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.

No abstract

To determine the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge (SDD) in patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy with pelvic floor reconstruction. Design: Prospective cohort pilot study. Setting: Single academic medical center. Patients: Women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy with pelvic floor reconstruction were considered for inclusion in the study. Interventions: SDD or overnight hospitalization after surgery. Measurements and Main Results: A total cohort of 55 women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy and pelvic floor reconstruction for pelvic organ prolapse and/or urinary incontinence was identified. The control group consisted of 19 women who were planned for overnight hospitalization. The intervention group had 36 women who were planned for SDD. In the intervention group 63.9% of patients (n = 23) were successfully discharged home and 36.1% (n = 13) required an unplanned overnight admission. Reasons for unplanned admission included persistent anesthetic effects (dizziness/nausea/drowsiness, n = 9, 69%), uncontrolled pain (n = 1, 7.7%), fever (n = 1, 7.7%), anemia (n = 2, 15.4%), with return to operating room for hematoma evacuation (n = 1, 7.7%). A voiding trial was passed on the first attempt in 30 patients (54.5%). The percentage of successful voiding trials on the first attempt was 30.8% for patients requiring unplanned admission and 78.9% for patients with planned overnight hospitalization (p = .011). There were no significant differences in the number of emergency department visits (p = .677) or unplanned office visits (p = .193) between the control and intervention groups. Conclusion: SDD after vaginal hysterectomy with pelvic floor reconstruction appears to be safe and feasible. Patients who were discharged the same day did not require a higher volume of emergency department or office evaluations.

Purpose To assess tear film transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) and ocular microbiome changes after intense pulsed light with meibomian gland expression (IPL-MGX) vs only MGX in treating ocular rosacea with dry eye symptoms. Methods Twenty patients were randomly assigned to IPL-MGX or MGX. Patients were examined, treated, and administered the ocular surface disease index (OSDI) survey every 4–6 weeks for four total treatments. Tear film and conjunctival samples were collected at first and last visits, and analyzed for TGF-β concentration and 16s rRNA amplicon sequencing of ocular microbiome. Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Sign-Rank were used to examine changes from baseline. Results OSDI revealed significantly greater improvement in symptoms after IPL-MGX (p=0.030) compared to MGX. There was no significant difference in mean TGF-β1, 2, or 3 concentration after IPL-MGX (p=0.385, 0.709, 0.948, respectively). Quantities of Clostridium , Klebsiella , Brevibacterium , Lactobacillus , Neisseria , Streptococcus , Corynebacterium , Butyricicoccus , and Actinomyces were significantly reduced from baseline in both groups but without a significant difference between the two treatment groups. Conclusion IPL-MGX improved dry eye symptoms more than MGX alone. IPL treatment offered no additional benefit to MGX in decreasing virulent bacteria present on the ocular surface and did not influence TGF-β levels in tears. Prospective studies on IPL-MGX with larger sample sizes are needed to further investigate cytokines and IPL in patients suffering from ocular rosacea with dry eye symptoms. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03194698.