer face high treatment-related, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and often cannot access financial assistance. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of Bridge, a patient-facing app designed to identify eligible financial resources for patients. We hypothesized that patients using Bridge would experience greater OOP cost reduction than controls. METHODS: We enrolled patients with cancer who had OOP expenses from January 2018 to March 2019. We randomly assigned patients 1:1 to intervention (Bridge) versus control (financial assistance educational websites). Primary and secondary outcomes were self-reported OOP costs and subjective financial distress 3 months postenrollment. In post hoc analyses, we analyzed application for and receipt of financial assistance at 3 months postenrollment. We used chi-square, Mann-Whitney tests, and logistic regression to compare study arms. RESULTS: We enrolled 200 patients. The median age was 57 years (IQR, 47.0-63.0). Most patients had private insurance (71%), and the median household income was $62,000 in US dollars (USD) (IQR, $36,000-$100,000 [USD]). Substantial missing data precluded assessment of primary and secondary outcomes. In post hoc analyses, patients in the Bridge arm were more likely than controls to both apply for and receive financial assistance. CONCLUSION: We were unable to test our primary outcome because of excessive missing follow-up survey data. In exploratory post hoc analyses, patients who received a financial assistance app were more likely to apply for and receive financial assistance. Ultimately, our study highlights challenges faced in identifying measurable outcomes and retaining participants in a randomized, controlled trial of a mobile app to alleviate financial toxicity.

Rising costs of cancer care drive patient financial toxicity (FT) that perpetuates known health disparities in access and quality cancer treatment. This Review discusses how FT is a barrier to cancer research and treatment, and discusses potential solutions to improve affordability and reduce healthcare disparities for our patients.

We sought to identify modifiable factors associated with cancer screening in a community-based health assessment.24 organizations at 47 community events in central North Carolina distributed a 91-item survey from April-December 2017. Responses about (1) interest in disease prevention, (2) lifestyle choices (e.g., diet, tobacco), and (3) perceptions of primary care access/quality were abstracted to examine their association with self-reported screening participation and knowledge about breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer.2135/2315 participants (92%; 38.5% White, 38% Black, 9.9% Asian) completed screening questions.70% of screen-eligible respondents reported guideline-concordant screening. Healthy dietary habits were associated with greater knowledge about breast and colorectal cancer screening; reporting negative attitudes about and barriers to healthcare were associated with less breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening. Having a place to seek medical care (a proxy for primary care access) was independently associated with being ∼5 times as likely to undergo colorectal screening (OR 4.66, 95% CI 1.58-13.79, all p 0.05).In this diverse, community-based sample, modifiable factors were associated with screening engagement, highlighting opportunities for behavioral intervention.

We sought to examine patient and provider perspectives regarding modifiable contributors to breast cancer treatment and to assess perceptual alignment between these two groups.Participants were women≥18 y with stage 0-IV breast cancer who received all oncologic care in a single health system and physicians and advanced practice providers who provided medical, radiation, or surgical oncology care for breast cancer. All completed ∼45-min semistructured interviews that were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A 5-stage approach to thematic analysis was conducted, with emergent themes and exemplar quotes placed into clinical, psychological, social/logistical, financial, and lifestyle categories using a multilevel conceptual framework.Eighteen patients (9 Black, 9 White, and median age 60 y) and 10 providers (6 physicians and 4 advanced practice providers) were interviewed from May to November 2018. Both patients and providers perceived suboptimal communication, parking and transportation, and competing family-caregiving responsibilities as modifiable barriers to care. Treatment costs were cited by patients as barriers that were inadequately addressed even with referrals to financial counselors, but providers did not raise the issue of cost unless prompted by patients and did not feel prepared to discuss the topic when it arose. Providers cited obesity as a barrier to treatment, a view not shared by patients.Several modifiable factors were recognized by both patients and providers as either promoting or detracting from treatment receipt, but there was also significant incongruence and asymmetry. Alignment of provider and patient perceptions regarding contributors to guideline-concordant care receipt could mitigate disparities in breast cancer treatment and outcomes.

BACKGROUND Patients with cancer are at risk for both objective and subjective financial distress. Financial distress during treatment is adversely associated with physical and mental well-being. Little is known about whether patients' subjective financial distress changes during the course of their treatment.method This is a cross-sectional study of insured adults with solid tumors on anti-cancer therapy for ≥1 month, surveyed at a referral center and three rural oncology clinics. The goal was to investigate how financial distress varies depending on where patients are in the course of cancer therapy. Financial distress (FD) was assessed via a validated measure; out-of-pocket (OOP) costs were estimated and medical records were reviewed for disease/treatment data. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the potential association between treatment length and financial distress.RESULTS Among 300 participants (86% response rate), median age was 60 years (range 27-91), 52.3% were male, 78.3% had stage IV cancer or metastatic recurrence, 36.7% were retired, and 56% had private insurance. Median income was $60,000/year and median OOP costs including insurance premiums were $592/month. Median FD score (7.4/10, SD 2.5) corresponded to low FD with 16.3% reporting high/overwhelming distress. Treatment duration was not associated with the odds of experiencing high/overwhelming FD in single-predictor (OR = 1.01, CI [.93, 1.09], P = .86) or multiple predictor regression models (OR = .98, CI [.86, 1.12], P = .79). Treatment duration was not correlated with FD as a continuous variable (P = .92).LIMITATIONS This study is limited by its cross-sectional design and generalizability to patients with early-stage cancer and those being treated outside of a major referral center.CONCLUSION Severity of cancer treatment-related financial distress did not correlate with time on treatment, indicating that patients are at risk for FD throughout the treatment continuum. Screening for and addressing financial distress should occur throughout the course of cancer therapy.

Cancer treatment is associated with financial hardship for many patients and families. Screening for financial hardship and referrals to appropriate resources for mitigation are not currently part of most clinical practices. In fact, discussions regarding the cost of treatment occur infrequently in clinical practice. As the cost of cancer treatment continues to rise, the need to mitigate adverse consequences of financial hardship grows more urgent. The introduction of quality measurement and reporting has been successful in establishing standards of care, reducing disparities in receipt of care, and improving other aspects of cancer care outcomes within and across providers. The authors propose the development and adoption of financial hardship screening and management as an additional quality metric for oncology practices. They suggest relevant stakeholders, conveners, and approaches for developing, testing, and implementing a screening and management tool and advocate for endorsement by organizations such as the National Quality Forum and professional societies for oncology care clinicians. The confluence of increasingly high-cost care and widening disparities in ability to pay because of underinsurance and lack of health insurance coverage makes a strong argument to take steps to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer.

PURPOSE More than 20% of US clinical trials fail to accrue sufficiently. Our purpose was to provide a benchmark for better understanding clinical trial enrollment feasibility and to assess relative levels of competition for patients by cancer diagnosis. METHODS The Database for Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov , up to date as of September 3, 2017, was used to identify actively recruiting, interventional oncology trials with US sites. Observational studies were excluded because not all are registered. Trials were categorized through Medical Subject Headings or free-text condition terms and sorted by cancer diagnosis. Trials that included more than one cancer diagnosis were included in the overall cohort but excluded when evaluating enrollment by cancer type. Trial enrollment slot availability was estimated between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018. Availability was estimated from total anticipated enrollment and duration, assuming a constant recruitment rate. Estimates for studies with both foreign and domestic sites were then prorated to calculate available enrollment in the United States alone. Ratios of the number of newly diagnosed patients in the United States available per trial slot were estimated using the American Cancer Society cancer incidence estimates for 2017. RESULTS A total of 4,598 interventional oncology trials were identified. Overall, the estimated ratio of newly diagnosed patients available per trial slot was 12.6. Estimated ratios of patients per trial slot for six cancer diagnoses with the highest potential of 12-month US enrollment were as follows: colorectal, 24.7; lung and bronchus, 20.1; prostate, 17.6; breast (female), 13.8; leukemia, 11.6; and brain and other nervous system, 6.0. CONCLUSION For all cancers, successfully accruing trials currently open would require that more than one in every 13 recently diagnosed patients (7.9%) enroll. This ratio and relative difficulty of accrual varies among cancers examined.

With rising health-care costs and increasing patient financial strain, health economics research has never been more relevant to the lay public. This manuscript summarizes the discussion from the “Communicating Health Economics Research to Non-Researcher Audiences” expert panel and highlights the foundations of good health/science communication, distilling your work into a newsworthy headline, and communication concerns in specific scenarios. It also provides “dos and don'ts” for promoting your research to the news media and a list of resources on interacting with the press for further study.

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. 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. 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

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) require high upfront cost-sharing, which has been associated with suboptimal anticancer medication uptake and adherence. Whether HDHP enrollment has limited the affordability and use of lenalidomide therapy among commercially insured patients with multiple myeloma is unknown.To assess the association of HDHP enrollment with out-of-pocket spending on and adherence to lenalidomide therapy.In this cohort study, data were obtained from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database for adults aged 18 to 64 years with multiple myeloma who newly initiated lenalidomide therapy between April 1, 2013, and June 30, 2017. Quantile regression and modified Poisson regression evaluated out-of-pocket spending, and group-based trajectory models and multinomial logistic regression examined patterns of and factors associated with adherence. Analyses were conducted from April to August 2020.High-deductible health plan enrollment in the 3 months before and 6 months after initiation of lenalidomide therapy.Distribution of out-of-pocket spending, the probability of paying more than $100 for the first and any lenalidomide prescription fill, and monthly lenalidomide therapy adherence using the proportion of days covered (≥80%).Of the 3163 commercially insured patients who initiated lenalidomide therapy (median age, 57 years [IQR, 53-60 years for HDHP enrollees and 52-61 years for non-HDHP enrollees]), 328 (10.4%) were enrolled in HDHPs and 1769 (55.9%) were women. Among the highest spenders (95th percentile), HDHP enrollees paid $376 (95% CI, -$28 to $780) and $217 (95% CI, $106-$323) more for their first and any lenalidomide prescription fill, respectively, compared with non-HDHP enrollees in the 6 months after initiation. High-deductible health plan enrollment was also associated with an increased risk of paying more than $100 for the initial (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.13-1.50]) and any (aRR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.12-1.42]) lenalidomide prescription fill. Three adherence trajectory groups were identified: those with high adherence (n = 1273), late nonadherence (n = 1084), and early nonadherence (n = 805). High-deductible health plan enrollment was not associated with adherence group assignment.In this cohort study, HDHP enrollment was associated with higher out-of-pocket spending per lenalidomide prescription fill; however, no statistically significant differences in adherence patterns between HDHP and non-HDHP enrollees were observed. Patient (eg, perceptions of treatment benefits), payer (eg, out-of-pocket maximums), and clinician (eg, counseling patients on disease severity) factors may have limited the potential for nonadherence among commercially insured patients who initiated lenalidomide therapy.

PURPOSE: Although financial toxicity is a well-documented aspect of cancer care, little is known about how patients narratively characterize financial experiences related to breast cancer treatment. We sought to examine these patient experiences through mixed methods analysis. METHODS: Women (≥ 18 years old) with a history of breast cancer were recruited from the Love Research Army and Sisters Network to complete an 88-item electronic survey including an open-ended response. Quantitative data were used to sort and stratify responses to the open-ended question, which comprised the qualitative data evaluated here. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were used to evaluate the financial costs and other burdens resulting from breast cancer surgery. RESULTS: In total, 511 respondents completed the survey in its entirety and wrote an open-ended response. Participants reported significant financial burden in different categories including direct payments for medical care and indirect costs such as lost wages and travel expenses. Treatment-related costs burdened participants for years after diagnosis, forming a financial arc for many participants. Discrepancies existed between the degree of financial burden reported on multiple-choice questions and participants’ corresponding open-ended descriptions of financial burden. Participants described a lack of communication surrounding costs with their providers and difficulty negotiating payments with insurance. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer care can result in ongoing financial burden years after diagnosis among all patients, even those with adequate insurance patient populations.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major source of financial burden and distress, which has 3 main domains: (1) psychological distress; (2) cost-related care non-adherence or medical care deferral, and (3) tradeoffs with basic non-medical needs. We propose 4 ways to reduce financial distress in CVD: (1) policymakers can expand insurance coverage and curtail underinsurance; (2) health systems can limit expenditure on low-benefit, high-cost treatments while developing services for high-risk individuals; (3) physicians can engage in shared-decision-making for high-cost interventions, and (4) community-based initiatives can support patients with system navigation and financial coping. Avenues for research include (1) analysis of how healthcare policies affect financial burden; (2) comparative effectiveness studies examining high and low-cost strategies for CVD management; and (3) studying interventions to reduce financial burden, financial coaching, and community health worker integration.

BACKGROUND Place of death is an essential component of high quality cancer care and comprehensive national trends and disparities in place of death are unknown. METHODS Deidentified death certificate data were obtained via the National Center for Health Statistics. All cancer deaths from 1999 through 2015 were included. Multivariate logistic regression was used to test for disparities in place of death associated with sociodemographic variables. RESULTS From 1999 through 2015, a total of 9,646,498 cancer deaths occurred. Hospital deaths decreased (from 36.6% to 24.6%), whereas the rate of home deaths (38.4% to 42.6%) and hospice facility deaths (0% to 14.0%) both increased (all P

Purpose: Patients with cancer are at risk for substantial treatment-related costs; however, little is known about patients’ willingness to sacrifice to receive cancer care and how their attitudes and burden may change with time. Patients and Methods: We conducted a longitudinal survey of insured patients with solid tumor cancers receiving chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. Patients were surveyed at two time points about their willingness to make financial sacrifices and their actual sacrifices, including out-of-pocket costs. Patient attitudes and sacrifices were compared over time. Results: Of 349 patients approached, 300 completed the baseline survey (86% response) and 245 completed the follow-up survey 3 months later (82% retention). Median patient-reported cancer-related out-of-pocket costs for patients who completed both surveys were $393 per month (range, $0 to $26,586 per month) at baseline and $328 per month (range, $0 to $8,210 per month) at follow-up. At baseline, 49% were willing to declare personal bankruptcy, 38% were willing to sell their homes, and ≥ 65% were willing to make other sacrifices, including borrowing money to afford their cancer care. Upon follow-up, there were minor decreases in willingness; the maximum net change was a 7% decline in patients willing to declare bankruptcy. Actual sacrifice increased over time; the greatest increase was in patients who used their savings (increased from 41% to 54%). Conclusion: A large proportion of insured patients with cancer were willing to make considerable personal and financial sacrifices to receive care; these attitudes did not change greatly over time. Shared decision making is important to ensure patients fully understand the goals, risks, and benefits of therapy before they make such personal sacrifices.

Because of the rising costs of cancer care and ongoing challenges in ensuring access to quality care, there is an increasing need to prioritize spending and define the benefits of therapy in proportion to costs. The term "value" has gained favor as means to define the relative utility of a medical intervention in terms of benefits, risks, and financial costs, which in turn can help clinicians, patients, and policy makers prioritize "high-value" care. While numerous value concepts have been proposed, a comprehensive discussion of value initiatives along the care continuum is missing. In this Commentary, we propose a health system taxonomy of value initiatives in cancer care to discuss what the field needs to progress.

Purpose: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) aimed to increase insurance coverage through key provisions such as expansion of Medicaid eligibility and enforcement of an individual mandate. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of the ACA on insurance rates among patients newly diagnosed with colon, lung, or breast cancer. Methods: Using the SEER database, patients younger than age 65 years diagnosed with colon, lung, or breast cancer between 2008 and 2014 were identified. Insurance rates were examined before versus after passage of the ACA (2011) and before (2011 to 2013) versus after (2014) Medicaid expansion in nine expansion states and five nonexpansion states. Difference-in-differences models were used to estimate the differential impact of ACA in expansion compared with nonexpansion states. Results: A total of 414,085 patients with known insurance status were diagnosed with colon, lung, or breast cancer between 2008 and 2014. For all cancer types, there was a significant increase in patients enrolled in Medicaid after 2011 in expansion states. Between 2011 to 2013 and 2014, in patients living in states with Medicaid expansion, the uninsured rates decreased by ≥ 50% among patients with a new diagnosis of lung and colon cancer (6.5% in 2011 to 2013 to 3.1% in 2014 and 6.8% in 2011 to 2013 to 3.4% in 2014, respectively; P < .001); the uninsured rate decreased to a lesser degree for patients with breast cancer (2.7% in 2011 to 2013 to 1.6% in 2014; P < .001). This decrease in the rate of uninsured patients was absent in patients living in nonexpansion states. Conclusion: The ACA resulted in expanded insurance coverage for patients diagnosed with colon, lung, and breast cancer. However, the impact was only observed in states that increased their Medicaid eligibility.

Out-of-pocket spending continues to increase, particularly in cancer care. High out-of-pocket expenditures are associated with increased psychosocial distress, lower adherence, and higher mortality. In order to improve cancer-related outcomes, we must come up with interventions directed at reducing cancer-related financial toxicity. In this article, we highlight the most promising interventions.

Purpose: ASCO identified oncologist-patient conversations about cancer costs as an important component of high-quality care. However, limited data exist characterizing the content of these conversations. We sought to provide novel insight into oncologist-patient cost conversations by determining the content of cost conversations in breast cancer clinic visits. Methods: We performed content analysis of transcribed dialogue from 677 outpatient appointments for breast cancer management. Encounters featured 677 patients with breast cancer visiting 56 oncologists nationwide from 2010 to 2013. Results: Cost conversations were identified in 22% of visits (95% CI, 19 to 25) and had a median duration of 33 seconds (interquartile range, 19 to 62). Fifty-nine percent of cost conversations were initiated by oncologists (95% CI, 51 to 67), who most commonly brought up costs for antineoplastic agents. By contrast, patients most frequently brought up costs for diagnostic tests. Thirty-eight percent of cost conversations mentioned cost-reducing strategies (95% CI, 30 to 46), which most commonly sought to lower patient costs for endocrine therapies and symptom-alleviating treatments. The three most commonly discussed cost-reducing strategies were: switching to a lower-cost therapy/diagnostic, changing logistics of the intervention, and facilitating copay assistance. Conclusion: We identified cost conversations in approximately one in five breast cancer visits. Cost conversations were mostly oncologist initiated, lasted < 1 minute, and dealt with a wide range of health care expenses. Cost-reducing strategies were mentioned in more than one third of cost conversations and often involved switching antineoplastic agents for lower-cost alternatives or altering logistics of diagnostic tests.

Objective: Pharmaceutical manufacturers sponsor drug-specific patient assistance programs that provide eligible patients with financial assistance, either in the form of providing the drug free of charge or copayment assistance. Describing these programs and determining who receives assistance is an important first step in understanding the impact and role of financial assistance in cancer care. Our objective was to describe eligibility criteria and benefits for cancer-specific, manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs. Methods: We conducted a prospective review of patient assistance program Web sites and called patient assistance program telephone hotlines from the perspective of a patient or caregiver requesting program details. Results: We identified 24 manufacturers with patient assistance programs, covering 87% of Food and Drug Administration–approved oncology drugs. For free drug programs, the average maximum annual income for qualification was $86,279. For copayment assistance programs, the average was $104,790. Thirty-five percent of free drug programs and 53% of copayment assistance programs declined to provide details on how financial need was determined. None of the programs shared details on patient usage statistics. Conclusion: Variation exists in the quality and quantity of data available to patients seeking financial assistance for cancer treatment via manufacturer Web sites and hotlines. Greater transparency among patient assistance programs would enhance utility for patients and help to determine the net impact on costs and adherence.

Background Health reform and the merits of Medicaid expansion remain at the top of the legislative agenda, with growing evidence suggesting an impact on cancer care and outcomes. A systematic review was undertaken to assess the association between Medicaid expansion and the goals of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the context of cancer care. The purpose of this article is to summarize the currently published literature and to determine the effects of Medicaid expansion on outcomes during points along the cancer care continuum. Methods A systematic search for relevant studies was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Three independent observers used an abstraction form to code outcomes and perform a quality and risk of bias assessment using predefined criteria. Results A total of 48 studies were identified. The most common outcomes assessed were the impact of Medicaid expansion on insurance coverage (23.4% of studies), followed by evaluation of racial and/or socioeconomic disparities (17.4%) and access to screening (14.5%). Medicaid expansion was associated with increases in coverage for cancer patients and survivors as well as reduced racial- and income-related disparities. Conclusions Medicaid expansion has led to improved access to insurance coverage among cancer patients and survivors, particularly among low-income and minority populations. This review highlights important gaps in the existing oncology literature, including a lack of studies evaluating changes in treatment and access to end-of-life care following implementation of expansion.

Background: Financial distress from medical treatment is an increasing concern. Healthcare organizations may have different levels of organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes of screening and management of patient financial distress. Patients and Methods: In November 2018, representatives from 17 (63%) of the 27 existing NCCN Member Institutions completed an online survey. The survey focused on screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes about such practices. Due to the lack of a validated questionnaire in this area, survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search and discussions among the study team, including NCCN Best Practices Committee representatives. Results: Responses showed that 76% of centers routinely screened for financial distress, mostly with social worker assessment (94%), and that 56% screened patients multiple times. All centers offered programs to help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers, and payment plans. Charity care was provided by 100% of the large centers (≥10,000 unique annual patients) but none of the small centers that responded (P=.008). Metrics to evaluate the impact of financial advocacy services included number of patients assisted, bad debt/charity write-offs, or patient satisfaction surveys. The effectiveness of institutional practices for screening and management of financial distress was reported as poor/very poor by 6% of respondents. Inadequate staffing and resources, limited budget, and lack of reimbursement were potential barriers in the provision of these services. A total of 94% agreed with the need for better integration of financial advocacy into oncology practice. Conclusions: Three-fourths of NCCN Member Institutions reported screening and management programs for financial distress, although the actual practices and range of services vary. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar programs and identify best practices in this area.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity is a well-recognized adverse effect of cancer care, yet little is known about how women consider treatment costs when facing preference-sensitive decisions for breast cancer surgery or how surgical treatment choice affects financial harm. We sought to determine how financial costs and burden relate to decisions for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Women (≥ 18 years old) with a history of breast cancer were recruited from the Army of Women and Sisters Network to complete an 88-item electronic survey. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were used to evaluate the impact of costs on surgical decisions and financial harm after breast cancer surgery. RESULTS: A total of 607 women with stage 0 to III breast cancer were included. Most were white (90%), were insured privately (70%) or by Medicare (25%), were college educated (78%), and reported household incomes of more than $74,000 (56%). Forty-three percent underwent breast-conserving surgery, 25% underwent mastectomy, 32% underwent bilateral mastectomy, and 36% underwent breast reconstruction. Twenty-eight percent reported that costs of treatment influenced their surgical decisions, and at incomes of $45,000 per year, costs were prioritized over breast preservation or appearance. Overall, 35% reported financial burden as a result of their cancer treatment, and 78% never discussed costs with their cancer team. When compared with breast-conserving surgery, bilateral mastectomy with or without reconstruction was significantly associated with higher incurred debt, significant to catastrophic financial burden, treatment-related financial hardship, and altered employment. Among the highest incomes, 65% of women were fiscally unprepared, reporting higher-than-expected (26%) treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Cancer treatment costs influenced decisions for breast cancer surgery, and comparably effective surgical treatments differed significantly in their risk of patient-reported financial burden, debt, and impact on employment. Cost transparency may inform preference-sensitive surgical decisions and improve patient-centered care.

Financial barriers to clinical trial enrollment are an area of active investigation. Financial toxicity as a concept describes how high costs and financial burden can lead to compromised care and outcomes. Despite the potential to yield large survival benefits and improved access to cutting-edge therapies, less than 5% of adult patients with cancer are enrolled in a clinical trial. Disparities in trial enrollment exist along age, ethnic, and sociodemographic lines, with younger, poorer, nonwhite patients with private insurance—the exact population who may be at highest risk for financial toxicity—less likely to participate. Cost and insurance concerns remain an obstacle for clinical trial enrollment for certain patient populations. Changing the clinical trial paradigm with a focus on addressing structural and clinical barriers to clinical trial enrollment is paramount. This includes expanding access to clinical trials within community populations, advocating for health policy changes to guarantee insurance coverage of clinical trial standard-of-care health care, and considering noncoercive financial assistance (particularly for indirect costs like travel and lodging) for participants to defray their additional costs of participation. Additional steps toward education, cost transparency, and expansion of foundation assistance may also improve equitable access to clinical trials for all.

BACKGROUND Short-course radiotherapy (SC-RT) and long-course chemoradiotherapy (LC-CRT) are accepted neoadjuvant treatments of rectal cancer. In the current study, the authors surveyed US radiation oncologists to assess practice patterns and attitudes regarding SC-RT and LC-CRT for patients with rectal cancer. METHODS The authors distributed a survey to 1701 radiation oncologists regarding treatment of neoadjuvant rectal cancer. Respondents were asked questions regarding the number of patients with rectal cancer treated, preference for SC-RT versus LC-CRT, and factors influencing regimen choice. RESULTS Of 1659 contactable physicians, 182 responses (11%) were received. Approximately 83% treated at least 5 patients with rectal cancer annually. The majority of responding radiation oncologists (96%) preferred neoadjuvant LC-CRT for the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and 44% never used SC-RT. Among radiation oncologists using SC-RT, respondents indicated they would not recommend this regimen for patients with low (74%) or bulky tumors (70%) and/or concern for a positive circumferential surgical resection margin (69%). The most frequent reasons for not offering SC-RT were insufficient downstaging for sphincter preservation (53%) and a desire for longer follow-up (45%). Many radiation oncologists indicated they would prescribe SC-RT for patients not receiving chemotherapy (62%) or patients with a geographic barrier to receiving LC-CRT (82%). Patient comorbidities appeared to influence regimen preferences for 79% of respondents. Approximately 20% of respondents indicated that altered oncology care reimbursement using capitated payment by diagnosis would impact their consideration of SC-RT. CONCLUSIONS US radiation oncologists rarely use neoadjuvant SC-RT despite 3 randomized controlled trials demonstrating no significant differences in outcome compared with LC-CRT. Further research is necessary to determine whether longer follow-up coupled with the benefits of lower cost, increased patient convenience, and lower acute toxicity will increase the adoption of SC-RT by radiation oncologists in the United States. Cancer 2017;123:1434–1441. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Purpose To measure the association between patient financial strain and symptom burden and quality of life (QOL) for patients with new diagnoses of lung or colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Patients participating in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance study were interviewed about their financial reserves, QOL, and symptom burden at 4 months of diagnosis and, for survivors, at 12 months of diagnosis. We assessed the association of patient-reported financial reserves with patient-reported outcomes including the Brief Pain Inventory, symptom burden on the basis of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30, and QOL on the basis of the EuroQoL-5 Dimension scale. Multivariable linear regression models were fit for each outcome and cancer type, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, sex, income, insurance, stage at diagnosis, and comorbidity. Results Among patients with lung and colorectal cancer, 40% and 33%, respectively, reported limited financial reserves (≤ 2 months). Relative to patients with more than 12 months of financial reserves, those with limited financial reserves reported significantly increased pain (adjusted mean difference, 5.03 [95% CI, 3.29 to 7.22] and 3.45 [95% CI, 1.25 to 5.66], respectively, for lung and colorectal), greater symptom burden (5.25 [95% CI, 3.29 to .22] and 5.31 [95% CI, 3.58 to 7.04]), and poorer QOL (4.70 [95% CI, 2.82 to 6.58] and 5.22 [95% CI, 3.61 to 6.82]). With decreasing financial reserves, a clear dose-response relationship was present across all measures of well-being. These associations were also manifest for survivors reporting outcomes again at 1 year and persisted after adjustment for stage, comorbidity, insurance, and other clinical attributes. Conclusion Patients with cancer and limited financial reserves are more likely to have higher symptom burden and decreased QOL. Assessment of financial reserves may help identify patients who need intensive support.

Purpose Global cancer burden has increasingly shifted to low- and middle-income countries and is particularly pronounced in Africa. There remains a lack of comprehensive cancer information as a result of limited cancer registry development. In Moshi, Tanzania, a regional cancer registry exists at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Center. Data quality is unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the completeness and quality of the Kilimanjaro Cancer Registry (KCR). Methods In October 2015, we conducted a retrospective review of KCR by validating the internal consistency of registry records with medical and pathology records. We randomly sampled approximately 100 total registry cases. Four reviewers not associated with the KCR manually collected data elements from medical records and compared them with KCR data. Results All 100 reviewed registry cases had complete cancer site and morphology included in the registry. Six had a recorded stage. For the majority (n = 92), the basis of diagnosis was pathology. Pathology reports were found in the medical record for 40% of patients; for the remainder, these were stored separately in the pathology department. Of sampled registry cases, the KCR and medical records were 98% and 94% concordant for primary cancer site and morphology, respectively. For 28%, recorded diagnosis dates were within 14 days of what was found in the medical record, and for 32%, they were within 30 days. Conclusion The KCR has a high level of concordance for classification and coding when data are retrieved for validation. This parameter is one of the most important for measuring data quality in a regional cancer registry.

Objective This study aims to test the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a couple-based communication intervention for advanced GI cancer delivered via videoconference. Methods Thirty-two couples were randomly assigned to either couples communication skills training (CCST) or an education comparison intervention, both delivered via videoconference. Participation was limited to couples who reported communication difficulties at screening. Patients and partners completed measures of relationship functioning and individual functioning at baseline and post-intervention. Results Eighty-eight percent of randomized dyads completed all six sessions and reported high levels of satisfaction with the intervention. Between-group effect sizes suggested that the CCST intervention led to improvements in relationship satisfaction for patients and partners and to improvements in intimacy and communication for patients. Conclusions A couples-based communication intervention delivered via videoconference is feasible and acceptable in the context of advanced cancer. Preliminary findings suggest that the intervention shows promise in contributing to enhanced relationship functioning. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Lessons Learned Antitumor activity was observed in the study population. Dose modifications of cabozantinib improve long-term tolerability. Biomarkers are needed to identify patient populations most likely to benefit. Further study of cabozantinib with or without panitumumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is warranted. Background The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody panitumumab is active in patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but nearly all patients experience resistance. MET amplification is a driver of panitumumab resistance. Cabozantinib is an inhibitor of multiple kinases, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) and c-MET, and may delay or reverse anti-EGFR resistance. Methods In this phase Ib clinical trial, we established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of cabozantinib and panitumumab. We then treated an expansion cohort to further describe the tolerability and clinical activity of the RP2D. Eligibility included patients with KRAS WT mCRC (later amended to include only RAS WT mCRC) who had received prior treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab. Results Twenty-five patients were enrolled and treated. The MTD/RP2D was cabozantinib 60 mg p.o. daily and panitumumab 6 mg/kg I.V. every 2 weeks. The objective response rate (ORR) was 16%. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months (90% confidence interval [CI], 2.3–7.1). Median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months (90% CI, 7.5–14.3). Five patients (20%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity, and 18 patients (72%) required a dose reduction of cabozantinib. Conclusion The combination of cabozantinib and panitumumab has activity. Dose reductions of cabozantinib improve tolerability.

Key Points Question How is online crowdfunding for cancer care associated with existing socioeconomic health disparities in the US cancer care setting? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 144 061 cancer crowdfunding campaigns, those located in US counties with high socioeconomic status raised significantly more than campaigns in lower–socioeconomic status counties. Crowdfunders who used campaign narratives to portray beneficiaries as worthy of donations raised significantly more than those without such portrayals, and the use of these portrayals was unequally distributed across socioeconomic strata. Meaning These findings suggest that crowdfunding’s reliance on access to interpersonal wealth and proficiency in digital self-marketing may disproportionately benefit those with existing socioeconomic advantage., This cross-sectional study examines whether higher county-level socioeconomic status and the presence (vs absence) of text indicators of beneficiary worth in campaign descriptions are associated with the amount raised from cancer crowdfunding., Importance Financial toxicity resulting from cancer care poses a substantial public health concern, leading some patients to turn to online crowdfunding. However, the practice may exacerbate existing socioeconomic cancer disparities by privileging those with access to interpersonal wealth and digital media literacy. Objective To test the hypotheses that higher county-level socioeconomic status and the presence (vs absence) of text indicators of beneficiary worth in campaign descriptions are associated with amount raised from cancer crowdfunding. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional analysis examined US cancer crowdfunding campaigns conducted between 2010 and 2019 and data from the American Community Survey (2013-2017). Data analysis was performed from December 2019 to March 2020. Exposures Neighborhood deprivation index of campaign location and campaign text features indicating the beneficiary’s worth. Main Outcomes and Measures Amount of money raised. Results This study analyzed 144 061 US cancer crowdfunding campaigns. Campaigns in counties with higher neighborhood deprivation raised less (–26.07%; 95% CI, –27.46% to –24.65%; P

Cancer treatment poses significant challenges not just for those diagnosed with the disease but also for their intimate partners. Evidence suggests that couples' communication plays a major role in the adjustment of both individuals and in the quality of their relationship. Most descriptive studies linking communication to adjustment have relied on traditional questionnaire methodologies and cross-sectional designs, limiting external validity and discernment of temporal patterns. Using the systemic-transactional model of dyadic coping as a framework, we examined intra- and inter-personal associations between communication (both enacted and perceived) and relationship satisfaction (RS) among patients with stage II–IV breast or colorectal cancer and their spouses (N = 107 couples). Participants (mean age = 51, 64.5% female patients, and 37.4% female spouses) independently completed twice-daily ecological momentary assessments (EMA) via smartphone for 14 consecutive days. Items assessed RS and communication (expression of feelings, holding back from expression, support and criticism of partner, and parallel ratings of partner behavior). Linear mixed models employing an Actor Partner Interdependence Model were used to examine concurrent, time-lagged, and cross-lagged associations between communication and RS. Expressing one's feelings was unassociated with RS. Holding back from doing so, in contrast, was associated with lower RS for both patients and spouses in concurrent models. These effects were both intrapersonal and interpersonal, meaning that when individuals held back from expressing their feelings, they reported lower RS and so too did their partner. Giving and receiving support were associated with one's own higher RS for both patients and spouses in concurrent models, and for patients in lagged models. Conversely, criticizing one's partner and feeling criticized were maladaptive, associated with lower RS (own and in some cases, partner's). Cross-lagged analyses (evening RS to next-day afternoon communication) yielded virtually no effects, suggesting that communication may have a stronger influence on short-term RS than the reverse. Findings underscore the importance of responsive communication, more so than expression per se, in explaining both concurrent and later relationship adjustment. In addition, a focus on holding back from expressing feelings may enhance the understanding of RS for couples coping with cancer.

Molecular and immune therapies have revolutionized cancer treatment and improved patient outcomes and survival. However, the pricing of these drugs has become an issue as the cost of cancer care continues to rise significantly. Cost sharing policies have increased out-of-pocket expenses for patients, leading to poorer financial well-being, quality of life, psychosocial health, and treatment adherence. In this review, we briefly examine some factors affecting the pricing of these new targeted therapies; the effects of financial toxicity on patients; and highlight potential health policy and patient-provider level interventions to address these issues.

Cancer survivorship care plans (SCPs) are endorsed to support quality care for cancer survivors, but uptake is slow. We assessed knowledge, needs, and preferences for SCP content and delivery from a wide variety of stakeholders. We focused SCP content for head and neck cancer as it is a disease prone to long-term side effects requiring management from multiple providers. We conducted telephone-based, qualitative interviews. We purposively sampled head and neck cancer survivors (n = 4), primary care physicians in the community (n = 5), and providers affiliated with a large academic medical center (n = 5) who treat head and neck cancer, cancer specialists (n = 6), and nurse practitioners/supportive care staff (n = 5). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using direct content analysis. Few participants reported personal experience with SCPs, but most supported the concept. Several key themes emerged: (1) perceived ambiguity regarding roles and responsibilities for SCPs, (2) a need to tailor the content and language based on the intended recipient, (3) documentation process should be as automated and streamlined as possible, (4) concerns about using the SCP to coordinate with outside providers, and (5) that SCPs would have added value as a “living document.” We also report SCP-related issues that are unique to serving patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer. Effort is needed to tailor SCPs for different recipients and optimize their potential for successful implementation, impact on care outcomes, and sustainability. Many cancer survivors may not receive a SCP as part of routine care. Survivors could engage their health care team by requesting a SCP.

At times we encounter clinical problems for which there are no directly applicable evidence-based solutions, but we are compelled by circumstances to act. When doing so we rely on related evidence, general principles of best medical practice, and our experience. Each “Current Clinical Practice” feature article in Seminars in Oncology describes such a challenging presentation and offers treatment approaches from selected specialists. We invite readers' comments and questions, which, with your approval, will be published in subsequent issues of the Journal. It is hoped that sharing our views and experiences will better inform our management decisions when we next encounter similar challenging patients. Please send your comments on the articles, your challenging cases, and your treatment successes to me at dr.gjmor ris@gmail.com. I look forward to a lively discussion. Gloria J. Morris, MD, PhD Current Clinical Practice Feature Editor