Financial toxicity and its associations with health-related quality of life among urologic cancer patients in an upper middle-income country.
Ting Chuo Yew,Teh Guan Chou,Yu Kong Leong,Alias Haridah,Tan Hui Meng,Wong Li Ping
Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer
PURPOSE:This study examined the prevalence of financial toxicity (FT) and associated factors among urologic cancer patients. The association between FT and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was also investigated. METHODS:A total of 429 respondents diagnosed with urologic cancers (prostate cancer, bladder and renal cancer) from Sarawak General Hospital and Subang Jaya Medical Centre in Malaysia were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Objective and subjective FT were measured by catastrophic health expenditure (healthcare-cost-to-income ratio greater than 40%) and the Personal Financial Well-being Scale, respectively. HRQoL was measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General 7 Items scale. RESULTS:Objective and subjective FT were experienced by 16.1 and 47.3% of the respondents, respectively. Respondents who sought treatment at a private hospital and had out-of-pocket health expenditures were more likely to experience objective FT, after adjustment for covariates. Respondents who were female and had a monthly household income less than MYR 5000 were more likely to experience average to high subjective FT. Greater objective FT (OR = 2.75, 95% CI 1.09-6.95) and subjective FT (OR = 4.68, 95% CI 2.63-8.30) were associated with poor HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS:The significant association between both objective and subjective FT and HRQoL highlights the importance of reducing FT among urologic cancer patients. Subjective FT was found to have a greater negative impact on HRQoL.
10.1007/s00520-019-04975-y
Out-of-Pocket Costs for Prostate Cancer Medications Substantially Vary by Medicare Part D Plan: An Online Tool Presents an Opportunity to Mitigate Financial Toxicity.
Urology practice
INTRODUCTION:Patients with advanced prostate cancer are frequently prescribed enzalutamide or abiraterone, often requiring high out-of-pocket costs. Many of these patients are insured through Medicare and have an option to select among 54 different Part D drug plans. However, less than 30% of patients report comparing costs before selecting a plan. An online Part D plan navigator is publicly available and allows patients to compare estimated out-of-pocket prescriptions costs. In this study, we examine the variability of out-of-pocket costs based on available Part D drug plans for patients with prostate cancer and demonstrate how an online tool could save patients thousands of dollars. METHODS:We identified drug plans available for selection in 2023 using the online Medicare Part D Plan Finder. We sampled plan options for 12 different zip codes within the United States. A university-sponsored specialty cancer pharmacy and online mail-order pharmacy were included for comparison. We identified out-of-pocket costs for enzalutamide and abiraterone based on all Part D plans available for selection. RESULTS:On average, 24 Part D drug plans were available for each zip code. Median annual out-of-pocket costs were $11,626 for enzalutamide and $9,275 for abiraterone. The range of annual out-of-pocket costs were $9,854 to $13,061 for enzalutamide and $1,379 to $13,274 for abiraterone. Within certain zip codes, potential out-of-pocket cost savings were $2,512 for enzalutamide and $9,321 for abiraterone. Median difference of out-of-pocket cost between enzalutamide and abiraterone was $8,758. CONCLUSIONS:Out-of-pocket costs vary considerably across Part D drug plans. The Medicare Part D Plan Finder is a simple and effective tool to identify affordable drug plans. Guidance on plan selection could save patients thousands of dollars and help mitigate the financial toxicity of treatment. Comprehensive cancer centers could include plan navigators as an essential component of treatment.
10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000421
Financial toxicity: a potential side effect of prostate cancer treatment among Australian men.
Gordon L G,Walker S M,Mervin M C,Lowe A,Smith D P,Gardiner R A,Chambers S K
European journal of cancer care
The purpose of this study was to understand the extent, nature and variability of the current economic burden of prostate cancer among Australian men. An online cross-sectional survey was developed that combined pre-existing economic measures and new questions. With few exceptions, the online survey was viable and acceptable to participants. The main outcomes were self-reported out-of-pocket costs of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment, changes in employment status and household finances. Men were recruited from prostate cancer support groups throughout Australia. Descriptive statistical analyses were undertaken. A total of 289 men responded to the survey during April and June 2013. Our study found that men recently diagnosed (within 16 months of the survey) (n = 65) reported spending a median AU$8000 (interquartile range AU$14 000) for their cancer treatment while 75% of men spent up to AU$17 000 (2012). Twenty per cent of all men found the cost of treating their prostate cancer caused them 'a great deal' of distress. The findings suggest a large variability in medical costs for prostate cancer treatment with 5% of men spending $250 or less in out-of-pocket expenses and some men facing very high costs. On average, respondents in paid employment at diagnosis stated that they had retired 4-5 years earlier than planned.
10.1111/ecc.12392
Financial toxicity and strain among men receiving prostate cancer care in an equal access healthcare system.
Bauer Alexandria G,Jefferson Melanie,Nahhas Georges J,Savage Stephen,Drake Richard,Lilly Michael,Ambrose Linda,Caulder Susan,Mahvi David,Hughes Halbert Chanita
Cancer medicine
PURPOSE:To examine financial toxicity and strain among men in an equal access healthcare system based on social determinants and clinical characteristics. METHODS:Observational study among men receiving prostate cancer care (n = 49) at a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facility. Financial hardship included overall financial strain and financial toxicity due to healthcare costs. Financial strain was measured with one item asking how much money they have leftover at the end of the month. Financial toxicity was measured with the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) scale. RESULTS:Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity scores among participants indicated moderate levels of financial toxicity (M = 24.4, SD = 9.9). For financial strain, 36% of participants reported that they did not have enough money left over at the end of the month. There were no racial or clinically related differences in financial toxicity, but race and income level had significant associations with financial strain. CONCLUSION:Financial toxicity and strain should be measured among patients in an equal access healthcare system. Findings suggest that social determinants may be important to assess, to identify patients who may be most likely to experience financial hardship in the context of obtaining cancer care and implement efforts to mitigate the burden for those patients.
10.1002/cam4.3484
Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Mixed Methods Approach to Identify Effective Interventions.
Urology practice
INTRODUCTION:Financial toxicity associated with treatments for metastatic prostate cancer remains poorly defined. We sought to understand aspects of financial toxicity not captured in a commonly employed financial toxicity questionnaire and identify potential interventions to help alleviate financial toxicity through a convergent mixed methods approach. METHODS:Patients seen at our institution's advanced prostate cancer clinic were approached for completion of the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST-FACIT) questionnaire (quantitative analysis). A maximal variation purposive sample was chosen to participate in focus group discussions (qualitative analysis). Conventional content analysis was performed using an inductive approach. COST-FACIT scores were compared between patients experiencing high and low financial toxicity using Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS:Three themes were identified through qualitative analysis: (1) workload, (2) coping strategies, and (3) communication. We found alignment with the existing theory of financial capacity across our findings. Two unique aspects of financial toxicity emerged that were not assessed quantitatively and deemed to be significant. Specifically, cost transparency (including health care teams knowledgeable about and willing to discuss costs) and inclusion of informal caregivers in financial toxicity screening and decision-making may guide future interventions aimed at limiting financial toxicity in this population. CONCLUSIONS:Prolonged treatment courses involving multiple lines of treatment with varying costs result in distinct financial toxicity components for patients with metastatic prostate cancer that are not assessed with COST-FACIT. Improving cost transparency, health care team knowledge and engagement, and providing resources to support informal caregivers may have a significant impact on the financial toxicity experienced by these patients.
10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000589
Patient-Reported Financial Toxicity Associated with Contemporary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer.
Stone Benjamin V,Laviana Aaron A,Luckenbaugh Amy N,Huang Li-Ching,Zhao Zhiguo,Koyama Tatsuki,Conwill Ralph,Hoffman Karen,Joyce Daniel D,Goodman Michael,Hamilton Ann S,Wu Xiao-Cheng,Paddock Lisa E,Stroup Antoinette,Cooperberg Matthew R,Hashibe Mia,O'Neil Brock B,Kaplan Sherrie H,Greenfield Sheldon,Penson David F,Barocas Daniel A
The Journal of urology
PURPOSE:Contemporary treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer provide comparable overall and cancer-specific survival. However, the degree of financial burden imposed by treatment, the factors contributing to that burden, and how different treatments compare with regard to financial toxicity remain poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer from 2011 to 2012. Questionnaires were collected at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. Differences in patient-reported financial burden were compared between active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS:Among 2,121 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 15% reported large or very large burden of treatment costs within 6 months, declining to 3% by year 5. When controlling for age, education, income and other covariates, external beam radiotherapy was associated with greater financial burden than active surveillance and radical prostatectomy at 1 year (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.3, respectively) and 3 years (OR 3.1 95% CI 1.1-8.8 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.7, respectively). Radical prostatectomy and active surveillance had similar rates of financial burden at all time points. Age, race, education, and D'Amico risk group were associated with financial burden. CONCLUSIONS:External beam radiotherapy was associated with the highest financial burden, even when controlling for age, education and income. Prospective studies that directly measure out-of-pocket and indirect costs and account more thoroughly for baseline socioeconomic differences are warranted in order to identify those most at risk.
10.1097/JU.0000000000001423
Predictors of Financial Toxicity Among United States Prostate Cancer Survivors: Results From a National Survey.
Urology practice
INTRODUCTION:Despite increasing attention to financial toxicity associated with prostate cancer, national rates of subjective and objective financial toxicity have not been well characterized, and it remains unknown which prostate cancer survivors are at highest risk for undue financial burden. METHODS:Men with a history of prostate cancer were identified from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The proportion of men reporting catastrophic health care expenditures (out-of-pocket spending >10% of income) and other measures of financial toxicity were assessed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of financial toxicity. RESULTS:Of a weighted estimate of 2,349,532 men with a history of prostate cancer, 13.5% reported catastrophic health care expenditures, 16% reported subjective worry about ability to pay medical bills, and 15% reported work changes due to their cancer diagnosis. Significant predictors of catastrophic expenditures included private insurance (OR 4.62, 95% CI 1.29-16.49) and medical comorbidities (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05-1.82), while high income was protective (>400% vs <100% federal poverty level, OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02-0.19). Each year of older age was associated with decreased odds of subjective worry about medical bills. Only 12% of men reported their doctor discussed the costs of care in detail. CONCLUSIONS:Nearly 1 in 7 prostate cancer survivors experience catastrophic health care expenditures, and a larger proportion report subjective manifestations of financial toxicity. Many men report their physicians did not address the financial side effects of treatment. These results highlight the patient characteristics associated with this important side effect of prostate cancer care.
10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000417
Financial toxicity in prostate cancer survivors: A national cross-sectional assessment of subjective financial burden.
Urologic oncology
BACKGROUND:In prostate cancer (CaP) survivorship, subjective financial burden (SFB), an aspect of financial toxicity, has not been studied using a national sample. Our goal was to explore and identify factors associated with patient-reported SFB in CaP survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of 264 adult individuals with a history of CaP that completed the AHRQ - Medical Expenditures Panel Survey - Household Component and Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire Supplement in 2016 or 2017. Primary outcomes were the presence of cancer-related SFB and the severity of this burden. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with the severity of SFB and different domains of burden. RESULTS:Most participants were non-Hispanic white, had 3 or more comorbidities and had a median age of 72 years. 62.1% of survivors indicated SFB associated with their CaP care and long-term effects. 49.2% of CaP survivors indicated coping SFB, 27.7% psychological, and 29.2% material. Older (OR: 0.95, 95%CI 0.92-0.98) was associated with less SFB. Low-income level (OR: 2.1, 95%CI 1.01-4.36) was associated with higher SFB. Hispanic survivors (OR: 2.8 95%CI 1.1-7.4) indicated more psychologic SFB. Presence of a caregiver was noted as a predictor of material (OR 2.6, 95%CI 1.45-4.49) and psychological (OR: 2.2, 95%CI 1.13-3.91) SFB. CONCLUSIONS:Many CaP survivors experience SFB and associated factors differ in domain of financial burden. This provides evidence and groundwork for understanding financial burden and improving the quality of counseling and care for this population.
10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.10.014
Financial toxicity of oral therapies in advanced prostate cancer.
Urologic oncology
The treatment landscape of advanced prostate cancer (CaP) has evolved significantly over the past 20 years. As the number of oral anticancer treatment options continues to increase, so do the costs of these drugs. Furthermore, payment responsibility for these treatments is increasingly shifted from insurers to patients. In this narrative review, we sought to summarize existing assessments of financial toxicity (FT) associated with oral advanced CaP treatments, describe efforts targeted at limiting FT from these agents, and identify areas in need of further investigation. FT is understudied in advanced CaP. Oral treatment options are associated with significantly higher direct costs to patients compared to standard androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy. Financial assistance programs, Medicare low-income subsidies, and recent health policy changes help offset these costs for some patients. Physicians are reluctant to discuss treatment costs with patients and further work is needed to better understand best practices for inclusion of FT discussions in shared decision-making. Oral therapies for advanced CaP are associated with significantly higher patient out-of-pocket costs which may contribute to FT. Currently, little is known regarding the extent and severity of these costs on patients' lives. While recent policy changes have helped reduce these costs for some patients, more work is needed to better characterize FT in this population to inform interventions that improve access to care and lessen the harms associated with the cost of novel treatments.
10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.03.002
Financial toxicity associated with treatment of localized prostate cancer.
Imber Brandon S,Varghese Melissa,Ehdaie Behfar,Gorovets Daniel
Nature reviews. Urology
Financial toxicity is a broad term to describe the economic consequences and subjective burden resulting from a cancer diagnosis and treatment. As financial toxicity is associated with poor disease outcomes, recognition of this problem and calls for strategies to identify and support those most at risk are increasing. Men with localized prostate cancer face treatment choices including active surveillance, prostatectomy or radiotherapy. The fact that potential patient out-of-pocket costs might influence decision making has rarely been acknowledged and, overall, the risk of financial toxicity for men with localized prostate cancer remains poorly studied. This shortfall requires a work-up in the context of prostate cancer and a multidimensional framework for considering a patient's risk of financial toxicity. The major elements of this framework are direct and indirect costs, patient-specific values, expectations of possible financial burdens, and individual economic circumstances. Current data indicate that total cost patterns probably differ by treatment modality: surgery might have an increased short-term effect, whereas radiotherapy might have an increased long-term risk of financial toxicity. Specific thresholds of patient income levels or out-of-pocket costs that predict risk of financial toxicity are difficult to identify. Compared with other malignancies, prostate cancer might have a lower overall risk of financial toxicity, but persistent post-treatment urinary, bowel or sexual adverse effects are likely to increase this risk.
10.1038/s41585-019-0258-3