Implementing an oncology financial navigation program is feasible, provides concrete assistance in navigating the cost of care, and mitigates anxiety about costs in a subset of patients. Future work will focus on measuring the program's impact on financial and clinical outcomes.

Background: Given the high risk of COVID-19 mortality, patients with cancer may be vulnerable to fear of COVID-19, adverse psychological outcomes, and health care delays.Methods: This longitudinal study surveyed the pandemic's impact on patients with cancer (N= 1529) receiving Patient Advocate Foundation services during early and later pandemic. Generalized estimating equation with repeated measures was conducted to assess the effect of COVID-19 on psychological distress. Logistic regression with repeated measures was used to assess the effect of COVID-19 on any delays in accessing health care (e.g., specialty care doctors, laboratory, or diagnostic testing, etc.).Results: Among 1199 respondents, 94% considered themselves high risk for COVID-19. Respondents with more fear of COVID-19 had a higher mean psychological distress score (10.21; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 9.38-11.03) compared to respondents with less fear (7.55; 95% CI 6.75-8.36). Additionally, 47% reported delaying care. Respondents with more fear of COVID-19 had higher percentages of delayed care than those with less (56; 95% CI 39%-72% vs. 44%; 95% CI 28%-61%). These relationships persisted throughout the pandemic. For respondents with a COVID-19 diagnosis in their household (n = 116), distress scores were similar despite higher delays in care (58% vs. 27%) than those without COVID-19.Conclusions: Fear of COVID-19 is linked to psychological distress and delays in care among patients with cancer. Furthermore, those who are personally impacted see exacerbated cancer care delays. Timely psychosocial support and health care coordination are critical to meet increased care needs of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Few studies have engaged patients and caregivers in interventions to alleviate financial hardship. We collaborated with Consumer Education and Training Services (CENTS), Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF), and Family Reach (FR) to assess the feasibility of enrolling patient–caregiver dyads in a program that provides financial counseling, insurance navigation, and assistance with medical and cost of living expenses. Methods: Patients with solid tumors aged ≥18 years and their primary caregiver received a financial education video, monthly contact with a CENTS counselor and PAF case manager for 6 months, and referral to FR for help with unpaid cost of living bills (eg, transportation or housing). Patient financial hardship and caregiver burden were measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity–Patient-Reported Outcomes (COST-PRO) and Caregiver Strain Index (CSI) measures, respectively, at baseline and follow-up. Results: Thirty patients (median age, 59.5 years; 40% commercially insured) and 18 caregivers (67% spouses) consented (78% dyad participation rate). Many participants faced cancer-related financial hardships prior to enrollment, such as work change or loss (45% of patients; 39% of caregivers) and debt (64% of patients); 39% of caregivers reported high levels of financial burden at enrollment. Subjects received $11,000 in assistance (mean, $772 per household); 66% of subjects with income ≤$50,000 received cost-of-living assistance. COST-PRO and CSI scores did not change significantly. Conclusions: Patient–caregiver dyads were willing to participate in a financial navigation program that addresses various financial issues, particularly cost of living expenses in lower income participants. Future work should address financial concerns at diagnosis and determine whether doing so improves patient and caregiver outcomes.

BackgroundGiven excellent survival outcomes in breast cancer, there is interest in de‐escalating the amount of chemotherapy delivered to patients. This approach may be of even greater importance in the setting of the COVID‐19 pandemic.MethodsThis concurrent mixed methods study included (1) interviews with patients and patient advocates and (2) a cross‐sectional survey of women with breast cancer served by a charitable nonprofit organization. Questions evaluated interest in de‐escalation trial participation, perceived barriers/facilitators to participation, and language describing de‐escalation.ResultsSixteen patient advocates and 24 patients were interviewed. Key barriers to de‐escalation included fear of recurrence, worry about decision regret, lack of clinical trial interest, and dislike for focus on less treatment. Facilitators included trust in physician recommendation, toxicity avoidance, monitoring for progression, perception of good prognosis, and impact on daily life. Participants reported that the COVID‐19 pandemic made them more likely to avoid chemotherapy if possible. Of 91 survey respondents, many (43%) patients would have been unwilling to participation in a de‐escalation clinical trial. The most commonly reported barrier to participation was fear of recurrence (85%). Few patients (19%) considered clinical trials themselves as a barrier to de‐escalation trial participation. The most popular terminology describing chemotherapy de‐escalation was “lowest effective chemotherapy dose” (53%); no patients preferred the term “de‐escalation.”ConclusionsFear of recurrence is a common concern among breast cancer survivors and patient advocates, contributing to resistance to de‐escalation clinical trial participation. Additional research is needed to understand how to engage patients in de‐escalation trials.