Emeline M Aviki1,2, Bridgette Thom3, Kenya Braxton4, Andrew J Chi4, Beryl Manning-Geist4, Fumiko Chino5, Carol L Brown4,6, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum4,6, Francesca M Gany7. 1. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. avikie@mskcc.org. 2. Joan & Sanford I. Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA. avikie@mskcc.org. 3. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Joan & Sanford I. Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA. 7. Immigrant Health and Cancer Disparities, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Financial toxicity is common and pervasive among cancer patients. Research suggests that gynecologic cancer patients experiencing financial toxicity are at increased risk for engaging in harmful cost-coping strategies, including delaying/skipping treatment because of costs, or forsaking basic needs to pay medical bills. However, little is known about patients' preferences for interventions to address financial toxicity. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys to assess financial toxicity [Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST)], cost-coping strategies, and preferences for intervention were conducted in a gynecologic cancer clinic waiting room. Associations with cost-coping were determined using multivariate modeling. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) explored associations between financial toxicity and intervention preferences. RESULTS: Among 89 respondents, median COST score was 31.9 (IQR: 21-38); 35% (N = 30) scored < 26, indicating they were experiencing financial toxicity. Financial toxicity was significantly associated with cost-coping (adjusted OR = 3.32 95% CI: 1.08, 14.34). Intervention preferences included access to transportation vouchers (38%), understanding treatment costs up-front (35%), minimizing wait times (33%), access to free food at appointments (25%), and assistance with minimizing/eliminating insurance deductibles (23%). In unadjusted analyses, respondents experiencing financial toxicity were more likely to select transportation assistance (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.04, 6.90), assistance with co-pays (OR = 9.17, 95% CI: 2.60, 32.26), and assistance with deductibles (OR = 12.20, 95% CI: 3.47, 43.48), than respondents not experiencing financial toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the presence of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancer patients, describe how patients attempt to cope with financial hardship, and provide insight into patients' needs for targeted interventions to mitigate the harm of financial toxicity.
INTRODUCTION: Financial toxicity is common and pervasive among cancer patients. Research suggests that gynecologic cancer patients experiencing financial toxicity are at increased risk for engaging in harmful cost-coping strategies, including delaying/skipping treatment because of costs, or forsaking basic needs to pay medical bills. However, little is known about patients' preferences for interventions to address financial toxicity. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys to assess financial toxicity [Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST)], cost-coping strategies, and preferences for intervention were conducted in a gynecologic cancer clinic waiting room. Associations with cost-coping were determined using multivariate modeling. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) explored associations between financial toxicity and intervention preferences. RESULTS: Among 89 respondents, median COST score was 31.9 (IQR: 21-38); 35% (N = 30) scored < 26, indicating they were experiencing financial toxicity. Financial toxicity was significantly associated with cost-coping (adjusted OR = 3.32 95% CI: 1.08, 14.34). Intervention preferences included access to transportation vouchers (38%), understanding treatment costs up-front (35%), minimizing wait times (33%), access to free food at appointments (25%), and assistance with minimizing/eliminating insurance deductibles (23%). In unadjusted analyses, respondents experiencing financial toxicity were more likely to select transportation assistance (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.04, 6.90), assistance with co-pays (OR = 9.17, 95% CI: 2.60, 32.26), and assistance with deductibles (OR = 12.20, 95% CI: 3.47, 43.48), than respondents not experiencing financial toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the presence of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancer patients, describe how patients attempt to cope with financial hardship, and provide insight into patients' needs for targeted interventions to mitigate the harm of financial toxicity.
Authors: Sara Bouberhan; Meghan Shea; Alice Kennedy; Adrienne Erlinger; Hannah Stack-Dunnbier; Mary K Buss; Laureen Moss; Kathleen Nolan; Christopher Awtrey; John L Dalrymple; Leslie Garrett; Fong W Liu; Michele R Hacker; Katharine M Esselen Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: S Yousuf Zafar; Fumiko Chino; Peter A Ubel; Christel Rushing; Gregory Samsa; Ivy Altomare; Jonathan Nicolla; Deborah Schrag; James A Tulsky; Amy P Abernethy; Jeffery M Peppercorn Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Aasthaa Bansal; Catherine R Fedorenko; David K Blough; Karen A Overstreet; Veena Shankaran; Polly Newcomb Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Annie Bygrave; Kate Whittaker; Christine Paul; Elizabeth A Fradgley; Megan Varlow; Sanchia Aranda Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Carla Thamm; Jennifer Fox; Nicolas H Hart; Joel Rhee; Bogda Koczwara; Jon Emery; Kristi Milley; Rebecca L Nund; Raymond J Chan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Katarina Wang; Carmen Ma; Feng Ming Li; Angeline Truong; Salma Shariff-Marco; Janet N Chu; Debora L Oh; Laura Allen; Mei-Chin Kuo; Ching Wong; Hoan Bui; Junlin Chen; Scarlett L Gomez; Tung T Nguyen; Janice Y Tsoh Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 3.359