Financial Navigators Saved About $2500 per Cancer Patient

In a small cohort of patients with hematologic cancer and their caregivers, the use of a financial navigator helped secure cost savings of approximately $2500 (USD) per person. This saving was achieved by assisting participants to optimize health insurance, identify different types of assistance for out-of-pocket expenses, or apply for disability or family medical leave.

Cancer patients in the US face complex financial issues in navigating with medical insurance companies to cover their care. This “financial toxicity” has come to be regarded as a side effect of cancer treatment.

Patients with hematologic malignancies may be particularly vulnerable to financial toxicity, owing to the nature of their treatment, which often includes bone marrow transplantation, lengthy hospital stays, prolonged intensive follow-up, as well as potential treatment-related complications, such as graft vs host disease.

The results from this small study suggest that using an oncology financial navigator could be helpful. But not all cancer patients have access to such a person, explained lead author Jean S. Edward, PhD, RN, associate professor in the College of Nursing at the University of Kentucky, in Lexington.

“Unfortunately, it’s not as common as we would like, especially in underserved areas with patient and caregiver populations that need it the most,” she said. Edward is hopeful that the results from this study, even though it is small, might help to boost use of this intervention. “OFN [oncology financial navigation] is not necessarily a cutting-edge program or ‘novel’ intervention, but the lack of programs and limitations in implementing in cancer centers does make it a gap in practice,” Edward told Medscape Medical News.

“There are gaps in evidence on how to incorporate an oncology financial navigator in current workflows and sustainability of positions, but as our study has shown, the return on investment to the healthcare system and/or financial benefits to patients/caregivers could help cover the cost of implementing such programs,” she said.

The study was published on March 8 in JCO Oncology Practice.

The intervention used in this study, Coverage and Cost-of-Care Links (CC Links), was designed specifically to address financial toxicity among patients with hematologic cancers.

The study’s primary outcomes were defined as improvements in financial distress as well as in physical and mental quality of life.

A total of 54 patients and 32 caregivers completed the intervention and pre-/postintervention surveys. More than half of participants were women. The average age was 63 years. Less than a quarter of the patients were employed (23%), about one third had income that was below the federal poverty level, and almost all had insurance. About 59% of the caregivers were employed.

The navigators’ functions included screening for financial toxicity using FACIT-Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity [COST]) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Distress Thermometer and Problem List. They also helped patients to estimate cost of care, assessed health insurance coverage, and connected patients/caregivers with disease-specific resources and other external assistance programs, among other things.

Participants had an average of three in-person meetings and five telephone interactions with the financial navigator. The most common concern was in regard to high out-of-pocket costs. The most frequently provided services from the navigator were helping with financial assistance programs and grant applications. Overall, the navigator was able to obtain $124,600 in financial benefits for 48 participants, as well as money for travel ($24,000), urgent needs ($16,000), patient financial assistance ($9100), and copay assistance grants ($75,500).

With regard to scores on the screening tools, the only significant change from pre- to postintervention was in the psychological response score, or COST. It decreased by an average of 2.30 points (P = .019; Hedges’ g = 0.33). For caregivers, there was a significant improvement in COST (average decrease, 2.97 points; P = .021; g = 0.43), material condition scores (average decrease, 0.63 points; P = .031; g = 0.39), and total financial toxicity scores (average decrease, 0.13 points; P = .041; g = 0.37).

Most of the participants gave the intervention high ratings for acceptability (89%) and appropriateness (88%).

“Standardized screening for financial toxicity in cancer care settings is essential to support early identification of financial needs that serve as barriers to care,” the authors conclude. “Close collaboration and coordination with existing services and workflows are essential for the seamless integration of OFN interventions within health systems and help facilitate contact and communication with participants.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute; the University of Kentucky’s Markey Cancer Center; the Research Communications Office of the Patient Oriented and Population Science Shared Resource Facilities; Joan Scales, LCSW and the Psych-Oncology Program at the University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center; and UK HealthCare’s Patient Financial Services. Edward has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

JCO Oncol Pract. Published online March 08, 2023. Full text

Roxanne Nelson is a registered nurse and an award-winning medical writer who has written for many major news outlets and is a regular contributor to Medscape.

For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.

Source: Read Full Article