Financial Toxicity and Willingness-to-Pay for Cancer Treatment Among People With Multiple Myeloma.

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY JCO oncology practice Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1200/OP.24.00016
Mark A Fiala
{"title":"Financial Toxicity and Willingness-to-Pay for Cancer Treatment Among People With Multiple Myeloma.","authors":"Mark A Fiala","doi":"10.1200/OP.24.00016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study used willingness-to-pay (WTP) exercises to explore the relationships between race, financial toxicity, and treatment decision making among people with cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convenience sample of people with multiple myeloma who attended an academic medical center in 2022 was surveyed. Financial toxicity was assessed by the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity, with scores <26 indicating financial toxicity. WTP was assessed with (1) a discrete choice experiment (DCE), (2) fixed-choice tasks, and (3) a bidding game.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 156 people were approached, and 130 completed the survey. The majority of the sample was White (n = 99), whereas 24% (n = 31) was African American or Black. Forty-six percent (n = 60) of the sample were experiencing financial toxicity. In the DCE, the relative importance of cost was twice as high for those with financial toxicity (30% compared with 14%; <i>P</i> < .001). In the fixed-choice tasks, they were twice as likely to accept a treatment with shorter progression-free survival but lower costs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.47; <i>P</i> = .049). In the bidding game, the median monthly WTP of those with financial toxicity was half that of those without ($100 in US dollars [USD] compared with $200 USD; <i>P</i> < .001). Only in the bidding game was race statistically associated with WTP; after controlling for financial toxicity, African American or Black participants were three times as likely (aOR, 3.06; <i>P</i> = .007) to report a lower WTP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Across all three exercises, participants with financial toxicity reported lower WTP than those without. As financial toxicity disproportionally affects some segments of patients, it is possible that financial toxicity contributes to cancer disparities.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"1263-1271"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.24.00016","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study used willingness-to-pay (WTP) exercises to explore the relationships between race, financial toxicity, and treatment decision making among people with cancer.

Methods: A convenience sample of people with multiple myeloma who attended an academic medical center in 2022 was surveyed. Financial toxicity was assessed by the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity, with scores <26 indicating financial toxicity. WTP was assessed with (1) a discrete choice experiment (DCE), (2) fixed-choice tasks, and (3) a bidding game.

Results: In total, 156 people were approached, and 130 completed the survey. The majority of the sample was White (n = 99), whereas 24% (n = 31) was African American or Black. Forty-six percent (n = 60) of the sample were experiencing financial toxicity. In the DCE, the relative importance of cost was twice as high for those with financial toxicity (30% compared with 14%; P < .001). In the fixed-choice tasks, they were twice as likely to accept a treatment with shorter progression-free survival but lower costs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.47; P = .049). In the bidding game, the median monthly WTP of those with financial toxicity was half that of those without ($100 in US dollars [USD] compared with $200 USD; P < .001). Only in the bidding game was race statistically associated with WTP; after controlling for financial toxicity, African American or Black participants were three times as likely (aOR, 3.06; P = .007) to report a lower WTP.

Conclusion: Across all three exercises, participants with financial toxicity reported lower WTP than those without. As financial toxicity disproportionally affects some segments of patients, it is possible that financial toxicity contributes to cancer disparities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多发性骨髓瘤患者治疗癌症的经济毒性和支付意愿。
目的:本研究使用支付意愿(WTP)练习来探讨癌症患者的种族、经济毒性和治疗决策之间的关系:方法:我们对 2022 年在一家学术医疗中心就诊的多发性骨髓瘤患者进行了方便抽样调查。财务毒性通过财务毒性综合评分进行评估,评分结果:共接触了 156 人,其中 130 人完成了调查。大多数样本为白人(n = 99),24%(n = 31)为非裔美国人或黑人。样本中有 46% (n = 60)的人正在经历财务危机。在 DCE 中,财务毒性患者的成本相对重要性是其他患者的两倍(30% 比 14%;P < .001)。在固定选择任务中,他们接受无进展生存期较短但费用较低的治疗方法的可能性是其他患者的两倍(调整后的几率比 [aOR],2.47;P = .049)。在竞标游戏中,有经济毒性者的月WTP中位数是无经济毒性者的一半(100美元对200美元;P < .001)。只有在竞标游戏中,种族与 WTP 有统计学关联;在控制了财务毒性后,非裔美国人或黑人参与者报告 WTP 较低的可能性是其他参与者的三倍(aOR,3.06;P = .007):结论:在所有三种练习中,有财务毒性的参与者报告的 WTP 都低于没有财务毒性的参与者。由于财务毒性对部分患者的影响不成比例,因此财务毒性有可能导致癌症差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
518
期刊最新文献
Contextual Framework for Understanding Treatment De-Escalation in Patients With Breast Cancer. Reply to: The Value of Offering Oncofertility Counseling in Young Patients With Newly Diagnosed Cancer Is Unquestionable. The Value of Offering Oncofertility Counseling in Young Patients With Newly Diagnosed Cancer Is Unquestionable. Systemic Therapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update Clinical Insights. Clinical Relevance of Intensive Laboratory Monitoring With Standard Venetoclax Ramp-Up for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Real-World Experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1