H igh out-of-pocket costs of treatment in the United States are a major driver of health disparities. The financial burdens associated with medical care are frequently referred to in the literature as "financial toxicity." This term was popularized after articles by Zafar and Abernethy in 2013 highlighted the growing out-of-pocket costs borne by patients with cancer. 1,2 They describe financial toxicity as consisting of both "objective financial burden" and the subjective distress resulting from that burden. The authors attribute increasing costs to 4 factors: "an aging populace, more patients with access to treatment, innovation, and overutilization."Since 2013, the concept of financial toxicity has gained significant popularity in the oncology literature and has been adopted in other specialties, such as neurology. 3 The reasons for this are understandable. Clinicians are familiar with the notion of unintended and sometimes serious noxious side effects of treatments. Chemotherapeutic agents powerful enough to slow or eradicate cancerous cells often are just as powerful in damaging healthy tissue. Thus, explanation of potential toxicity is routinely included in discussions with patients about recommended treatment. "Financial toxicity" is a useful idiom that encourages clinicians to screen for, identify, and attempt to manage treatment-induced financial problems just as they do for other treatment-related toxicities. However, this choice of language may obscure rather than illuminate causes of the problem and our responsibility to work toward solutions.