Addressing financial toxicity in urologic oncology patients

170 Background: Financial toxicity, or the financial burden related to cancer care, is a source of distress for urologic oncology patients. This study aimed to address financial toxicity among prostate, kidney and bladder cancer patients and test the feasibility of a lay-health worker (LHW) and social work (SW) driven intervention. Methods: LHW assessed financial burden in urologic oncology patients with advanced cancer who presented for return visits at a single academic center. The LHW collected responses to three statements on a Likert scale – “I worry about the financial problems I will have in the future because of my illness or treatment”, “My cancer or treatment has reduced satisfaction with my present financial situation”, and “I feel financially stressed”. Patients who responded, “Very much” (4) or “Quite a bit” (3) to all statements were offered a one-on-one consultation with a trained SW. The SW provided personalized recommendations after review of patients' financial information, insurance status, and out of pocket costs. SW referred patients to appropriate support services including those offered by the hospital, government, nonprofits and private corporations. Pre-specified outcomes included pre/post-intervention financial toxicity and patient satisfaction with the intervention. Results: 145 patients (67%) agreed to be screened for financial toxicity by the LHW. Most participants were White (n = 100, 69%), male (n = 130, 90%), married (n = 104, 72%) and with incomes > $100,000 (n = 111, 77%). The majority had prostate cancer (n = 87, 60%), followed by kidney cancer (n = 36, 25%) and bladder cancer (n = 22, 15%). 12% (n = 26) responded “I worry about the financial problems I will have in the future because of my illness or treatment”, “Very much” or “Quite a bit”. 14% (n = 20) responded “My cancer or treatment has reduced satisfaction with my present financial situation”, “Very much” or “Quite a bit”. 12% (n = 17) reported “I feel financially stressed”, “Very much” or “Quite a bit”. A total of 14 patients were eligible for the intervention and were referred for a one-on-one SW consultation. Post-intervention results indicated excellent patient satisfaction with the intervention and a significant improvement in financial toxicity. 100% of patients reported the SW “provided financial resources that were beneficial to me”, and 78% (n = 11) had a decrease in financial toxicity score post-intervention (average decrease = -1, p = 0.05038). Conclusions: In this single institution study of prostate, kidney and bladder cancer patients with overall low baseline financial burden a LHW and SW driven intervention was feasible and effective in reducing financial toxicity.