Maria Pisu1, Yu-Mei Schoenberger1, Ivan Herbey2, Aquila Brown-Galvan3, Margaret I Liang4, Kevin Riggs3, Karen Meneses5. 1. Division of Preventive Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham (M.P., Y.S.). 2. Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham (I.H.). 3. Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham (A.B., K.R.). 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham (M.I.L.). 5. School of Nursing and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham (K.M.).
Abstract
Background: Despite recommendations to discuss the cost of care (CoC) with patients with cancer, little formal guidance is available on how to conduct these sensitive conversations in ways that are acceptable to both patients and providers. Objective: To explore the perspectives of patients and medical and nonmedical cancer center staff on CoC conversations. Design: In individual interviews, participants were asked to discuss the content of, timing of, and ideal person to hold CoC conversations. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Content was analyzed to identify emerging essential elements. Setting: Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham. Participants: 42 women aged 60 to 79 years with a history of breast cancer and 20 cancer center staff (6 physicians, 4 nurses, 5 patient navigators, 3 social workers, and 2 billing specialists). Results: Both patients and providers identified reassurance and action as essential elements of CoC conversations. Participants expressed the importance of reassurance that recommended medical care would not be affected by affordability challenges. Action was intended as discussions on ways to help patients cover treatment-related costs, such as discussion of payment plans or linkage to financial resources. Optimal timing for CoC conversations was felt to be after an initial consult visit but before treatment started. The person to hold these conversations should be compassionate, helpful, and knowledgeable of the patient's specific situation (for example, treatment plan, insurance coverage) and of the resources available to attain the patient's goals of care. Limitation: Interviews were limited to older breast cancer survivors and staff at 1 institution. Conclusion: Conversations about CoC extend beyond discussing costs and must be sensitive to the vulnerability experienced by patients. These findings can guide training of personnel involved in CoC conversations. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Background: Despite recommendations to discuss the cost of care (CoC) with patients with cancer, little formal guidance is available on how to conduct these sensitive conversations in ways that are acceptable to both patients and providers. Objective: To explore the perspectives of patients and medical and nonmedical cancer center staff on CoC conversations. Design: In individual interviews, participants were asked to discuss the content of, timing of, and ideal person to hold CoC conversations. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Content was analyzed to identify emerging essential elements. Setting: Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham. Participants: 42 women aged 60 to 79 years with a history of breast cancer and 20 cancer center staff (6 physicians, 4 nurses, 5 patient navigators, 3 social workers, and 2 billing specialists). Results: Both patients and providers identified reassurance and action as essential elements of CoC conversations. Participants expressed the importance of reassurance that recommended medical care would not be affected by affordability challenges. Action was intended as discussions on ways to help patients cover treatment-related costs, such as discussion of payment plans or linkage to financial resources. Optimal timing for CoC conversations was felt to be after an initial consult visit but before treatment started. The person to hold these conversations should be compassionate, helpful, and knowledgeable of the patient's specific situation (for example, treatment plan, insurance coverage) and of the resources available to attain the patient's goals of care. Limitation: Interviews were limited to older breast cancer survivors and staff at 1 institution. Conclusion: Conversations about CoC extend beyond discussing costs and must be sensitive to the vulnerability experienced by patients. These findings can guide training of personnel involved in CoC conversations. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Authors: Giselle K Perez; John M Salsman; Kaitlyn Fladeboe; Anne C Kirchhoff; Elyse R Park; Abby R Rosenberg Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2020-03
Authors: Nicholas L Berlin; Paul Abrahamse; Adeyiza O Momoh; Steven J Katz; Reshma Jagsi; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Sarah T Hawley Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Katherine A Yeager; Whitney E Zahnd; Jan M Eberth; Robin C Vanderpool; Catherine Rohweder; Randall Teal; Maihan Vu; Lindsay Stradtman; Elizabeth L Frost; Erika Trapl; Sarah Koopman Gonzalez; Thuy Vu; Linda K Ko; Allison Cole; Paige E Farris; Jackilen Shannon; Natoshia Askelson; Laura Seegmiller; Arica White; Jean Edward; Melinda Davis; Victoria Petermann; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Nataly R Espinoza Suarez; Christina M LaVecchia; Karen M Fischer; Celia C Kamath; Juan P Brito Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Date: 2021-06-12
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Jingxuan Zhao; Janet S de Moor; Helmneh M Sineshaw; Andrew N Freedman; Zhiyuan Zheng; Xuesong Han; Ashish Rai; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506