PURPOSE: Financial toxicity negatively affects patients with cancer, especially racial/ethnic minorities. Patient-oncologist discussions about treatment-related costs may reduce financial toxicity by factoring costs into treatment decisions. This study investigated the frequency and nature of cost discussions during clinical interactions between African American patients and oncologists and examined whether cost discussions were affected by patient sociodemographic characteristics and social support, a known buffer to perceived financial stress. Methods Video recorded patient-oncologist clinical interactions (n = 103) from outpatient clinics of two urban cancer hospitals (including a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center) were analyzed. Coders studied the videos for the presence and duration of cost discussions and then determined the initiator, topic, oncologist response to the patient's concerns, and the patient's reaction to the oncologist's response. RESULTS: Cost discussions occurred in 45% of clinical interactions. Patients initiated 63% of discussions; oncologists initiated 36%. The most frequent topics were concern about time off from work for treatment (initiated by patients) and insurance (initiated by oncologists). Younger patients and patients with more perceived social support satisfaction were more likely to discuss cost. Patient age interacted with amount of social support to affect frequency of cost discussions within interactions. Younger patients with more social support had more cost discussions; older patients with more social support had fewer cost discussions. CONCLUSION: Cost discussions occurred in fewer than one half of the interactions and most commonly focused on the impact of the diagnosis on patients' opportunity costs rather than treatment costs. Implications for ASCO's Value Framework and design of interventions to improve cost discussions are discussed.
PURPOSE:Financial toxicity negatively affects patients with cancer, especially racial/ethnic minorities. Patient-oncologist discussions about treatment-related costs may reduce financial toxicity by factoring costs into treatment decisions. This study investigated the frequency and nature of cost discussions during clinical interactions between African American patients and oncologists and examined whether cost discussions were affected by patient sociodemographic characteristics and social support, a known buffer to perceived financial stress. Methods Video recorded patient-oncologist clinical interactions (n = 103) from outpatient clinics of two urban cancer hospitals (including a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center) were analyzed. Coders studied the videos for the presence and duration of cost discussions and then determined the initiator, topic, oncologist response to the patient's concerns, and the patient's reaction to the oncologist's response. RESULTS: Cost discussions occurred in 45% of clinical interactions. Patients initiated 63% of discussions; oncologists initiated 36%. The most frequent topics were concern about time off from work for treatment (initiated by patients) and insurance (initiated by oncologists). Younger patients and patients with more perceived social support satisfaction were more likely to discuss cost. Patient age interacted with amount of social support to affect frequency of cost discussions within interactions. Younger patients with more social support had more cost discussions; older patients with more social support had fewer cost discussions. CONCLUSION: Cost discussions occurred in fewer than one half of the interactions and most commonly focused on the impact of the diagnosis on patients' opportunity costs rather than treatment costs. Implications for ASCO's Value Framework and design of interventions to improve cost discussions are discussed.
Authors: Terrance L Albrecht; John C Ruckdeschel; Fountain L Ray; Ben J Pethe; Dawn L Riddle; Joan Strohm; Louis A Penner; Michael D Coovert; Gwendolyn Quinn; Christina G Blanchard Journal: Behav Res Methods Date: 2005-02
Authors: S Yousuf Zafar; Rebecca B McNeil; Catherine M Thomas; Christopher S Lathan; John Z Ayanian; Dawn Provenzale Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Ronan J Kelly; Patrick M Forde; Shereef M Elnahal; Arlene A Forastiere; Gary L Rosner; Thomas J Smith Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: S Yousuf Zafar; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Deborah Schrag; Donald H Taylor; Amy M Goetzinger; Xiaoyin Zhong; Amy P Abernethy Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-02-26
Authors: Theresa A Hastert; Jaclyn M Kyko; Amanda R Reed; Felicity W K Harper; Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Tara E Baird; Ann G Schwartz Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Florence K L Tangka; Sujha Subramanian; Madeleine Jones; Patrick Edwards; Timothy Flanigan; Yevgeniya Kaganova; Kevin W Smith; Cheryll C Thomas; Nikki A Hawkins; Juan Rodriguez; Temeika Fairley; Gery P Guy Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Neli Slavova-Azmanova; Jade C Newton; Harry Hohnen; Claire E Johnson; Christobel Saunders Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Kevin C Ward; Paul H Abrahamse; Lauren P Wallner; Allison W Kurian; Ann S Hamilton; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Jean A McDougall; Linda S Cook; Mei-Tzu C Tang; Hannah M Linden; Beti Thompson; Christopher I Li Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Ashish Rai; Zhiyuan Zheng; Jingxuan Zhao; Janet S de Moor; Donatus U Ekwueme; K Robin Yabroff Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 6.604