Jeremy O'COnnor

Purpose: To prospectively estimate patient-centered financial stress and its relationship with health care utilization in patients with head and neck cancer. This was a survey-based, longitudinal, prospective study of treatment-naïve patients with stage III, IVa, or IVb locally advanced head and neck cancer at a single-institution tertiary care hospital from May 2013 to November 2014. With 121 patients approached, 73 (60%) agreed to participate. Methods: Self-reported data were collected on demographics, income, wealth, cost-coping strategies, out-of-pocket costs, supportive medication compliance, and perceived social isolation. Health care utilization was measured by hospital admissions and outpatient appointments on a 6-month timeline. Logistic regression models were constructed to identify factors associated with use of cost-coping strategies. Covariates included all demographics, measures of income, wealth, out-of-pocket costs, indirect costs, and perceived social isolation. Results: Fifty-one patients (69%) relied on at least one coping strategy. On multivariable analysis, Medicaid patients were more likely than privately insured patients to use cost-coping strategies (odds ratio, 42.3; P = .0042). Decreased wealth ( P = .002) and higher total out-of-pocket costs ( P = .003) were independently associated with using cost-coping strategies. Patients with high perceived social isolation were also more likely to use cost-coping strategies (odds ratio, 11.5; P = .01). Patients with high perceived social isolation were more likely to report nonadherence to supportive medications (21.4 v 5.45 days over 6 months; P = .0278) and missed appointments (seven v three; P = .0077). Conclusion: A majority of patients used at least one cost-coping strategy during their treatment, highlighting the financial stress that patients experience. Perceived social isolation is an important social determinant of increased medication nonadherence, missed appointments, and use of cost-coping strategies. Interventions should be investigated in at-risk patients who may suffer from financial stress.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and its treatment lead to increased financial distress for patients. To the authors' knowledge, to date, no standardized patient‐reported outcome measure has been validated to assess this distress.METHODS: Patients with AJCC Stage IV solid tumors receiving chemotherapy for at least 2 months were recruited. Financial toxicity was measured by the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) measure. The authors collected data regarding patient characteristics, clinical trial participation, health care use, willingness to discuss costs, psychological distress (Brief Profile of Mood States [POMS]), and health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General (FACT‐G) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL questionnaires. Test‐retest reliability, internal consistency, and validity of the COST measure were assessed using standard‐scale construction techniques. Associations between the resulting factors and other variables were assessed using multivariable analyses.RESULTS: A total of 375 patients with advanced cancer were approached, 233 of whom (62.1%) agreed to participate. The COST measure demonstrated high internal consistency and test‐retest reliability. Factor analyses revealed a coherent, single, latent variable (financial toxicity). COST values were found to be correlated with income (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.28; P<.001), psychosocial distress (r = ‐0.26; P<.001), and HRQOL, as measured by the FACT‐G (r = 0.42; P<.001) and by the EORTC QOL instruments (r = 0.33; P<.001). Independent factors found to be associated with financial toxicity were race (P = .04), employment status (P<.001), income (P = .003), number of inpatient admissions (P = .01), and psychological distress (P = .003). Willingness to discuss costs was not found to be associated with the degree of financial distress (P = .49).CONCLUSIONS: The COST measure demonstrated reliability and validity in measuring financial toxicity. Its correlation with HRQOL indicates that financial toxicity is a clinically relevant patient‐centered outcome. Cancer 2017;123:476–484. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

One of my favorite patients is Mr Gardner (not his real name). He lives on the South Side of Chicago, in a region whose residents are predominantly African American, with high levels of violent crime and not a single level I trauma center for adults (though my hospital has proposed to build one soon). In our city, like many others, years of institutional discrimination—in housing, education, and criminal justice—have taken their toll. The distance between Mr Gardner’s neighborhood and my own is roughly 5 miles. In my neighborhood, the average life expectancy is 82 years; in his, it is a full decade less.

The cost of cancer care is increasing, with important implications for the delivery of high-quality, patent-centered care. In the clinical setting, patents and physicians express a desire to discuss out-of-pocket costs. Nevertheless, both groups feel inadequately prepared to participate in these discussions, and perhaps not surprisingly, the integration of these discussions into clinical practice seems to be the exception rather than the rule. The resulting neglect of financial issues has the potential to cause unnecessary suffering for oncology patents. In this paper, we review the most relevant literature on financial toxicity in cancer care. In addition, we discuss potential predictors of financial toxicity, and the recent development of instruments to help clinicians and researchers quantify financial burden.

Case Report from JAMA Oncology — An Elderly Woman With Dyspnea