BackgroundThe objective of the current study was to understand treatment preferences and their association with financial toxicity in Patient Advocate Foundation clients with breast cancer.MethodsThis choice‐based conjoint analysis used data from a nationwide sample of women with breast cancer who received assistance from the Patient Advocate Foundation. Choice sets created from 13 attributes of 3 levels each elicited patient preferences and trade‐offs. Latent class analysis segmented respondents into distinct preference archetypes. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool captured financial toxicity. Adjusted generalized linear models estimated COST score differences by preference archetype.ResultsOf 220 respondents (for a response rate of 10%), the median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 49‐66 years); 28% of respondents were Black, indigenous, or people of color; and approximately 60% had household incomes <$40,000. The majority of respondents were diagnosed with early‐stage cancer (91%), 38% had recurrent disease, and 61% were receiving treatment. Treatment choice was most affected by preferences related to affordability and impact on activities of daily living. Two distinct treatment preference archetypes emerged. The “cost‐prioritizing group” (75% of respondents) was most concerned about affordability, impact on activities of daily living, and burdening care partners. The “functional independence–prioritizing group” (25% of respondents) was most concerned about their ability to work, physical side effects, and interference with life events. COST scores were found to be similar between the archetypes in adjusted models (cost‐prioritizing group COST score, 12 [95% confidence interval, 9‐14]; and functional independence–prioritizing COST score, 11 [95% confidence interval, 9‐13]).ConclusionsPatients with breast cancer prioritized affordability or maintaining functional independence when making treatment decisions. Because of this variability, preference evaluation during treatment decision making could optimize patients' treatment experiences.
151 Background: The inability to afford healthcare has a widespread effect on cancer patients, notably impacting treatment decisions and outcomes. Patients receiving financial assistance to offset medication costs still face challenges overcoming cost of care barriers. This study investigated sources of concern and financial stress among racial groups and identified solutions to address patients’ needs beyond medication-related costs. Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized secondary survey data collected from cancer patients who received co-payment and/or financial aid from PAF in 2018. Respondents answered questions describing their financial distress and the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) tool (0-44 with lower scores indicating worse toxicity). Descriptive statistics were calculated using means and standard deviations (SD) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Two sample t-tests were used for bivariate comparisons between racial groups. Results: Of 494 cancer patients surveyed, 72% were Caucasian, 11% were African American (AA), and 71% indicated a household income of < $48,000. Although this population received financial assistance, cost of medications was still a major barrier to adhering to treatment (59% vs 69%). AA patients reported greater financial burden caused by cost of deductibles/copay/coinsurance (58% vs 50%) and treatment costs not covered by insurance (49% vs 21%). AA patients highly rated day-to-day living expenses as an unmet need (64% vs 40%). COST scores differed significantly between Caucasian (mean 17.7, SD 8.6) and AA cohorts (mean 12.1, SD 8.6; p < .001), driven by the inability to meet monthly expenses at all (35% vs 11%). Of AA, 80% felt they do not have enough money in savings/retirement to cover treatment costs. Overall, the AA cohort reported higher frustration with not being able to work or contribute as much as usual (45% vs 26%). Conclusions: Under-resourced AA cancer patients identify a need for a comprehensive approach to cost of care conversation, to drive better adherence and improved treatment outcomes.
141 Background: This study sought to understand treatment preferences and their association with financial toxicity in breast cancer patients served by Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF). Methods: This cross-sectional study used survey data from a nationwide sample of women with breast cancer who received assistance from PAF. Choice-based conjoint analysis elicited patient preferences and trade-offs. Latent class analysis segmented respondents into distinct preference groups. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool captured financial toxicity (range 0-44, lower scores indicate worse financial toxicity). Cramer’s V determined magnitude of relationships in bivariate associations. COST score differences by preference archetype was estimated by least square means and naïve 95% confidence intervals (CI) from adjusted generalized linear models. Results: Of 220 respondents (65% response rate), median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR] 49-66) and 60% had household incomes < $40,000. Most respondents were diagnosed with early stage cancer (91%), with 41% diagnosed within the past 2 years; 38% had recurred. Almost two-thirds (61%) were on active treatment. Treatment choice was most affected by preferences related to affordability and impact on activities of daily living (ADLs). Two distinct treatment preference archetypes emerged. The “Cost-Prioritizing Group” (75% of respondents) was most concerned about affordability, impact on ADLs, and burdening care partners. The “Functional Independence-Prioritizing Group” (25% of respondents) was most concerned about ability to work, physical side effects, and interference with important life events. Cost- vs. functional independence-prioritizing respondents were more often diagnosed with an early stage cancer (88% vs. 78%; V = .22), white (78% vs. 56%; V = .21), or privately insured (45% vs. 36%; V = .12). Functional independence- vs. cost-prioritizing respondents more often had household incomes < $40,000 (76% vs. 54%; V = .20), identified as Hispanic/Latino (20% vs. 9%; V = .15), or had Medicaid (15% vs. 7%; V = .12). COST scores were similar between archetypes in adjusted models (Cost-Prioritizing COST = 12, 95% CI 9-14; Functional Independence-Prioritizing COST = 11, 95% CI 9-13). Conclusions: Patients with breast cancer prioritized affordability or maintaining functional independence when making treatment decisions. Because of this variability, preference evaluation during treatment decision-making could optimize patients’ treatment experiences.
156 Background: Patients with cancer struggle to afford needed medical care alongside daily financial obligations due to rising healthcare costs. This may be more pronounced among minorities who are less likely to seek resources to mitigate their financial distress. This study sought to identify racial differences in non-treatment costs for under-resourced women with breast cancer who sought assistance from Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF). Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized secondary survey data collected from breast cancer patients receiving case management services from PAF in 2018. Respondents answered questions describing their financial distress and COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) tool (0-44 with lower scores indicating worse toxicity). Descriptive statistics were calculated using means and standard deviations (SD) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Two sample t-tests were used for bivariate comparisons between racial groups. Results: Of 267 breast cancer patients surveyed, 54% were Caucasian, 29% were African American (AA), and 83% indicated a household income of < $48,000. Cohorts expressed strong dissatisfaction with their financial situation with AA impacted more acutely (78% vs 56%) and acknowledged inability to pay for treatment costs (83% vs 58%). Compared to Caucasians, AAs were more often concerned with transportation costs (33% vs 16%) and with day-to-day living expenses (83% vs 59%). Younger (≤55 years) AA respondents were twice as often unable to meet monthly expenses (60% vs. 27%). Older AA respondents ( > 55 years) reported greater distress than older Caucasians (74% vs 57%), while younger Caucasians reported greater distress than their AA counterparts (72% vs 65%). COST scores differed significantly between Caucasians (mean 13, SD 9) and AAs (mean 11, SD 8; p = 0.04). Conclusions: While the impacts of medical care costs were felt by all survey respondents, under-resourced AA breast cancer patients may be at higher risk for household material hardships as financial resources are diverted toward essential healthcare costs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.