Future of Teleoncology: Trends and Disparities in Telehealth and Secure Message Utilization in the COVID-19 Era

PURPOSE Although telemedicine was seen as a way to improve cancer care during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, there is limited information regarding inequities in its uptake. This study assessed sociodemographic factors associated with telemedicine use among patients initiating treatment for 20 common cancers. METHODS This retrospective cohort study used deidentified electronic health record–derived patient data from a nationwide network of community cancer practices, linked to area-level Census information. We included adults (age 18 years and older) who initiated first-line systemic cancer treatment between March 2020 and December 2022 (follow-up through March 2023). Exposures include race/ethnicity, insurance status, and area-level social determinants of health (eg, block group socioeconomic status [SES]). The outcome was telemedicine use within 90 days after treatment initiation. Associations were examined using logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, performance status, stage, and cancer type. RESULTS This study included 36,993 patients (48.6% women; median age, 69 years), of whom 15.1% used telemedicine services. Black (12.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.88]) and uninsured (9.2%; OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.73]) patients were less likely to use telemedicine services than their White and well-insured counterparts (14.5% and 15.0%, respectively). Patients in rural (9.7%; OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.57]), suburban (11.8%; OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.74]), and low SES areas (9.9%; OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.43]) were less also likely to use telemedicine than their counterparts in urban (16.6%) or high SES (21.6%) areas. CONCLUSION Nearly one sixth of patients initiating cancer treatment during the pandemic used telemedicine, but there were substantial inequities. The proliferation of telemedicine may perpetuate cancer care inequities if marginalized populations do not have equitable access.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Sociodemographic Inequities in Telemedicine Use Among US Patients Initiating Treatment in Community Cancer Centers During the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020-2022

Guadamuz,

Wang,

Royce

et al. 2023

“…These challenges may be further exacerbated for patients who do not speak English. Minoritized patient populations, including those with language barriers, have been shown to be less likely to interface with patient portals and messaging 43,44 that may be essential to successfully navigate social support resources, including FA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to Financial Assistance Programs and Their Impact on Overall Spending on Oral Anticancer Medications at an Integrated Specialty Pharmacy

Ragavan,

Swartz,

Clark

et al. 2024

PURPOSE Financial assistance (FA) programs are increasingly used to help patients afford oral anticancer medications (OAMs), but access to such programs and their impact on out-of-pocket (OOP) spending has not been well explored. This study aimed to (1) characterize the impact of receipt of FA on both OOP spending and likelihood of catastrophic spending on OAMs and (2) evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in access to FA programs. METHODS Patients with a cancer diagnosis prescribed an OAM anytime between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021 were included in this retrospective, single-center study at an integrated specialty pharmacy affiliated with a tertiary academic cancer center. Fixed-effect regression models were used to characterize the impact of receipt of FA on overall spending and likelihood of catastrophic spending on OAMs, as well as explore the association of race/ethnicity with receipt of FA. RESULTS Across 1,186 patients prescribed an OAM, 37% received FA. Receipt of FA was associated with lower annual spending on OAMs (β = –$1,236 US dollars [USD; 95% CI, –$1,841 to –$658], P < .001) but not reduced risk of catastrophic spending (odds ratio [OR], 0.442 [95% CI, 0.755 to 3.199], P = .23). Non-White patients (OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.85], P = .004) and patients who spoke English as a second language (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.90], P = .02) were less likely to receive FA compared with White and English-speaking patients, respectively. CONCLUSION FA programs can mitigate high OOP spending but not for patients who spend at catastrophic levels. There are racial/ethnic and language disparities in access to such programs. Future studies should evaluate access to FA programs across diverse delivery settings.

“…63 As an example, lower health literacy and language barriers have already been demonstrated to perpetuate disparities in access to services such as telehealth, secure messaging, and patient portal utilization among patients with cancer. [64][65][66] Patients insured by Medicaid (including a high proportion of racial/ ethnic minority patients) also face higher rates of previous authorization requirements. 44 Finally, most nonintegrated specialty pharmacies that process OAMs are mail-in pharmacies.…”

Section: Disparities In Assistancementioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacy Assistance Programs for Oral Anticancer Drugs: A Narrative Review

Ragavan,

Swartz,

Clark

et al. 2024

Oral anticancer medications (OAMs) are high priced with a significant cost-sharing burden to patients, which can lead to catastrophic financial, psychosocial, and clinical repercussions. Cost-conscious prescribing and inclusion of low-cost alternatives can help mitigate this burden, but cost transparency at the point of prescribing remains a major barrier to doing so. Pharmacy assistance programs, including co-payment cards and patient assistance programs administered by manufacturers and foundation-based grants, remain an essential resource for patients facing prohibitive co-payments for OAMs. However, access to these programs is fraught with complexities, including lack of trained financial navigators, limited transparency on eligibility criteria, onerous documentation burdens, and limits in available funding. Despite these drawbacks and the potential for such programs to incentivize manufacturers to keep list prices high, assistance programs have been demonstrated to improve financial well-being for patients with cancer. The increasing development of integrated specialty pharmacies with dedicated, trained pharmacy staff can help improve and standardize access to such programs, but these services are disproportionately available to patients seen at tertiary care centers. Multistakeholder interventions are needed to mitigate the burden of cost sharing for OAMs, including increased clinician knowledge of financial resources and novel assistance mechanisms, investment of institutions in trained financial navigation services and centralized platforms to identify assistance programs, and policies to cap out-of-pocket spending and improve transparency of rates charged by pharmacy benefit managers to a health plan.