Medical financial hardship, including problems paying medical bills, distress, and forgoing care because of cost, is increasingly common among patients receiving cancer treatment and cancer survivors across the economic spectrum. Little is known, however, about provider practices for identifying patients who experience financial hardship and the strategies for mitigating hardship and addressing patient needs. In this editorial, we discuss a study of practices within the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. McLouth and colleagues found disparities in the use of screening and financial navigation and reliance on inadequate screening methods. To address these disparities, we emphasize the importance of comprehensive and ongoing financial hardship screening throughout the course of cancer treatment and survivorship care, as well as the necessity of accompanying counseling, navigation, and referrals. We also recommend key attributes of screening tools and a process for systematic implementation within clinical practice. With adverse health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affecting people who are racial or ethnic minorities, uninsured or underinsured, or living in poverty, the need to address medical financial hardship is more urgent than ever, to ensure that all people have an equal opportunity for high quality cancer treatment and survival.

See related article by McLouth et al., p. 669

For the past several decades, advances in cancer treatment are accompanied by large and growing price tags (1), making cancer one of the most expensive conditions to treat in the United States (2). Along with cost of treatment, the economic burden of cancer to patients and their families is also growing, as health insurers require greater patient cost-sharing for health care, and increases in the number of cancer survivors without health insurance coverage (3). Medical financial hardship, including problems paying medical bills, distress, and forgoing care because of cost (4), is more common among adult cancer survivors than similar adults without a cancer history (5). Financial hardship adversely affects health by lowering quality of life (6) and increasing mortality risk (7). Financial hardship is most common among populations who have historically experienced challenges with accessing cancer care, including people who have low incomes, are uninsured/underinsured, or are racial/ethnic minorities (8), but financial hardship is becoming commonplace across the economic spectrum. Advances in expensive cancer treatments threaten to widen disparities in access to care based on the ability to pay. Thus, understanding how institutions and providers identify patients experiencing financial hardship and the strategies used to mitigate hardship and address patient needs are increasingly important.

Several surveys of cancer care providers have explored practices related to financial hardship screening, navigation, and counseling (9–11). For example, a survey of NCI comprehensive cancer centers found that nearly all reported some form of financial screening (10). Another survey of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions, most of which are comprehensive cancer centers, found that the majority screen for financial hardship, commonly with the NCCN Distress Thermometer (9). In this issue of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, McLouth and colleagues describe practices for screening and addressing financial hardship in community oncology practices, where most patients with cancer are treated (12). Their study of 221 community oncology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) reported that about three-quarters of them have a screening process for their patients and half have cancer-specific financial navigators. The methods of screening and availability of navigation services varied widely. Practices treating a larger proportion of minority patients were less likely to screen for financial concerns or have financial navigators or counselors than those practices treating fewer minority patients. Practices serving more patients with Medicaid coverage, the state and federal program for low-income populations, were more likely to conduct screening, but not any more likely to offer navigation services. This study identifies important disparities in financial hardship screening and/or navigation for practices serving larger minority or Medicaid-insured patients, who may be at greater risk of hardship and adverse outcomes. These findings also highlight the need to optimize and standardize financial hardship screening, counseling, and navigation, as well as efforts to mitigate hardship.

The most common methods for screening in NCORP practices appear to focus on whether patients have health insurance coverage. This approach is inadequate because even privately insured patients and survivors experience financial hardship (5). Insurance coverage can also be unstable, especially for adults with lower income, Medicaid coverage (13), or loss of employment-based private coverage. Reliance on the presence of insurance coverage as a screening mechanism will surely miss insured patients with hardship. This observation raises an important, but somewhat neglected topic—the difference between financial counseling and navigation. Specifically, financial counselors are often employed to minimize uncompensated care for providers and may not function as financial navigators whose primary goal is minimizing patients' financial hardship.

Some NCORP practices use screening tools like the NCCN distress thermometer, which has a list of practical problems, including a single item for “insurance/financial” problems. There are many other tools for identifying patients with financial hardship and/or social needs (14). Some were tailored for patients with cancer, such as the comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST; ref. 15) and economic strain and resilience in cancer (ENRICh; ref. 16) instruments, whereas others, such as the protocol for responding to and assessing patient assets, risks, and experiences (PRAPARE) tool, are not condition specific, but developed for implementation in clinical practice in federally qualified health centers. Table 1 highlights selected features of these tools. Importantly, any tool for identifying medical financial hardship must be used as part of a process that begins with screening, connects patients with relevant services, and ensures that needs are met. Screening that identifies specific domains of medical financial hardship, material (e.g., problems paying medical bills), psychologic (e.g., distress), and/or behavioral (e.g., delaying or forgoing care because of cost), or other social needs, such as food insecurity or housing instability, can guide interventions. Low-income, minority, or uninsured/underinsured patients can be especially vulnerable if they receive treatment from institutions or facilities that conduct only financial screening without offering or referring for additional needed services.

Table 1.

Characteristics of selected tools for financial hardship screening.

NCCN distress thermometerCOST measurePRAPAREENRICh
Cancer specific Yes Yes No Yes 
Total number of items 42 12 22 15 
Scoring Thermometer 0 (no distress) to 10 (extreme distress) 5-point Likert scale for each item Risk tally score of 0 (no risk) or 1 (risk) for each item Each item scored from 0 (least hardship) to 10 (most severe hardship) 
 Moderate to severe distress ≥ 4 Total score: 0–44, lower score indicates worse financial toxicity Total score: 0–22, higher score indicates greater social risk  
Evaluation of reliability and validity Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Available languages English and more than 40 other languages, including Spanish, Chinese, French, Arabic, and Italian. English and more than five other languages, including Spanish, Chinese, French, and Korean. English and more than 20 other languages, including Spanish, Chinese, French, Arabic, and Russian. English 
NCCN distress thermometerCOST measurePRAPAREENRICh
Cancer specific Yes Yes No Yes 
Total number of items 42 12 22 15 
Scoring Thermometer 0 (no distress) to 10 (extreme distress) 5-point Likert scale for each item Risk tally score of 0 (no risk) or 1 (risk) for each item Each item scored from 0 (least hardship) to 10 (most severe hardship) 
 Moderate to severe distress ≥ 4 Total score: 0–44, lower score indicates worse financial toxicity Total score: 0–22, higher score indicates greater social risk  
Evaluation of reliability and validity Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Available languages English and more than 40 other languages, including Spanish, Chinese, French, Arabic, and Italian. English and more than five other languages, including Spanish, Chinese, French, and Korean. English and more than 20 other languages, including Spanish, Chinese, French, Arabic, and Russian. English 

In Table 2, we recommend key attributes of tools for medical financial hardship screening, such as ease of their use in clinical settings and their utility for guiding interventions. We also suggest inclusion of multiple measures of economic stability and social needs, such as health insurance coverage, employment, household income, and debt burden, as well as food insecurity, housing instability, transportation challenges, and social support. Multiple measures of medical financial hardship within material, psychologic, and behavioral domains are recommended. Patient clinical and demographic characteristics may be available from existing electronic health records (EHR) and could be used to prepopulate a screening tool, allowing for integration with clinical workflows. If these data are not available, they should be collected as part of screening.

Table 2.

Key attributes of financial hardship screening tools.

Examples
Screening tool characteristics Ease of use in clinical setting Feasible number of items or amount of time to complete 
  Appropriate for all reading levels 
  Available in multiple languages 
  Self-administered 
  EHR compatible/template availability 
 Utility for intervention Scoring or threshold for intervention 
  Sufficient specificity to guide intervention 
Patient characteristics Patient clinical characteristics Cancer specific 
  Health conditions, physical 
  Health conditions, mental 
 Patient demographic characteristics Sex 
  Race/ethnicity 
  Sexual orientation and gender identity 
  English proficiency 
  Health literacy/financial literacy 
Financial hardship risk/need for intervention Economic stability Health insurance coverage and type 
  Individual and household employment 
  Household income and assets 
  Household debt burden 
 Social needs Food insecurity 
  Housing insecurity/instability 
  Transportation challenges 
  Social support 
 Components of medical financial hardship Material (e.g., problems paying medical bills, high out-of-pocket costs in relation to income) 
  Psychologic (e.g., distress and worry) 
  Behavioral (e.g., delaying or forgoing care because of cost) 
Examples
Screening tool characteristics Ease of use in clinical setting Feasible number of items or amount of time to complete 
  Appropriate for all reading levels 
  Available in multiple languages 
  Self-administered 
  EHR compatible/template availability 
 Utility for intervention Scoring or threshold for intervention 
  Sufficient specificity to guide intervention 
Patient characteristics Patient clinical characteristics Cancer specific 
  Health conditions, physical 
  Health conditions, mental 
 Patient demographic characteristics Sex 
  Race/ethnicity 
  Sexual orientation and gender identity 
  English proficiency 
  Health literacy/financial literacy 
Financial hardship risk/need for intervention Economic stability Health insurance coverage and type 
  Individual and household employment 
  Household income and assets 
  Household debt burden 
 Social needs Food insecurity 
  Housing insecurity/instability 
  Transportation challenges 
  Social support 
 Components of medical financial hardship Material (e.g., problems paying medical bills, high out-of-pocket costs in relation to income) 
  Psychologic (e.g., distress and worry) 
  Behavioral (e.g., delaying or forgoing care because of cost) 

How might a financial hardship screening tool be implemented in clinical practice to systematically identify patients with financial hardship and ensure that their needs are addressed? We suggest adapting the well-accepted “5′As” approach for successful intervention in tobacco cessation: ask, advise, assess, assist, and arrange (17). In this context, patients are asked whether they are experiencing medical financial hardship, and if so, navigators, social workers, or other providers advise and counsel, assess the current treatment plan, assist treatment plan adjustment or identify sources of financial assistance, and arrange for referrals for additional services (Fig. 1). This process must occur iteratively because factors underlying the risk of medical financial hardship (e.g., lack of insurance coverage, unemployment, low income, and social needs) can change throughout the course of treatment and survivorship care. Yet, even in NCCN member institutions, only 56% reported screening for financial hardship more than once (9). It is critical that this process is documented in the medical record to allow for ongoing assessment and evaluation (18). Further underscoring the need for repeated screening, a study conducted within NCORP practices found that one-quarter of newly diagnosed patients with metastatic colorectal cancer reported major financial hardship (defined as major debt, loans, selling or refinancing house, or 20% decline in income) within 3 months of receiving treatment and by 12 months, nearly three-quarters reported major financial hardship (19), demonstrating the cumulative risk of financial hardship as treatment progresses. Strikingly, more than 95% of these patients were insured. Most of these patients would not have been identified by financial hardship screening practices that either rely on whether patients have health insurance coverage or on a one-time hardship screening at treatment initiation.

Figure 1.

Model for implementation of financial screening in clinical practice. Figure contains a model for implementation of financial screening adapted from the “5′As” approach for successful intervention in tobacco cessation: ask, advise, assess, assist, and arrange (17). In this context, patients are asked whether they are experiencing medical financial hardship, and if so, navigators, social workers, or providers advice and counsel, assess the current treatment plan, assist treatment plan adjustment or identify sources of financial assistance, and arrange for referrals for additional services.

Figure 1.

Model for implementation of financial screening in clinical practice. Figure contains a model for implementation of financial screening adapted from the “5′As” approach for successful intervention in tobacco cessation: ask, advise, assess, assist, and arrange (17). In this context, patients are asked whether they are experiencing medical financial hardship, and if so, navigators, social workers, or providers advice and counsel, assess the current treatment plan, assist treatment plan adjustment or identify sources of financial assistance, and arrange for referrals for additional services.

Close modal

McLouth and colleagues discussed the need for stakeholder engagement from patients and informal caregivers to providers and policy makers, in efforts to identify and address patient medical financial hardship (12). They also acknowledged state and federal policies as central to these efforts. We wholeheartedly agree. In the absence of state and federal policies that ensure comprehensive health insurance coverage options and equitable access to affordable, timely, and effective care, patients, their families, and their treating institutions are left on their own to minimize financial burden. Interventions focused on patient navigation may be best when partnered with multi-level interventions that include policy changes. Such interventions must be both scalable and sustainable in routine practice. We recommend that evaluations of interventions to mitigate financial hardship collect detailed information about the cost, as well as budget impact (20) from the perspective of a practice or health system to inform questions of sustainability. Finally, any solutions must first focus on practices serving minority and underserved populations, who were less likely to screen for medical financial hardship and have cancer-specific navigation.

Cancer is frequently an unexpected diagnosis and its treatment can result in thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses and medical debt for patients and their families, even if they have health insurance coverage (21). In 2017, nearly 40% of American families reported that they could not cover an unexpected expense of $400 (22). The COVID-19 pandemic, which led to widespread unemployment and loss of not only income, but access to employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, has exacerbated the economic challenges that many families face. We expect medical financial hardship to become even more prevalent in 2021 and beyond, especially because people who are racial or ethnic minorities, uninsured or underinsured, or living in poverty have disproportionately experienced adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts to identify and address medical financial hardship are more urgent than ever, for state and federal policymakers and all institutions treating patients with cancer, to ensure that all have an equitable opportunity to treat and survive cancer.

Y.-C.T. Shih reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.

1.
Shih
YC
,
Smieliauskas
F
,
Geynisman
DM
,
Kelly
RJ
,
Smith
TJ
. 
Trends in the cost and use of targeted cancer therapies for the privately insured nonelderly: 2001 to 2011
.
J Clin Oncol
2015
;
33
:
2190
6
.
2.
Soni
A
. 
Trends in the five most costly conditions among the U.S. Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population, 2002 and 2012
.
Available from
: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st470/stat470.shtml.
3.
Moss
HA
,
Han
X
,
Yabroff
KR
,
Chino
J
,
Chino
F
. 
Declines in health insurance among cancer survivors since the 2016 US elections
.
Lancet Oncol
2020
;
21
:
e517
.
4.
Yabroff
KR
,
Bradley
C
,
Shih
YT
. 
Understanding financial hardship among cancer survivors in the United States: strategies for prevention and mitigation
.
J Clin Oncol
2020
;
38
:
292
301
.
5.
Zheng
Z
,
Jemal
A
,
Han
X
,
Guy
GP
,
Li
C
,
Davidoff
AJ
, et al
Medical financial hardship among cancer survivors in the United States
.
Cancer
2019
;
125
:
1737
47
.
6.
Lathan
CS
,
Cronin
A
,
Tucker-Seeley
R
,
Zafar
SY
,
Ayanian
JZ
,
Schrag
D
. 
Association of financial strain with symptom burden and quality of life for patients with lung or colorectal cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
2016
;
34
:
1732
40
.
7.
Ramsey
SD
,
Bansal
A
,
Fedorenko
CR
,
Blough
DK
,
Overstreet
KA
,
Shankaran
V
, et al
Financial insolvency as a risk factor for early mortality among patients with cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
2016
;
34
:
980
6
.
8.
Yabroff
KR
,
Zhao
J
,
Han
X
,
Zheng
Z
. 
Prevalence and correlates of medical financial hardship in the USA
.
J Gen Intern Med
2019
;
34
:
1494
502
.
9.
Khera
N
,
Sugalski
J
,
Krause
D
,
Butterfield
R
,
Zhang
N
,
Stewart
FM
, et al
Current practices for screening and management of financial distress at NCCN member institutions
.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw
2020
;
18
:
825
31
.
10.
National Cancer Institute
.
Survey of financial navigation services and research summary
. 
2020
. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/research-emphasis/financial-hardship.
Accessed March 3, 2021
.
11.
Bowen Benson
AI
,
Boehmer
L
,
Shivakumar
L
,
Trosman
JR
,
Weldon
CB
,
Hahn
EA
, et al
Resource and reimbursement barriers to comprehensive cancer care (CCC) delivery: an Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) survey research analysis
.
J Clin Oncol
38:29s, 2020 (suppl; abstr 31).
12.
McLouth
LE
,
Nightingale
CL
,
Dressler
EV
,
Snavely
AC
,
Hudson
MF
,
Unger
JM
, et al
Current practices for screening and addressing financial hardship within the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2021
;
30
:
669
75
.
13.
Short
PF
,
Graefe
DR
,
Schoen
C
. 
Churn, churn, churn: how instability of health insurance shapes America's uninsured problem
.
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund)
2003
;
688
:
1
16
.
PMID: 14621666
.
14.
Henrikson
NB
,
Blasi
PR
,
Dorsey
CN
,
Mettert
KD
,
Nguyen
MB
,
Walsh-Bailey
C
, et al
Psychometric and pragmatic properties of social risk screening tools: a systematic review
.
Am J Prev Med
2019
;
57
:
S13
S24
.
15.
de Souza
JA
,
Yap
BJ
,
Hlubocky
FJ
,
Wroblewski
K
,
Ratain
MJ
,
Cella
D
, et al
The development of a financial toxicity patient-reported outcome in cancer: the COST measure
.
Cancer
2014
;
120
:
3245
53
.
16.
Smith
GL
,
Volk
RJ
,
Lowenstein
LM
,
Peterson
SK
,
Rieber
AG
,
Checka
C
, et al
ENRICH: validating a multidimensional patient-reported financial toxicity measure
.
J Clin Oncol
2019
;
37
:
153
.
17.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
.
Five major steps to intervention (the "5 A's")
. Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/prevention/guidelines/tobacco/5steps.html.
18.
Bradley
CJ
,
Yabroff
KR
,
Zafar
SY
,
Shih
YT
. 
Time to add screening for financial hardship as a quality measure?
CA Cancer J Clin
2020 Nov 23
.
doi: 10.3322/caac.21653. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33226648.
19.
Shankaran
V
,
Unger
JM
,
Darke
A
,
Suga
JM
,
Wade
JL
,
Kourlas
P
, et al
Cumulative incidence of financial hardship in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: Primary endpoint results for SWOG S1417CD
.
J Clin Oncol
2020
;
38
:
7010
.
20.
Mauskopf
JA
,
Sullivan
SD
,
Annemans
L
,
Caro
J
,
Mullins
CD
,
Nuijten
M
, et al
Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices–budget impact analysis
.
Value Health
2007
;
10
:
336
47
.
21.
Banegas
MP
,
Guy
GP
 Jr
,
de Moor
JS
,
Ekwueme
DU
,
Virgo
KS
,
Kent
EE
, et al
For working-age cancer survivors, medical debt and bankruptcy create financial hardships
.
Health Aff
2016
;
35
:
54
61
.
22.
The Federal Reserve System
.
Report on the economic well-being of U.S. households in 2017
.
Available from:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2017-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201805.pdf.