Gelareh Sadigh1, Debrua Coleman2, Jeffrey M Switchenko3, Judith O Hopkins4, Ruth C Carlos5. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Rd, Suite BG20, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. gsadigh@emory.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Rd, Suite BG20, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. SCOR NCORP/Novant Health Cancer Institute, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a pilot study assessing the feasibility of a personalized out-of-pocket cost communication, remote financial navigation, and counseling (CostCOM) intervention in cancer patients. METHODS: Twenty-three adult, newly diagnosed cancer patients at a single community oncology practice were asked to complete a survey and participate in a CostCOM intervention, including patient-specific out-of-pocket cost communication, remote financial navigation, and counseling. Feasibility was defined as patient participation in CostCOM, and its impact on financial worry measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) (higher score = less worry) was assessed. Eight patients' and two providers' experience with CostCOM was evaluated using qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 61 (78.3% female; 100% white). Of 23 CostCOM patients, 86.9% completed CostCOM, 60% of them completed a financial assistance application, and 25% of those who applied were enrolled in a co-pay assistance program. Patients' financial worry significantly improved following CostCOM (COST score of 10.0 ± 9.6 at enrollment vs. 16.9 ± 8.1 at follow-up; p < 0.001). Mean general satisfaction (out of 5) with CostCOM was 4.1 ± 0.7. In qualitative interviews following OOPC communication, 75% felt a positive impact on their mental health, and all patients reported no change in their treatment plan; 83.3% found financial navigation beneficial. In providers' interviews, buy-in from relevant stakeholders, integration of the CostCOM with existing workflow, and larger studies to assess the effectiveness of CostCOM were identified as factors needed for CostCOM implementation in practice. CONCLUSION: CostCOM interventions are feasible and acceptable and decrease financial worry in patients with cancer.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a pilot study assessing the feasibility of a personalized out-of-pocket cost communication, remote financial navigation, and counseling (CostCOM) intervention in cancer patients. METHODS: Twenty-three adult, newly diagnosed cancer patients at a single community oncology practice were asked to complete a survey and participate in a CostCOM intervention, including patient-specific out-of-pocket cost communication, remote financial navigation, and counseling. Feasibility was defined as patient participation in CostCOM, and its impact on financial worry measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) (higher score = less worry) was assessed. Eight patients' and two providers' experience with CostCOM was evaluated using qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 61 (78.3% female; 100% white). Of 23 CostCOM patients, 86.9% completed CostCOM, 60% of them completed a financial assistance application, and 25% of those who applied were enrolled in a co-pay assistance program. Patients' financial worry significantly improved following CostCOM (COST score of 10.0 ± 9.6 at enrollment vs. 16.9 ± 8.1 at follow-up; p < 0.001). Mean general satisfaction (out of 5) with CostCOM was 4.1 ± 0.7. In qualitative interviews following OOPC communication, 75% felt a positive impact on their mental health, and all patients reported no change in their treatment plan; 83.3% found financial navigation beneficial. In providers' interviews, buy-in from relevant stakeholders, integration of the CostCOM with existing workflow, and larger studies to assess the effectiveness of CostCOM were identified as factors needed for CostCOM implementation in practice. CONCLUSION: CostCOM interventions are feasible and acceptable and decrease financial worry in patients with cancer.
Authors: Eric A Finkelstein; Florence K Tangka; Justin G Trogdon; Susan A Sabatino; Lisa C Richardson Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Christopher S Lathan; Angel Cronin; Reginald Tucker-Seeley; S Yousuf Zafar; John Z Ayanian; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gelareh Sadigh; Ruth C Carlos; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Carolyn C Meltzer; Richard Duszak Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 3.959
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: 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: Gelareh Sadigh; Jeffrey Switchenko; Kathryn E Weaver; Deema Elchoufi; Jane Meisel; Mehmet Asim Bilen; David Lawson; David Cella; Bassel El-Rayes; Ruth Carlos Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 3.603