4.8 Article

The Financial Burden and Distress of Patients with Cancer: Understanding and Stepping-Up Action on the Financial Toxicity of Cancer Treatment

Journal

CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS
Volume 68, Issue 2, Pages 153-165

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.3322/caac.21443

Keywords

antineoplastic agents; costs and cost analysis; decision making; health financing; oncologists; precision medicine; referral and consultation; supportive care

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Health and Human Services (Cancer Center Support) [P30 CA 008748]
  2. Anthem Foundation
  3. Pfizer Oncology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Financial toxicity has now become a familiar term used in the discussion of cancer drugs, and it is gaining traction in the literature given the high price of newer classes of therapies. However, as a phenomenon in the contemporary treatment and care of people with cancer, financial toxicity is not fully understood, with the discussion on mitigation mainly geared toward interventions at the health system level. Although important, health policy prescriptions take time before their intended results manifest, if they are implemented at all. They require corresponding strategies at the individual patient level. In this review, the authors discuss the nature of financial toxicity, defined as the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress of patients with cancer, as a result of treatments using innovative drugs and concomitant health services. They discuss coping with financial toxicity by patients and how maladaptive coping leads to poor health and nonhealth outcomes. They cover management strategies for oncologists, including having the difficult and urgent conversation about the cost and value of cancer treatment, availability of and access to resources, and assessment of financial toxicity as part of supportive care in the provision of comprehensive cancer care. (C) 2018 American Cancer Society.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available