Cancer cost-related subjective financial distress among breast cancer: a scoping review

PURPOSE

This article provided a comprehensive scoping review, synthesizing existing literature on the financial distress faced by breast cancer patients. It examined the factors contributing to financial distress, the impact on patients, coping mechanisms employed, and potential alleviation methods. The goal was to organize existing evidence and highlight possible directions for future research.

METHODS

We followed the scoping review framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) to synthesize and report evidence. We searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library, for relevant literature. We included English articles that met the following criteria: (a) the research topic was financial distress or financial toxicity, (b) the research subjects were adult breast cancer patients, and (c) the article type was quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research. We then extracted and integrated relevant information for reporting.

RESULTS

After removing duplicates, 5459 articles were retrieved, and 43 articles were included based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles addressed four main themes related to financial distress: factors associated with financial distress, impact on breast cancer patients, coping mechanisms, and potential methods for alleviation. The impact of financial distress on patients was observed in six dimensions: financial expenses, financial resources, social-psychological reactions, support seeking, coping care, and coping lifestyle. While some studies reported potential methods for alleviation, few discussed the feasibility of these solutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer patients experience significant financial distress with multidimensional impacts. Comprehensive consideration of possible confounding factors is essential when measuring financial distress. Future research should focus on exploring and validating methods to alleviate or resolve this issue.

Understanding the financial cost of cancer clinical trial participation

BACKGROUND

Though financial hardship is a well-documented adverse effect of standard-of-care cancer treatment, little is known about out-of-pocket costs and their impact on patients participating in cancer clinical trials. This study explored the financial effects of cancer clinical trial participation.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis used survey data collected in December 2022 and May 2023 from individuals with cancer previously served by Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonprofit organization providing social needs navigation and financial assistance to US adults with a chronic illness. Surveys included questions on cancer clinical trial participation, trial-related financial hardship, and sociodemographic data. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted using Cramer's V to estimate the in-sample magnitude of association. Associations between trial-related financial hardship and sociodemographics were estimated using adjusted relative risks (aRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) from modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors.

RESULTS

Of 650 survey respondents, 18% (N = 118) reported ever participating in a cancer clinical trial. Of those, 47% (n = 55) reported financial hardship as a result of their trial participation. Respondents reporting trial-related financial hardship were more often unemployed or disabled (58% vs. 43%; V = 0.15), Medicare enrolled (53% vs. 40%; V = 0.15), and traveled >1 h to their cancer provider (45% vs. 17%; V = 0.33) compared to respondents reporting no hardship. Respondents who experienced trial-related financial hardship most often reported expenses from travel (reported by 71% of respondents), medical bills (58%), dining out (40%), or housing needs (40%). Modeling results indicated that respondents traveling >1 h vs. ≤30 min to their cancer provider had a 2.2× higher risk of financial hardship, even after adjusting for respondent race, income, employment, and insurance status (aRR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.8). Most respondents (53%) reported needing $200-$1000 per month to compensate for trial-related expenses. Over half (51%) of respondents reported less willingness to participate in future clinical trials due to incurred financial hardship. Notably, of patients who did not participate in a cancer clinical trial (n = 532), 13% declined participation due to cost.

CONCLUSION

Cancer clinical trial-related financial hardship, most often stemming from travel expenses, affected almost half of trial-enrolled patients. Interventions are needed to reduce adverse financial participation effects and potentially improve cancer clinical trial participation.

Financial toxicity among people with metastatic cancer: findings from the Cancer Experience Registry

PURPOSE

This study describes financial toxicity (FT) reported by people with metastatic cancer, characteristics associated with FT, and associations between FT and compensatory strategies to offset costs.

METHODS

Cancer Support Community's Cancer Experience Registry data was used to identify respondents with a solid tumor metastatic cancer who completed the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (FACIT-COST) measure. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined associations between respondent characteristics and FT, and FT and postponing medical visits, nonadherence to medications, and postponing supportive and/or psychosocial care.

RESULTS

484 individuals were included in the analysis; the most common cancers included metastatic breast (31%), lung (13%), gynecologic (10%), and colorectal (9%). Approximately half of participants (50.2%) reported some degree of FT. Those who were non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, or multiple races (compared to non-Hispanic Black), and who reported lower income, less education, and being less than one year since their cancer diagnosis had greater odds of reporting FT. Individuals with any level of FT were also more likely to report postponing medical visits (Adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] 2.58; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.45-4.58), suboptimal medication adherence (Adjusted OR 5.05; 95% CI 2.77-9.20) and postponing supportive care and/or psychosocial support services (Adjusted OR 4.16; 95% CI 2.53-6.85) compared to those without FT.

CONCLUSIONS

With increases in the number of people living longer with metastatic cancer and the rising costs of therapy, there will continue to be a need to systematically screen and intervene to prevent and mitigate FT for these survivors.

Evaluation of financial toxicity and associated factors in female patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

These systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to discuss the financial toxicity (FT) level among breast cancer (BC) patients and the associated demographic and economic factors.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of single means were used by following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and PRISMA guidance. Untransformed means (MRAW) were used to estimate the confidence interval for individual studies, while I2 and tau2 statistics were used to examine heterogeneity among pooled studies. Electronic databases were PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Science Direct, and Turkish databases were used to find relevant studies published in the last 15 years (between 2008 and 2023).

RESULTS

A total of 50 studies were reviewed in the systematic review, and 11 were included in the overall and subgroup meta-analyses. The majority of reviewed studies were from the USA (38 studies), while there were four studies from China and eight studies from other countries having different types of health systems. The overall estimated FT level based on 11 pooled studies was 23.19, meaning mild level FT in the range of four categories (no FT score > 25, mild FT score 14-25, moderate FT score 1-13, and severe FT score equal to 0), with a 95% CI of 20.66-25.72. The results of subgroup meta-analyses showed that the estimated FT levels were higher among those patients who were single, with lower education levels, stage 3 patients, younger, lower income, unemployed, and living in other countries compared to those who were married, more educated, and stages 1 and 2 patients, more aged, more income, employed, and patients in the USA.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness of the treatment strategies of BC depends on the continuity of care. However, FT is one of the leading factors causing BC patients to use the required care irregularly, and it has a negative effect on adherence to treatment. So, removing the economic barriers by taking appropriate measures to decrease FT will increase the efficiency of already allocated resources to BC treatments and improve the health outcomes of BC patients.

Relationships Among Health Insurance Literacy, Financial Toxicity, and Sociodemographic Factors in Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

The objective of the study was to describe the prevalence of health insurance literacy (HIL) and investigate how patient-reported outcome measures assessing HIL are related to financial toxicity in patients with cancer.

METHODS

We assessed HIL and financial toxicity in 404 patients enrolled between December 2019 and January 2021 at two medical centers in the United States. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to explore and test the relationships among the factors and items. We fit structural equation models (SEMs) to find the relationships among the factors and sociodemographic/clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

The EFA revealed items loaded on four factors: knowledge about health insurance, confidence related to HIL (HIL confidence), information-seeking behavior related to health insurance, and financial toxicity. The four-factor CFA model had good fit statistics (comparative fit index, 0.960; Tucker-Lewis index, 0.958; root mean square error of approximation, 0.046; and standardized root mean square residual, 0.086). In SEM, income, education level, and race positively predicted knowledge about health insurance. Knowledge about health insurance and number of total lines of cancer treatment was positively associated with HIL confidence. Higher income, older age, and HIL confidence were associated with less financial toxicity. Higher levels of financial toxicity, HIL confidence, and knowledge were associated with greater information-seeking behavior.

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed how different aspects of HIL are related to financial toxicity even after adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Future studies should investigate the longitudinal relationships among these factors to help develop interventions to mitigate financial toxicity.

"It's just not easy to understand": A mixed methods study of health insurance literacy and insurance plan decision-making in cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Understanding cancer survivors' health insurance decision-making is needed to improve insurance choice, potentially resulting in reduced financial hardship.

METHODS

This explanatory mixed methods study assessed health insurance decision-making in cancer survivors. Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM) captured HIL. Quantitative eye-tracking data collected from two simulated health insurance plan choice sets gauged dwell time (seconds), or interest, in benefits. Dwell time differences by HIL were estimated using adjusted linear models. Qualitative interviews explored survivors' insurance decision-making choices.

RESULTS

Cancer survivors (N = 80; 38% breast cancer) had a median age of 43 at diagnosis (IQR 34-52). When comparing traditional and high-deductible health plans, survivors were most interested in drug costs (median dwell time 58 s, IQR 34-109). When comparing health maintenance organization and preferred provider organization plans, survivors were most interested in test/imaging costs (40s, IQR 14-67). Survivors with low versus high HIL had more interest in deductible (β = 19 s, 95% CI 2-38) and hospitalization costs (β = 14 s, 95% CI 1-27) in adjusted models. Survivors with low versus high HIL more often ranked out-of-pocket (OOP) maximums and coinsurance as the most important and confusing benefits, respectively. Interviews (n = 20) revealed survivors felt alone "to do their own research" about insurance choices. OOP maximums were cited as the deciding factor since it is "how much money is going to be taken out of my pocket." Coinsurance was considered "rather than a benefit, it's a hindrance."

CONCLUSION

Interventions to aid in health insurance understanding and choice are needed to optimize plan choice and potentially reduce cancer-related financial hardship.

Financial toxicity among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study

Objectives

Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients experience greater financial toxicity than other cancer patients. Research on financial toxicity has concentrated on patients despite many informal caregivers sharing finances and reducing work hours to provide patient care. Thus, our pilot study: (1) assessed the feasibility of financial toxicity screening of HNC patients and their caregivers, and (2) described financial toxicity levels of HNC patients and their caregivers.

Methods

We surveyed English-speaking adult HNC patients initiating treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and their informal caregivers. This survey assessed demographics and financial toxicity through the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure (0-44 range; lower score indicates higher financial toxicity). Screening feasibility was defined as ≥50% consent rate and ≥60% data completion rate.

Results

Our sample included 27 HNC patients and 9 caregivers. They both had slightly lower consent and completion rates than our goals. Patients reported a median COST score of 27 while caregivers reported a median COST score of 16. Approximately 25.9% of patients and 44.4% of caregivers reported high financial toxicity (COST < 17.5). Caregivers reported high concerns about their future financial health and their ability to control the amount of their financial contributions to the patient's care.

Conclusions

Patients and caregivers may require additional outreach approaches beyond emailed questionnaires to screen for their financial toxicity systematically. Future research is needed to replicate our results to determine whether differences in financial toxicity occur between patients and caregivers and identify areas of focus for interventions.

Level of evidence

IV.

Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Breast Cancer Worldwide: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Financial toxicity (FT) is the negative impact of cost of care on financial well-being. Patients with breast cancer are at risk for incurring high out-of-pocket costs given the long-term need for multidisciplinary care and expensive treatments.

Objective

To quantify the FT rate of patients with breast cancer and identify particularly vulnerable patient populations nationally and internationally.

Data Sources

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Four databases-Embase, PubMed, Global Index Medicus, and Global Health (EBSCO)-were queried from inception to February 2021. Data analysis was performed from March to December 2022.

Study Selection

A comprehensive database search was performed for full-text, English-language articles reporting FT among patients with breast cancer. Two independent reviewers conducted study screening and selection; 462 articles underwent full-text review.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

A standardized data extraction tool was developed and validated by 2 independent authors; study quality was also assessed. Variables assessed included race, income, insurance status, education status, employment, urban or rural status, and cancer stage and treatment. Pooled estimates of FT rates and their 95% CIs were obtained using the random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

FT was the primary outcome and was evaluated using quantitative FT measures, including rate of patients experiencing FT, and qualitative FT measures, including patient-reported outcome measures or patient-reported severity and interviews. The rates of patients in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries who incurred FT according to out-of-pocket cost, income, or patient-reported impact of expenditures during breast cancer diagnosis and treatment were reported as a meta-analysis.

Results

Of the 11 086 articles retrieved, 34 were included in the study. Most studies were from high-income countries (24 studies), and the rest were from low- and middle-income countries (10 studies). The sample size of included studies ranged from 5 to 2445 people. There was significant heterogeneity in the definition of FT. FT rate was pooled from 18 articles. The pooled FT rate was 35.3% (95% CI, 27.3%-44.4%) in high-income countries and 78.8% (95% CI, 60.4%-90.0%) in low- and middle-income countries.

Conclusions and Relevance

Substantial FT is associated with breast cancer treatment worldwide. Although the FT rate was higher in low- and middle-income countries, more than 30% of patients in high-income countries also incurred FT. Policies designed to offset the burden of direct medical and nonmedical costs are required to improve the financial health of vulnerable patients with breast cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Treatment Options for Women With Endocrine-Refractory or Triple-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are modestly effective at prolonging life and improving quality of life but can be extremely expensive. Given these tradeoffs in quality of life and cost, the optimal choice of treatment sequencing is unclear. Cost-effectiveness analysis can explicitly quantify such tradeoffs, enabling more informed decision making. Our objective was to estimate the societal cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic alternatives in the first- to third-line sequences of single-agent chemotherapy regimens among patients with endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC.

METHODS

Using three dynamic microsimulation models of 10,000 patients each, three cohorts were simulated, based upon prior chemotherapy exposure: (1) unexposed to either taxane or anthracycline, (2) taxane- and anthracycline-exposed, and (3) taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive. We focused on the following single-agent chemotherapy regimens as reasonable and commonly used options in the first three lines of therapy for each cohort, based upon feedback from oncologists treating endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC: (1) for taxane- and anthracycline-unexposed patients, paclitaxel, capecitabine (CAPE), or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; (2) for taxane- and anthracycline-exposed patients, Eribulin, CAPE, or carboplatin; and (3) for taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive patients, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, CAPE, or Eribulin.

RESULTS

In each cohort, accumulated quality-adjusted life-years were similar between regimens, but total societal costs varied considerably. Sequences beginning first-line treatment with paclitaxel, carboplatin, and CAPE, respectively, for cohorts 1, 2, and 3, had lower costs and similar or slightly better outcomes compared with alternative options.

CONCLUSION

In this setting where multiple single-agent chemotherapy options are recommended by clinical guidelines and share similar survival and adverse event trajectories, treatment sequencing approaches that minimize costs early may improve the value of care.

Health insurance literacy among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study

Objective

Health insurance literacy interventions may reduce financial burden and its effects on cancer patients and their caregivers. However, little is known about the health insurance literacy levels of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and their caregivers. We assessed the feasibility of screening for health insurance literacy in a pilot study and described the health insurance literacy levels of HNC patients and their caregivers.

Methods

We administered a survey that assessed demographics and subjective and objective health insurance literacy to HNC patients and their caregivers. Subjective health insurance literacy was measured through the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (score range: 0-84). Objective health insurance literacy was measured through correct answers to a previously developed 10-question knowledge test. Due to a small sample size, inferential statistics were not used; we instead descriptively reported findings.

Results

The pilot included 48 HNC patients and 13 caregivers. About 44.4% of patients and 30.8% of caregivers demonstrated low health insurance literacy (HILM ≤60). On the 10-item knowledge test, patients had an average of 6.8 (SD: 2.3) correct responses and caregivers had 7.8 (SD: 1.1) correct responses. Calculating out-of-pocket costs for out-of-network services was challenging; only 9.5% of patients and 0% of caregivers answered correctly.

Conclusion

Additional outreach strategies may be needed to supplement screening for health insurance literacy. Areas of focus for interventions include improving understanding of how to calculate financial responsibility for health care services and filing an appeal for health insurance claim denial.

Level of Evidence

IV.

Association of Health Insurance Literacy With Financial Hardship in Patients With Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Patient-reported financial hardship is an increasing challenge in cancer care delivery. Health insurance literacy and its association with financial hardship in patients with cancer, especially after controlling for financial literacy, have not been well examined.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence of and factors in the association between health insurance literacy and financial literacy as well as the overall and individual domains of financial hardship and their association with health insurance literacy, both independently and when adjusted for financial literacy, in patients with cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional survey study recruited and enrolled patients from 2 separate ambulatory infusion centers at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Phoenix, Arizona, and the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. Adult patients aged 18 years or older were enrolled from December 2019 to February 2020 and from August to October 2020 at Mayo Clinic Arizona (n = 299) and from September 2020 through January 2021 at the University of Mississippi Medical Center (n = 105). Survey respondents received a $5 gift card.

EXPOSURES

Surveys included questions about sociodemographic characteristics, health insurance literacy and financial literacy, financial knowledge, and financial hardship and its domains (material hardship, psychological hardship, and behavioral hardship).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Financial hardship was assessed using the COST-FACIT (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy) measure and National Health Interview Survey questions to capture information about the domains of financial hardship. The Health Insurance Literacy Measure is a validated 21-item measure of a consumer's ability to select and use health insurance. Five questions from the National Financial Capability Study assessed financial literacy.

RESULTS

A total of 404 participants were enrolled in the study. Median (IQR) age of the respondents was 63 (54-71) years, and 219 were women (54%), 307 were non-Hispanic White individuals (76%), 153 (38%) had private insurance, and 289 (72%) had solid tumors. Overall financial hardship (denoted by median COST-FACIT score <27 points) was reported by 49% (95% CI, 44%-53%) of the cohort. Prevalence of financial hardship was higher using the National Health Interview Survey questions, with 68% (95% CI, 63%-72%) of respondents reporting at least 1 hardship domain (n = 276). Sixty-six percent (95% CI, 60%-69%) of respondents (n = 265) had a high level of financial literacy. The mean (SD) Health Insurance Literacy Measure score was 64.9 (13.3) points. In multivariable analyses, each 10-point increase in the Health Insurance Literacy Measure score was associated with lower odds of financial hardship (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .04). However, this association was no longer significant after adjusting for financial literacy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this study showed that, despite a high level of health insurance literacy and financial literacy, the prevalence of financial hardship was high. Although there were lower odds of financial hardship with increased health insurance literacy, the association was no longer significant when financial literacy was added to the model, suggesting that a high level of financial literacy may help mitigate the adverse outcome of lower health insurance literacy levels in patients with cancer.

Financial toxicity in cancer care: origins, impact, and solutions

Financial toxicity describes the financial burden and distress that can arise for patients, and their family members, as a result of cancer treatment. It includes direct out-of-pocket costs for treatment and indirect costs such as travel, time, and changes to employment that can increase the burden of cancer. While high costs of cancer care have threatened the sustainability of access to care for decades, it is only in the past 10 years that the term "financial toxicity" has been popularized to recognize that the financial burdens of care can be just as important as the physical toxicities traditionally associated with cancer therapy. The past decade has seen a rapid growth in research identifying the prevalence and impact of financial toxicity. Research is now beginning to focus on innovations in screening and care delivery that can mitigate this risk. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer centers to address costs of care in order to minimize financial toxicity, promote access to high value care, and reduce health disparities. We review the evolution of concerns over costs of cancer care, the impact of financial burdens on patients, methods to screen for financial toxicity, proposed solutions, and priorities for future research to identify and address costs that threaten the health and quality of life for many patients with cancer.

The association of health insurance literacy and numeracy with financial toxicity and hardships among colorectal cancer survivors

PURPOSE

In this study, we examined the association of financial hardship measured by material financial burden and financial toxicity with health insurance literacy and numeracy among colorectal cancer survivors. The lack of evidence on the impact of cost-related health literacy, specifically health insurance literacy and numeracy, on financial toxicity among cancer survivors warrants further research.

METHODS

Between January and November 2019, we used a cross-sectional research design to collect surveys from 104 colorectal cancer survivors (diagnosed within last 5 years) from the Kentucky Cancer Registry. Survey items assessed health insurance literacy (measured by confidence and behaviors in choosing and using health insurance), numeracy, material financial burden, and financial toxicity, in addition to socio-demographic variables. Survey data were subsequently linked to the participant's cancer registry record. Data were analyzed using descriptive, bivariate, and multiple linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

The mean financial toxicity score was 24.5, with scores ranging from 3 to 43 (higher scores indicating greater financial toxicity). Eighty percent of participants indicated they had experienced one or more material burdens related to their cancer. The majority had adequate health insurance (79%); however, the majority also had low numeracy (84%). After controlling for socio-demographic covariates, significant predictors of greater financial toxicity were high material burden scores, low health insurance literacy, and low numeracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate the need to develop programs and interventions aimed at improving health insurance literacy and numeracy as a strategy for reducing financial toxicity and hardships among colorectal cancer survivors.

Time to add screening for financial hardship as a quality measure?

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.