A Scoping Review of Behavioral Interventions Addressing Medical Financial Hardship

A Systematic Review of Interventions Targeting Cancer-Related Financial Hardship: Current Evidence and Implications

BACKGROUND

Despite an increasing emphasis on alleviating financial hardship in cancer care delivery, limited knowledge of evidence-based and effective interventions is available.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to identify gaps in the literature and provide insights for future evidence-based interventions targeting financial hardship from both micro and macro perspectives.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases from inception to October 2022. Studies examining the effect of an intervention on mitigating cancer-related financial hardship were included.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included. Findings indicate that the most significant positive changes were in the material conditions domain from the micro perspective of financial hardship. From the macro perspective, positive effects were shown for improving access to care, affordability of care, healthcare utilization, and healthcare equity of interventions at the provider or care team level, the community healthcare environment level, and the healthcare system and policy level. Notably, significant heterogeneity was observed among interventions and outcome measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first comprehensive systematic review of interventions targeting cancer-related financial hardship from both micro and macro perspectives. No consistently positive effect of the interventions on all domains was reported. Multidisciplinary approaches and higher-level hierarchical and evidence-based interventions are needed to address financial hardship.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Health practitioners should screen and manage financial hardship using a standard and comprehensive measurement at the dyadic level of cancer survivors and caregivers.

Interventions to mitigate cancer-related medical financial hardship: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study systematically reviewed interventions mitigating financial hardship in patients with cancer and assessed effectiveness using a meta-analytic method.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for articles published in English during January 2000-April 2023. Two independent reviewers selected prospective clinical trials with an intervention targeting and an outcome measuring financial hardship. Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers using a quality assessment tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Reporting followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (2211 participants; 55% male; mean age, 59.29 years) testing interventions including financial navigation, financial education, and cost discussion were included. Financial worry improved in only 27.3% of 11 studies. Material hardship and cost-related care nonadherence remained unchanged in the two studies measuring these outcomes. Four studies (373 participants; 37% male, mean age, 55.88 years) assessed the impact of financial navigation on financial worry using the comprehensive score of financial toxicity (COST) measure (score range, 0-44; higher score = lower financial worry) and were used for meta-analysis. There was no significant change in the mean of pooled COST score between post- and pre-intervention (1.21; 95% confidence interval, -6.54 to 8.96; p = .65). Adjusting for pre-intervention COST, mean change of COST significantly decreased by 0.88 with every 1-unit increase in pre-intervention COST (p = .02). The intervention significantly changed COST score when pre-intervention COST was ≤14.5.

CONCLUSION

A variety of interventions have been tested to mitigate financial hardship. Financial navigation can mitigate financial worry among high-risk patients.

Comparative analysis of financial toxicity between SARS-CoV-2 infection and common comorbidities

Financial toxicity is common in individuals with COVID-19 and Long COVID. However, the extent of financial toxicity experienced, in comparison to other common comorbidities, is uncertain. Contributing factors exacerbating financial challenges in Long COVID are also unclear. These knowledge gaps are addressed via a cross-sectional analysis utilizing data from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a representative sample drawn from the United States. COVID-19 cases were identified through self-reported positive testing or physician diagnoses. Long COVID was defined as experiencing COVID-19-related symptoms for more than three months. Comorbidity was assessed based on self-reported diagnoses of ten doctor-diagnosed conditions (Yes/No). Financial toxicity was defined as having difficulty paying medical bills, cost-related medication nonadherence, delaying healthcare due to cost, and/or not obtained healthcare due to cost. A total of 27,492 NHIS 2022 respondents were included in our analysis, representing 253 million U.S. adults. In multivariable logistic regression models, adults with Long COVID (excluding respondents with COVID-19 but not Long COVID), showed increased financial toxicity compared to those with other comorbidities, such as epilepsy (OR [95% CI]: 1.69 [1.22, 2.33]), dementia (1.51 [1.01, 2.25]), cancer (1.43 [1.19, 1.71]) or respiratory/cardiovascular conditions (1.18 [1.00, 1.40]/1.23 [1.02, 1.47]). Long COVID-related financial toxicity was associated with female sex, age <65 years, lack of medical insurance, current paid employment, residence region, food insecurity, fatigue, mild to severe depression symptoms experienced during the survey completion, visits to hospital emergency rooms, presence of arthritis, cardiovascular or respiratory conditions, and social activity limitations. In conclusion, American adults with Long COVID, but not those who had prior COVID-19 infection without Long COVID, exhibited a higher prevalence of financial toxicity compared to individuals with common comorbidities. Vulnerable populations were at greater risk for financial toxicity. These findings emphasize the importance of evaluating strategies to reduce economic burden and increase awareness of the effect of Long COVID-related financial toxicity on patient's healthcare and health status.

Association between financial hardship and psychological burden and the role of social and mental health support: An observational study

We aimed to assess the association between medical financial hardship and psychological burden and the moderating role of social and mental health support. 2021 United States National Health Interview Survey was used. Financial hardship was defined as having financial worry, material hardship, or cost-related care nonadherence. Psychological burden was measured using perceived general health status, satisfaction with life, and serious psychological distress (SPD). Of 29,370 included adults, 49% experienced financial hardship in the last 12 months. Financial hardship was associated with a higher psychological burden (odds ratio [OR], 3.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.43-5.47 for SPD). Eleven percent received counseling/therapy from mental health professionals, and 90% had experienced frequent social support. Frequent social support was associated with lower financial hardship (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.80) and psychological burden (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.42 for SPD). Previous mental health support was associated with higher financial hardship (OR,1.40; 95% CI, 1.28-1.54) and psychological burden (OR, 9.75; 95% CI, 6.97-13.94 for SPD). Those experiencing financial hardship had lower odds of SPD if they received mental health support in the last 12 months (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.85). Future interventions should also focus on improving social support and mental health for patients as a way of mitigating medical financial hardship.

"I Lay Awake at Night": Latino Family Caregivers' Experiences Covering Out-of-Pocket Costs When Caring for Someone Living With Dementia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The financial burden of caregiving has received less research attention than physical and emotional costs. This is especially true for underserved ethnic minorities. Financial strain affects mental and physical health and is unequally distributed across caregivers of different races and ethnicities. Although caregivers overall spend, on average, one quarter of their income on caregiving, Latino caregivers, the focus of this study, spend nearly half.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

To better understand this disparity, we conducted 11 qualitative interviews with 14 Latino caregivers of persons living with dementia located in either California or Texas. Interview transcripts were thematically coded, guided by a material-psychosocial-behavioral conceptual model of financial strain.

RESULTS

We identified 3 themes: daily needs and costs, psychological distress caused by financial issues, and stressful barriers to accessing family and societal support. Furthermore, interviews revealed how Latino culture may influence spending patterns and management of costs. Findings suggest that preference by Latino families to care for a family member in the home may be met with a financial disadvantage due to the high out-of-pocket costs of care.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

A better understanding of the factors contributing to high costs for Latino caregivers and how these costs affect caregivers will inform approaches at both the individual and policy levels and develop culturally relevant interventions to help Latino families to lower caregiving costs. This is especially important as the number of Latinos living with dementia is expected to increase over the next 4 decades and effective interventions are lacking.

Using Real-World Data to Explore the Impact of One-Time Financial Grants Among Young Adult Cancer Survivors

Young adult (YA) cancer survivors experience worse financial outcomes than older survivors. This analysis used data from Expect Miracles Foundation to explore the impact of one-time financial grants on financial well-being and access to health care. Among 300 respondents, the average grant was $1526 (standard deviation = $587; range $300-$3000). Respondents reported improved ability to pay expenses (t = 4.45, p < 0.001), increased financial decision-making power (t = 2.79, p = 0.06), decreased medical debt impact (t = 2.1, p = 0.04), improved transportation access (t = 2.38, p = 0.02), and fewer challenges in accessing care (t = 3.0, p = 0.005) 6 months after receiving a financial grant. Financial assistance offers YAs an opportunity to meet medical and nonmedical expenses.

Financial Toxicity Order Set: Implementing a Simple Intervention to Better Connect Patients With Resources

PURPOSE

Financial toxicity of cancer treatment is well described in the literature, including characterizations of its risk factors, manifestations, and consequences. There is, however, limited research on interventions, particularly those at the hospital level, to address the issue.

METHODS

From March 1, 2019, to February 28, 2022, a multidisciplinary team conducted a three-cycle Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) process to develop, test, and implement an electronic medical record (EMR) order set to directly refer patients to a hospital-based financial assistance program. The cycles included an assessment of the efficacy of our current practice in connecting patients experiencing financial hardship with assistance, the development and piloting of the EMR referral order, and the broad implementation of the order set across our institution.

RESULTS

In PDSA cycle 1, we found that approximately 25% of patients at our institution experienced some form of financial hardship, but most patients were not connected to available resources because of our referral mechanism. In PDSA cycle 2, the pilot referral order set was deemed feasible and received positive feedback. Over the 12-month study period (March 1, 2021-February 28, 2022) of PDSA cycle 3, 718 orders were placed for 670 unique patients across interdisciplinary providers from 55 treatment areas. These referrals resulted in at least $850,000 in US dollars (USD) in financial aid in 38 patients (mean = $22,368 USD).

CONCLUSION

The findings from our three-cycle PDSA quality improvement project demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of interdisciplinary efforts to develop a hospital-level financial toxicity intervention. A simple referral mechanism can empower providers to connect patients in need with available resources.

Expanding research on the impact of financial hardship on emotional well-being: guidance of diverse stakeholders to the Emotional Well-Being and Economic Burden of Disease (EMOT-ECON) Research Network

The Emotional Well-Being and Economic Burden (EMOT-ECON) Research Network is one of six research networks funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to advance research about emotional well-being (EWB), and the only one that focuses on addressing how economic burden due to disease or illness affects EWB. The network convened researchers, patients, patient advocates, health care providers and other stakeholders from across the US to discuss the significance of addressing the impact of the economic burden of disease on EWB, the complexity of this prevalent problem for patients and families, and the research gaps that still need to be studied to ultimately develop strategies to reduce the impact of economic burden of disease on EWB and health. Participants identified some important future areas of research as those investigating: (i) prevalent and relevant emotions for patients experiencing economic burden of disease and financial hardship, and how their broader outlook on life is impacted; (ii) constructs and contexts that influence whether the economic burden is stressful; (iii) strategies to deal and cope and their positive or negative effects on EWB and health; and (iv) multi-level and multi-stakeholder interventions to address economic factors (e.g., costs, ability to pay), administrative burdens, education and training, and especially patients' emotional as well as financial status.

Cost-Related Medication Nonadherence and Desire for Medication Cost Information Among Adults Aged 65 Years and Older in the US in 2022

Importance

Rising prescription drug costs and increasing prices for consumer goods may increase cost-related medication nonadherence. Cost-conscious prescribing can be supported by real-time benefit tools, but patient views on real-time benefit tool use and their potential benefits and harms are largely unexplored.

Objective

To assess older adults' cost-related medication nonadherence, cost-coping strategies, and views on the use of real-time benefit tools in clinical practice.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A weighted, nationally representative survey of adults aged 65 years and older administered via the internet and telephone from June 2022 to September 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Cost-related medication nonadherence; cost coping strategies; desire for cost conversations; potential benefits and harms from real-time benefit tool use.

Results

Among 2005 respondents, most were female (54.7%) and partnered (59.7%); 40.4% were 75 years or older. Cost-related medication nonadherence was reported by 20.2% of participants. Some respondents used extreme forms of cost-coping, including foregoing basic needs (8.5%) or going into debt (4.8%) to afford medications. Of respondents, 89.0% reported being comfortable or neutral about being screened before a physician's visit for wanting to have medication cost conversations and 89.5% indicated a desire for their physician to use a real-time benefit tool. Respondents expressed concern if prices were inaccurate, with 49.9% of those with cost-related nonadherence and 39.3% of those without reporting they would be extremely upset if their actual medication price was more than what their physician estimated with a real-time benefit tool. If the actual price was much more than the estimated real-time benefit tool price, nearly 80% of respondents with cost-related nonadherence reported that it would affect their decision to start or keep taking a medication. Furthermore, 54.2% of those with any cost-related nonadherence and 30% of those without reported they would be moderately or extremely upset if their physicians used a medication price tool but chose not to discuss prices with them.

Conclusions and Relevance

In 2022, approximately 1 in 5 older adults reported cost-related nonadherence. Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use. However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.

Demand for and Occurrence of Medication Cost Conversations: A Narrative Review

High medication prices can create a financial burden for patients and reduce medication initiation. To improve decision making, public policy is supporting development of tools to provide real-time prescription drug prices. We reviewed the literature on medication cost conversations to characterize the context in which these tools may be used. Our review included 42 articles: a median of 84% of patients across four clinical specialties reported a desire for cost conversations (n = 7 articles) but only 23% reported having held a cost conversation across six specialties (n = 16 articles). Non-White and older patients were less likely to report having held a cost conversation than White and younger patients in 9 of 13 and 5 of 9 articles, respectively, examining these associations. Our review indicates that tools providing price information may not result in improved decision making without complementary interventions that increase the frequency of cost conversations with a focus on protected groups.

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.

Financial toxicity: a common problem affecting patient care and health

Financial toxicity describes the negative effects of the economic burden of medical care on patients that potentially lead to poor well-being and quality of life. Co-ordinated efforts at the care provider, health system, insurance and government level, supported by emerging research into remedial approaches, are needed to address this problem.