Impact of a Comprehensive Financial Resource on Financial Toxicity in a National, Multiethnic Sample of Adult, Adolescent/Young Adult, and Pediatric Patients With Cancer

Out-of-Pocket Costs and Payments in Autologous and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Nationwide Analysis

BACKGROUND

Many factors influence a patient's decision to undergo autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction, including medical, social, and financial considerations. This study aims to investigate differences in out-of-pocket and total spending for patients undergoing autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The IBM MarketScan Commercial Databases were queried to extract all patients who underwent inpatient autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction from 2017 to 2021. Financial variables included gross payments to the provider (facility and/or physician) and out-of-pocket costs (total of coinsurance, deductible, and copayments). Univariate regressions assessed differences between autologous and implant-based reconstruction procedures. Mixed-effects linear regression was used to analyze parametric contributions to total gross and out-of-pocket costs.

RESULTS

The sample identified 2079 autologous breast reconstruction and 1475 implant-based breast reconstruction episodes. Median out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for autologous reconstruction than implant-based reconstruction ($597 vs $250, P < 0.001) as were total payments ($63,667 vs $31,472, P < 0.001). Type of insurance plan and region contributed to variable out-of-pocket costs (P < 0.001). Regression analysis revealed that autologous reconstruction contributes significantly to increasing out-of-pocket costs (B = $597, P = 0.025) and increasing total costs (B = $74,507, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

The US national data demonstrate that autologous breast reconstruction has higher out-of-pocket costs and higher gross payments than implant-based reconstruction. More study is needed to determine the extent to which these financial differences affect patient decision-making.

Pharmacy Assistance Programs for Oral Anticancer Drugs: A Narrative Review

Oral anticancer medications (OAMs) are high priced with a significant cost-sharing burden to patients, which can lead to catastrophic financial, psychosocial, and clinical repercussions. Cost-conscious prescribing and inclusion of low-cost alternatives can help mitigate this burden, but cost transparency at the point of prescribing remains a major barrier to doing so. Pharmacy assistance programs, including co-payment cards and patient assistance programs administered by manufacturers and foundation-based grants, remain an essential resource for patients facing prohibitive co-payments for OAMs. However, access to these programs is fraught with complexities, including lack of trained financial navigators, limited transparency on eligibility criteria, onerous documentation burdens, and limits in available funding. Despite these drawbacks and the potential for such programs to incentivize manufacturers to keep list prices high, assistance programs have been demonstrated to improve financial well-being for patients with cancer. The increasing development of integrated specialty pharmacies with dedicated, trained pharmacy staff can help improve and standardize access to such programs, but these services are disproportionately available to patients seen at tertiary care centers. Multistakeholder interventions are needed to mitigate the burden of cost sharing for OAMs, including increased clinician knowledge of financial resources and novel assistance mechanisms, investment of institutions in trained financial navigation services and centralized platforms to identify assistance programs, and policies to cap out-of-pocket spending and improve transparency of rates charged by pharmacy benefit managers to a health plan.

Financial Aid in Children, Adolescents and Young Adult's Cancer Care: A Scoping Review

Background: The financial burden resulting from cancers on families is higher when it arises in young people compared with older adults. Previous research has provided insight into the financial toxicities associated with childhood cancer, but less is known about the efficacy of financial aid systems in reducing the financial burden on families. We conducted a scoping review to identify the determinants of success and failure of financial aid. Methods: Five databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2000 and December 1, 2022. Dual processes were used to screen and select studies. Through thematic content analysis, we identified barriers and enablers of financial aid, categorised by country income level. Results: From 17 articles, which were evenly split between high-income countries and upper middle- to low-income countries, four major themes emerged: (1) accessibility of support, (2) delivery of support, (3) administration, and (4) psychosocial factors. Within these themes, the enablers identified were (1) support navigators, (2) establishing a direct contact between donors and beneficiaries, (3) implementation of digital solutions to improve outreach, and (4) using cultural and community values to encourage donor engagement. Conclusions: This scoping review identified the determinants of success and failure of financial aid in supporting families in the context of childhood, adolescent, and young adult (CAYA) cancers. By understanding the barriers and enablers identified in this review, organizations could develop pragmatic evidence-based care models and policies to ensure access to assistance is equitable and appropriate for families experiencing CAYA cancers.

Access to Financial Assistance Programs and Their Impact on Overall Spending on Oral Anticancer Medications at an Integrated Specialty Pharmacy

PURPOSE

Financial assistance (FA) programs are increasingly used to help patients afford oral anticancer medications (OAMs), but access to such programs and their impact on out-of-pocket (OOP) spending has not been well explored. This study aimed to (1) characterize the impact of receipt of FA on both OOP spending and likelihood of catastrophic spending on OAMs and (2) evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in access to FA programs.

METHODS

Patients with a cancer diagnosis prescribed an OAM anytime between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021 were included in this retrospective, single-center study at an integrated specialty pharmacy affiliated with a tertiary academic cancer center. Fixed-effect regression models were used to characterize the impact of receipt of FA on overall spending and likelihood of catastrophic spending on OAMs, as well as explore the association of race/ethnicity with receipt of FA.

RESULTS

Across 1,186 patients prescribed an OAM, 37% received FA. Receipt of FA was associated with lower annual spending on OAMs (β = -$1,236 US dollars [USD; 95% CI, -$1,841 to -$658], P < .001) but not reduced risk of catastrophic spending (odds ratio [OR], 0.442 [95% CI, 0.755 to 3.199], P = .23). Non-White patients (OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.85], P = .004) and patients who spoke English as a second language (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.90], P = .02) were less likely to receive FA compared with White and English-speaking patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

FA programs can mitigate high OOP spending but not for patients who spend at catastrophic levels. There are racial/ethnic and language disparities in access to such programs. Future studies should evaluate access to FA programs across diverse delivery settings.

Patient-Reported Financial Burden of Treatment for Colon or Rectal Cancer

Importance

The longitudinal experience of patients is critical to the development of interventions to identify and reduce financial hardship.

Objective

To evaluate financial hardship over 12 months in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing curative-intent therapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted between May 2018 and July 2020, with time points over 12 months. Participants included patients at National Cance Institute Community Oncology Research Program sites. Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, newly diagnosed stage I to III CRC, not started chemotherapy and/or radiation, treated with curative intent, and able to speak English. Data were analyzed from December 2022 through April 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was financial hardship, measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), which assesses the psychological domain of financial hardship (range, 0-44; higher score indicates better financial well-being). Participants completed 30-minute surveys (online or paper) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results

A total of 450 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [12.0] years; 240 [53.3%] male) completed the baseline survey; 33 participants (7.3%) were Black and 379 participants (84.2%) were White, and 14 participants (3.1%) identified as Hispanic or Latino and 424 participants (94.2%) identified as neither Hispanic nor Latino. There were 192 participants (42.7%) with an annual household income of $60 000 or greater. There was an improvement in financial hardship from diagnosis to 12 months of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3) points per month (P < .001). Patients with better quality of life and greater self-efficacy had less financial toxicity. Each 1-unit increase in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (rapid version) score was associated with an increase of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9) points in COST score (P < .001); each 1-unit increase in self-efficacy associated with an increase of 0.6 (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.0) points in COST score (P = .006). Patients who lived in areas with lower neighborhood socioeconomic status had greater financial toxicity. Neighborhood deprivation index was associated with a decrease of 0.3 (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1) points in COST score (P = .009).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that interventions for financial toxicity in cancer care should focus on counseling to improve self-efficacy and mitigate financial worry and screening for these interventions should include patients at higher risk of financial burden.

Health Insurance Literacy Improvements Among Recently Diagnosed Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: Results From a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; age 18-39 years) with cancer report needing support with health insurance. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual health insurance navigation intervention (HIAYA CHAT) to improve health insurance literacy (HIL), awareness of Affordable Care Act (ACA) protections, financial toxicity, and stress.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

HIAYA CHAT is a four-session navigator delivered program; it includes psychoeducation on insurance, navigating one's plan, insurance-related laws, and managing costs. Participants were eligible if they could access an internet-capable device, were <1 year from diagnosis, and received treatment from University of Utah Healthcare or Intermountain Health systems. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of HIAYA CHAT compared with usual navigation care, including HIL (nine items), insurance knowledge (13 items), ACA protections (eight items), COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST; 11 items), and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; four items), using t tests and Cohen's d.

RESULTS

From November 2020 to December 2021, N = 86 AYAs enrolled (44.6% participation) and 89.3% completed the 5-month follow-up survey; 68.6% were female, 72.1% were White, 23.3% were Hispanic, 65.1% were age 26-39 years, and 87.2% were privately insured. Of intervention participants (n = 45), 67.4% completed all four sessions; among an exit interview subset (n = 10), all endorsed the program (100%). At follow-up, compared with usual navigation care, intervention participants had greater improvements in HIL, insurance and ACA protections knowledge, and PSS; effect sizes ranged from moderate to large (0.42-0.77). COST did not differ.

CONCLUSION

The results support the feasibility and acceptability of HIAYA CHAT with related improvements in HIL.

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.

The costs and inequities of precision medicine for patients with prostate cancer: A call to action

Financial toxicity is a growing problem in the delivery of cancer care and contributes to inequities in outcomes across the cancer care continuum. Racial/ethnic inequities in prostate cancer, the most common cancer diagnosed in men, are well described, and threaten to widen in the era of precision oncology given the numerous structural barriers to accessing novel diagnostic studies and treatments, particularly for Black men. Gaps in insurance coverage and cost sharing are 2 such structural barriers that can perpetuate inequities in screening, diagnostic workup, guideline-concordant treatment, symptom management, survivorship, and access to clinical trials. Mitigating these barriers will be key to achieving equity in prostate cancer care, and will require a multi-pronged approach from policymakers, health systems, and individual providers. This narrative review will describe the current state of financial toxicity in prostate cancer care and its role in perpetuating racial inequities in the era of precision oncology.