Addressing financial toxicity in oncology care

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.

How Attributes of Place Threaten Community Trust in the American South: Opportunities for Improving Pandemic-Related Communication

Trust and mistrust influence the utilization of health services, the quality of overall healthcare, and the prevalence of health disparities. Trust has significant bearing on how communities, and the individuals within them, perceive health information and recommendations. The People and Places Framework is utilized to answer what attributes of place threaten community trust in public health and medical recommendations.Augusta-Richmond County is ranked among the least healthy counties in Georgia despite being home to the best healthcare-to-residence ratios and a vast array of healthcare services. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 neighborhood residents. Data were analyzed using the Sort & Sift, Think & Shift method. Threats to community trust were identified within four local-level attributes of place: availability of products and services, social structures, physical structures, and cultural and media messages. We found a broader web of services, policies, and institutions, beyond interactions with health care, that influence the trust placed in health officials and institutions. Participants spoke to both a potential lack of trust (e.g. needs not being met, as through lack of access to services) and mistrust (e.g. negative motives, such as profit seeking or experimentation). Across the four attributes of place, residents expressed opportunities to build trust. Our findings highlight the importance of examining trust at the community level, providing insight into an array of factors that impact trust at a local level, and extend the work on trust and its related constructs (e.g. mistrust). Implications for improving pandemic-related communication through community relationship building are presented.

Discussing Cost and Value in Patient Decision Aids and Shared Decision Making: A Call to Action

Direct and indirect costs of care influence patients' health choices and the ability to implement those choices. Despite the significant impact of care costs on patients' health and daily lives, patient decision aid (PtDA) and shared decision-making (SDM) guidelines almost never mention a discussion of costs of treatment options as part of minimum standards or quality criteria. Given the growing study of the impact of costs in health decisions and the rising costs of care more broadly, in fall 2021 we organized a symposium at the Society for Medical Decision Making's annual meeting. The focus was on the role of cost information in PtDAs and SDM. Panelists gave an overview of work in this space at this virtual meeting, and attendees engaged in rich discussion with the panelists about the state of the problem as well as ideas and challenges in incorporating cost-related issues into routine care. This article summarizes and extends our discussion based on the literature in this area and calls for action. We recommend that PtDA and SDM guidelines routinely include a discussion of direct and indirect care costs and that researchers measure the frequency, quality, and response to this information.

Characteristics of Cancer Survivors Living in Poverty in the United States: Results From the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey

PURPOSE

There has been increasing concern over the high cost of oncology care and its long-lasting impact on the well-being of cancer survivors.

METHODS

We examined characteristics of impoverished cancer survivors in the United States, including their physical and mental health, using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We used binomial logistic regressions for binary outcome variables, and negative binomial regressions for count variables, to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and incident rate ratios (IRRs) of the physical, mental, and socioeconomic-related health factors for low-income cancer survivors versus higher-income survivors. We compared the ORs and IRRs for low-income cancer survivors with those of higher income cancer survivors.

RESULTS

There was a two-fold increased odds (adjusted OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.86 to 2.91) of having fair/poor health for low-income cancer survivors compared with higher-income cancer survivors. There was an almost two-fold increased odds (adjusted OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.50 to 2.59) of not being able to see a doctor among low-income cancer survivors, and a 42% lower odds (adjusted OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.86) of having health insurance coverage for low-income cancer survivors compared with higher-income survivors. Incidence rate ratios for physical (IRR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.75) and mental (IRR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.86) unhealthy days were significantly higher among low-income cancer survivors compared with nonpoor cancer survivors.

CONCLUSION

Strategies are available to ameliorate financial hardship at multiple levels. Implementation of these strategies is urgently needed.

Financial assistance programs for cancer patients

Background:

The high costs of oncology care can lead to financial stress and have deleterious effects on the well-being of patients and their families. However, only a handful of financial assistance programs for cancer patients have been implemented and evaluated to date.

Recent findings:

Key features of reported programs include instrumental support through financial navigation or education for patients, and financial or charitable support for healthcare costs. Only one of the programs successfully reduced actual out-of-pocket costs for patients, though others were associated with psychosocial benefits or increased knowledge of financial resources. Four of the 5 programs evaluated to date were pilot studies with small sample sizes, and most lack control groups for comparison.

Conclusions:

Additional studies are needed that include larger sample sizes and with comparison groups of cancer patients in order to determine whether the counseling and navigator programs are effective in addressing financial distress in this patient population. Of particular interest are programs designed for low-income patients and those who lack health care insurance. Financial assistance programs that implement solutions at different levels of the healthcare system (individual patients, providers, healthcare institutions) are more likely to be effective. Multi-level interventions are needed that address the systems in which patients access care, the actual costs of services and drugs, and the individual needs of patients in order to reduce financial hardship for cancer patients.

A cross-sectional study of financial distress in persons with multimorbidity

BACKGROUND

Financial distress among persons with multimorbidity is an important topic which has been inadequately addressed to date.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the extent of financial distress among persons with multimorbidity, using data from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, population-based study.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults ages ≥ 18 years with multimorbidity.

MAIN MEASURES

Low income and selected social determinants of health that are indicators of financial distress.

KEY RESULTS

Multimorbidity was more common among those with a household income of less than $15,000 per year (P < 0.001) and among those who were 65 years of age or older (P < 0.001). There was an approximately linear increase in the percentage of individuals who had a household income of less than $15,000 or $25,000 per year with increasing number of morbidities. About one-quarter of individuals who had five or more morbidities had a household income of less than $15,000 per year as compared with 4.49% of individuals with no morbidities (P < 0.001). For all of the social determinants of health examined (Couldn't pay bills, didn't have money for food, didn't have money for balanced meals, didn't have enough money to make ends meet, and felt this kind of stress), there was an approximately linear increase in the percentage of individuals with an indicator of financial distress with increasing number of morbidities. Further research is needed examining the prevalence and correlates of financial distress in this population as well effective strategies for ameliorating its impact on the health and wellbeing of these persons.