Patient and oncologist discussions of treatment costs.

178 Background: Financial toxicity-the burden of treatment costs and its impact on well-being, treatment decisions, and outcomes-affects many cancer patients, especially racial minorities. Discussing cost during clinic visits may ease financial toxicity, but oncologists are often hesitant to discuss cost. A better understanding of cost discussions is needed to improve care and inform oncologist training interventions. We conducted an observational study of patient-oncologist treatment cost discussions during clinic visits.

METHODS: Data were video-recorded clinic visits of African American patients (114) and their medical oncologists (19) meeting for the first time to discuss treatment. Cost discussions were any verbal expression of a direct (paying for scans) or indirect (time off work) expense to the patient for treatment. Trained coders observed the videos and coded for presence, duration, initiation, topic, oncologist response, and patient reaction of cost discussions.

RESULTS: Cost discussions occurred in 44% (n = 50) of the visits with a range of 1-6 per visit for a total of 93 discussions (M = 35 seconds; SD = 28). Patients initiated (61%) more than oncologists (38%), and patients were more likely to initiate multiple times. Time off work was discussed most (48%), followed by insurance (26%), transportation (12%), paying for treatment (8%), and job loss (4%). Time off work was the most commonly patient initiated topic and insurance was the most commonly oncologist initiated topic. Oncologists typically addressed the issue (72%), and patients often reacted positively (81%) but passively. A few times (9%) the oncologist acknowledged the patient's initiation but did not address it. Negative patient reactions were rare and only occurred when the oncologist responded to a patient initiation (5%). Younger patients were more likely discuss cost than older patients (p = .02) and retired patients were less likely to discuss cost (p = .05).

CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest discussing indirect cost is important to patients, but oncologists infrequently initiate and do not always respond adequately when patients initiate. Further research and interventions are needed to address patient-oncologist cost discussions and the economic impact of cancer treatment.