BACKGROUND: Financial distress from medical treatment is an increasing concern. Healthcare organizations may have different levels of organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes of screening and management of patient financial distress. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In November 2018, representatives from 17 (63%) of the 27 existing NCCN Member Institutions completed an online survey. The survey focused on screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes about such practices. Due to the lack of a validated questionnaire in this area, survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search and discussions among the study team, including NCCN Best Practices Committee representatives. RESULTS: Responses showed that 76% of centers routinely screened for financial distress, mostly with social worker assessment (94%), and that 56% screened patients multiple times. All centers offered programs to help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers, and payment plans. Charity care was provided by 100% of the large centers (≥10,000 unique annual patients) but none of the small centers that responded (<10,000 unique annual patients; P=.008). Metrics to evaluate the impact of financial advocacy services included number of patients assisted, bad debt/charity write-offs, or patient satisfaction surveys. The effectiveness of institutional practices for screening and management of financial distress was reported as poor/very poor by 6% of respondents. Inadequate staffing and resources, limited budget, and lack of reimbursement were potential barriers in the provision of these services. A total of 94% agreed with the need for better integration of financial advocacy into oncology practice. CONCLUSIONS: Three-fourths of NCCN Member Institutions reported screening and management programs for financial distress, although the actual practices and range of services vary. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar programs and identify best practices in this area.
BACKGROUND: Financial distress from medical treatment is an increasing concern. Healthcare organizations may have different levels of organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes of screening and management of patient financial distress. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In November 2018, representatives from 17 (63%) of the 27 existing NCCN Member Institutions completed an online survey. The survey focused on screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes about such practices. Due to the lack of a validated questionnaire in this area, survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search and discussions among the study team, including NCCN Best Practices Committee representatives. RESULTS: Responses showed that 76% of centers routinely screened for financial distress, mostly with social worker assessment (94%), and that 56% screened patients multiple times. All centers offered programs to help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers, and payment plans. Charity care was provided by 100% of the large centers (≥10,000 unique annual patients) but none of the small centers that responded (<10,000 unique annual patients; P=.008). Metrics to evaluate the impact of financial advocacy services included number of patients assisted, bad debt/charity write-offs, or patient satisfaction surveys. The effectiveness of institutional practices for screening and management of financial distress was reported as poor/very poor by 6% of respondents. Inadequate staffing and resources, limited budget, and lack of reimbursement were potential barriers in the provision of these services. A total of 94% agreed with the need for better integration of financial advocacy into oncology practice. CONCLUSIONS: Three-fourths of NCCN Member Institutions reported screening and management programs for financial distress, although the actual practices and range of services vary. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar programs and identify best practices in this area.
Authors: Erin M Mobley; Sue E Kim; Michael Cousineau; Jennifer Tsui; Kimberly A Miller; Jessica Tobin; David R Freyer; Joel E Milam Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Bahaa Kazzi; Fumiko Chino; Brigitte Kazzi; Bhav Jain; Sibo Tian; Joseph A Paguio; J Seth Yao; Vinayak Muralidhar; Brandon A Mahal; Paul L Nguyen; Nina N Sanford; Edward Christopher Dee Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Laurie E McLouth; Chandylen L Nightingale; Emily V Dressler; Anna C Snavely; Matthew F Hudson; Joseph M Unger; Anne E Kazak; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jean Edward; Ruth Carlos; Charles S Kamen; Heather B Neuman; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Janet S de Moor; Michelle Mollica; Annie Sampson; Brenda Adjei; Sallie J Weaver; Ann M Geiger; Barnett S Kramer; Emily Grenen; Memi Miscally; Henry P Ciolino Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-04-09
Authors: J Alberto Maldonado; Shuangshuang Fu; Ying-Shiuan Chen; Chiara Acquati; K Robin Yabroff; Matteo P Banegas; Shine Chang; Rena M Conti; Cristina M Checka; Susan K Peterson; Pragati Advani; Kimberly Ku; Reshma Jagsi; Sharon H Giordano; Robert J Volk; Ya-Chen T Shih; Grace L Smith Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-05-27
Authors: Aaron M Tarnasky; George N Tran; Jonathan Nicolla; Fred A P Friedman; Steven Wolf; Jesse D Troy; Anthony D Sung; Kanan Shah; Jakob Oury; Jillian C Thompson; Ben Gagosian; Kathryn I Pollak; Ian Manners; S Yousuf Zafar Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-04-02