Khera, Nandita

Background: Financial distress from medical treatment is an increasing concern. Healthcare organizations may have different levels of organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes of screening and management of patient financial distress. Patients and Methods: In November 2018, representatives from 17 (63%) of the 27 existing NCCN Member Institutions completed an online survey. The survey focused on screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes about such practices. Due to the lack of a validated questionnaire in this area, survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search and discussions among the study team, including NCCN Best Practices Committee representatives. Results: Responses showed that 76% of centers routinely screened for financial distress, mostly with social worker assessment (94%), and that 56% screened patients multiple times. All centers offered programs to help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers, and payment plans. Charity care was provided by 100% of the large centers (≥10,000 unique annual patients) but none of the small centers that responded (<10,000 unique annual patients; P =.008). Metrics to evaluate the impact of financial advocacy services included number of patients assisted, bad debt/charity write-offs, or patient satisfaction surveys. The effectiveness of institutional practices for screening and management of financial distress was reported as poor/very poor by 6% of respondents. Inadequate staffing and resources, limited budget, and lack of reimbursement were potential barriers in the provision of these services. A total of 94% agreed with the need for better integration of financial advocacy into oncology practice. Conclusions: Three-fourths of NCCN Member Institutions reported screening and management programs for financial distress, although the actual practices and range of services vary. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar programs and identify best practices in this area.

11615 Background: Deficiencies and barriers exist to delivering comprehensive and affordable cancer care. Understanding the variation in organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes for screening and management of financial distress is needed. Methods: Representatives from 17 of 27 NCCN Member Institutions (63%) completed an online survey in November 2018 conducted by the NCCN Best Practices Committee. Centers were classified based on number of unique patients seen per year, as large ( > 10,000) (76%), or small ( < 10,000) (34%). The survey focused on institutions’ screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes. Results: Routine screening for financial distress was reported by 77% of centers, and most used social worker assessments (94%). 56% screened patients throughout the cancer journey. Help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers and payment plans were offered by 100% of centers. Formal pre-authorization programs and assistance with claims and denials was offered by 81%. Charity care for medical costs was provided by 100% of the large centers compared to only 33% of small centers (p = 0.03). Median number of social workers (24 vs. 3; p = 0.01) and pharmacy representatives (6 vs. 2; p = 0.02) was also different between large and small centers. 76% evaluated the impact of financial advocacy services through number of patients assisted (85%), bad debt and charity write-offs (85%) or patient satisfaction surveys (54%). 6% and 12% reported overall effectiveness of institutional practice for screening and management of financial distress as poor/ very poor respectively. Inadequate staffing and real time resources (69%), limited institutional budget (50%), lack of reimbursement (50%), and clinical time constraints (50%) were reported as potential barriers in provision of these services. 94% agreed about stronger integration of financial advocacy services into oncology practice and 84% felt that success of these services should be a quality metric. 31% of large centers vs. 100% of small centers plan to increase staffing in this area in the next 5 years. Conclusions: Majority of NCCN Member Institutions report screening and management programs for financial distress, though the actual practices and range of services vary widely. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar cancer programs and identify best practices in this area.

7034 Background: Reduced intensity (RIC) conditioning regimens have allowed older patients and those with comorbidities to receive hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Methods: We analyzed medical costs from the beginning of conditioning to 100 days after HCT for 484 patients who underwent a RIC allogeneic HCT at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC; n=147) and Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI; n=337) from 1/2008 to 12/2010. Costs up to 2 years after HCT were analyzed for DFCI (n=311) as most patients receive their post-transplant care there. Multiple linear regression was used to analyze the association between clinical variables and costs. Results: Disease distribution and transplant characteristics were comparable between the two sites, though significant differences were seen in age distribution (88% FHCRC patients ≥ 50 years vs. 80% at DFCI, p=0.04) and pre-transplant performance scores (63% patients with Karnofsky score≥ 90 at FHCRC vs. 47% at DFCI; p=0.006). Median costs for first 100 days in 2010 $ at FHCRC and DFCI were $129 000 (range 31,000-352,000) and $96,000 (3,000-614,000) respectively, p=0.0002, but differences were not significant in multivariate analysis. Inpatient costs accounted for 42% of early costs at FHCRC and 87% at DFCI.Significant predictors for early costs included a diagnosis of lymphoma/ myeloma (17% decrease in costs; p=0.01), donors other than matched related (50 -100% increase; p<0.001), relapse (17% increase, p=0.04) and ≥ grade II acute GVHD (37% increase; p<0.001). Median costs between d100 and 2 years were $39,000 (0-976,000) at DFCI. 39% of the 2 year costs occurred after first 100 days. There was no association of late costs with pre-transplant variables, and only death was associated with higher costs (138% increase; p=0.005). Conclusions: After adjustment for pre and post HCT variables, the overall costs of the RIC allogeneic transplants were similar between the two institutions despite different management approaches (inpatient vs. outpatient conditioning) and accounting methodologies. Use of unrelated/ alternative donors, relapse and acute GVHD were predictors for higher early costs while only death was associated with higher late costs.

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to qualitatively analyze metacommunication during the digital storytelling (DST) workshop process for patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Methods: HCT survivors who had undergone transplant within the past 2 years were recruited at a cancer center in the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Participants (M age = 51.5 years) attended a 3-day DST workshop telling and creating digital stories around their HCT experiences. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, line by line coding and content analysis were conducted with four research team members. Results: Four themes emerged from the data: (1) communal connection; (2) expressing and processing emotions; (3) self-empowerment; and (4) multi-dimensional coping. Participants described telling and sharing their story with other HCT patients as therapeutic. Conclusion: DST shows promise as a potential coping tool and offers multiple dimensions of the role of narrative as a coping technique, in community building, and in patient-centered contexts within HCT.

Abstract Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) are the two most common childhood leukemias. Novel drug therapies and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) have improved ALL and AML treatment outcomes over the past two decades. However, alloHCT may be associated with significant morbidity and mortality that results in increased healthcare utilization. To date, no multi-center comparative effectiveness studies have been performed specifically evaluating alloHCT in children with ALL or AML. This study uses a novel methodology to investigate the hypothesis that matched sibling donor (MSD) alloHCT has significantly lower healthcare utilization compared to unrelated donor (URD) and that among URD, umbilical cord blood transplants (CBT) will have higher initial utilization but lower long-term utilization. Clinical and transplant outcomes data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database were merged with inpatient resource utilization and standardized cost data from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database using a probabilistic merge methodology. This merged dataset contained U.S. patients age 1-21 years who received alloHCT for ALL or AML from 2004-2013 with comprehensive CIBMTR data at a PHIS reporting hospital. The primary outcomes of overall survival (OS), leukemia free survival (LFS), and inpatient resource utilization were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox proportional hazards, and unadjusted Poisson regression analysis. Cost and resource comparisons for all donor types were made through day+100 and focused on URD only comparisons up to 2-year follow-up. Donor procurement costs were not directly included in this analysis. A total of 797 patients (54% of CIBMTR eligible patients and 89% of CIBMTR patients at PHIS centers) were successfully identified in both CIBMTR and PHIS; 433 had ALL and had 364 AML. LFS for ALL at 3 years was 68% for MSD, 53% for MUD, and 53% for CBT. The LFS in ALL was significantly impacted by donor type, age, disease status, and CMV (Table). The associated total costs were significantly higher for well-matched unrelated bone marrow (MUD) vs MSD at 100d ($246,149 vs $147,547, p<0.01), but CBT costs were not significantly higher compared to MUD at 100d ($275,673 vs $246,149, p=0.09). When median total costs per day were compared across donor source, findings were similar with well- MUD was significantly higher than MSD at 100d ($3,388/d vs $2,511/d, p=0.012), and no significant difference between CBT and MUD ($3,881/d vs $3,388/d, p=0.53). The corresponding average length of stay (ALOS) was 35 days for MUD, 34 days MSD, and 53 days CBT. Among URD alloHCT, median CBT costs per day were not significantly higher compared to MUD at 2yrs ($2,472/d vs $2,294/d, p=0.49). AlloHCT for AML had a 3-yr LFS of 56% for MSD, 46% for MUD, and 41% for CBT. LFS were significantly different by disease status and performance status (Table). The associated total costs were significantly higher for MUD at 100d than MSD ($259,293 vs $143,870, p<0.001), but CBT costs were not significantly higher compared to MUD at 100d ($301,160 vs $259,293, p=0.055). Comparisons of median total costs per day were similar, MUD vs MSD at 100d was significantly higher ($3,627/d vs $2,478/d, p<0.01), but CBT costs were not significantly higher compared to MUD at 100d ($3,891/d vs $3,627/d, p=0.95). The corresponding ALOS was 38 days for MUD, 35 days MSD, and 66 days CBT. Among URD alloHCT, median CBT costs per day were not significantly higher compared to MUD at 2yrs ($3,232/d vs $3,102/d, p=0.49). This study recapitulates previously published outcomes of alloHCT for acute leukemia AND adds key findings on the impact of alloHCT on inpatient resource utilization and costs. Specifically, MSD and MUD alloHCT provide similar survival outcomes; however, MSD alloHCT has a significant advantage in cost and resource utilization for both ALL and AML. Among URD transplants, CBT does not show any substantial survival or resource utilization advantage over MUD. Ongoing research will need to be performed to determine if the difference among URD alloHCT becomes significant with a larger sample size and/or beyond the 2 years following alloHCT. Table Table. Disclosures Pulsipher: Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Study Steering Committee; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Medac: Other: Housing support for conference; Chimerix: Consultancy. Hahn:Novartis: Equity Ownership; NIH: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Disparities in MM survival among different racial groups persist despite improvements in overall survival (OS). We report a comprehensive review of the SEER Medicare database to elucidate the causes of differences in disease presentation, management practices, cost of care and their relationships to outcomes among the MM patients (pts) from different racial groups. Methods: Pts diagnosed with MM between 1991-2010 with continuous Medicare coverage (1 year prior to diagnosis-date of death/end of 2012) were included. MM complications (MM-C); hypercalcemia (C), renal dysfunction (R), anemia (An), bone fractures (B), dialysis (D) occurring prior to/within 30 days of MM diagnosis (at diagnosis; AT-D), or any time later (after diagnosis; AF-D) were summarized. Demographics, survival (PEDSAF files) and disease characteristics, drug/stem cell transplant (SCT) utilization (NCH, OUTSAF, PDESAF files) were obtained. Trends in incidence of MM-C, treatment type over time (proportional odds) and their association with race (logistic regressions) were compared. Associations between race, MM-C AT-D and MM related death using Fine and Gray's competing risk methods were analyzed. Medicare claims adjusted for inflation (2013) within the first 6 months (mth)/total MM care were summed by drug and total charges. Median cost of care by race and year of diagnosis were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis (univariate) and proportional odds models (multivariate). Results: A total of 35842 pts (52.1% males) with median age of 76 yr (range 18-104) were included. Mutually exclusive racial subgroups were: White (W, 72%), Hispanic (H: 7.3%), African-American (AA, 16.2%), Asian (A, 4.1%), other (0.3%). A significantly increasing trend in the prevalence of all MM-C AT-D was seen over time (all p<0.001). For AF-D, all MM-C initially increased but decreased from 2006-2010 except D that showed continued increase (Fig 1A). For race, MM-C were significantly different, with AA having the most C, R, An and D while W having the most B (Fig 1B). Inferior OS was seen with male gender (p=0.006), increasing age, earlier years of diagnosis, belonging to W or H race, C, R and B (all p<0.001), but not with An (p=0.298) or D (p=0.378). Trends in OS over time showed a significant interaction with race in 1991-1995 (p<0.001), 1996-2000 (p=0.004) and 2001-2005 (p<0.001) but not in 2006-2010 (p=0.182), possibly due to shorter follow up. Medicare claims analysis showed that pts receiving any treatment increased from 12.8% in 1991-1995 to 59.3% in 2006-2010 (p<0.001). Specific therapy utilization, including SCT and all drug classes/agents evaluated increased except for cytotoxic chemotherapy utilization (melphalan/cyclophosphamide), which decreased (Fig 2A). Any therapy utilization was significantly different by race (p<0.001) with highest for H (36.5%) and lowest for AA (31.6%). Specific treatments differed significantly by race (Fig 2B). Cost of care analysis showed significant increase over years for median drug claims (0.23k to 3.63k) and total claims (5.11k to 27.8k) during first 6 mth as well as for any time after MM diagnosis (drug: 1.3k to 9.9k, total: 21.9k to 84k) (p<0.001 for all). Median drug claims in first 6 mth were highest among AA (1.3k) and lowest among A (0.63k) (p<0.001). Same was true for total claims in first 6 mth (p<0.001). For any time after diagnosis, H had the highest drug (p<0.001) and total (p=0.081) claims. There were significant interactions between year of diagnosis, race and cost of care with H seeing the highest increase in drug claims in first 6 mth (p<0.001) and any time (p=0.002). Conclusion: MM-C have generally decreased AF-D due to improved therapeutics although AA continue to have the highest rates of MM-C. Our data shows that utilization and cost of MM care have increased tremendously with resulting improved outcomes, but significant racial disparities persist. These disparities may be in part due to impaired access to new agents from lack of supplemental insurance for certain racial groups. Drug utilization and cost of care disparities may also be due to differences in co-morbidities, MM-C or access leading to differential healthcare utilization and should be explored in order to ameliorate disparities in outcomes. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Current advances in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) may warrant a paradigm shift in managing children with sickle cell disease (SCD). This study characterizes the clinical outcomes and health care utilization (HCU) of alloHCT for pediatric SCD. We hypothesize that early alloHCT will have improved clinical outcomes, and decreased HCU. Methods: The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database was used to identify children 21 years or less with alloHCT for SCD in the United States. Patient data included comprehensive research forms (CRF) from 2000-13 and transplant essential data (TED) forms from 2000-11. CRFs provided clinical risk factors associated with overall survival, graft failure, grade III-IV acute GVHD, and GVHD related event free survival (GREFS) - the survival free of graft failure, chronic GVHD, or death. Risk factors included age, gender, performance status, year of alloHCT, prior SCD complications and therapy, CMV status, donor type, conditioning regimen, and GVHD prophylaxis. Due to low event rates and sample size, only univariate analysis of risk factors was performed. TED data was merged with Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) inpatient data using a probabilistic merging algorithm to determine risk factors and clinical outcomes associated with HCU. Available PHIS adjusted cost data was used to determine the total adjusted cost for all inpatient admissions per patient per hospital day. To standardize these costs, the total adjusted cost per 30 hospital days was calculated for each patient and used as the primary HCU outcome. HCU outcomes were analyzed for the alloHCT year, day 0 to day +365. Results: CRF data for 161 patients showed an overall survival at 2 years of 90% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 85-95%): 96% (95% CI 89-100%) for related and unrelated cord blood transplant (CBT), 94% (95% CI 86-98%) matched siblings (MSD), and 74% (95% CI 54-90%) matched unrelated donors (MUD, p=0.002). All deaths occurred among children with pre-alloHCT complications of SCD, and deaths were due to organ failure (37.5%), infections (25%), GVHD (6.25%). Risk of death was significantly higher for children ≥10 years old (HR 21, p=0.003) and MUD compared to MSD (HR 5.88, p=0.005) but lower with cyclosporine A (CSA) GVHD prophylaxis versus FK506 (HR 0.33, p=0.031). 75% of deaths occurred before day +42. Cumulative acute GVHD incidence at day 100 was 14% (95% CI 9-20%)and was associated with age ≥10yrs (HR 2.63, p=0.035). Chronic GVHD incidence was 31% (95% CI 23-38%) at 2yrs, and factors associated were age ≥10yrs (HR 1.92, p=0.034), MUD vs MSD (HR 2.53, p=0.017), and CSA vs FK506 prophylaxis (HR 0.48, p=0.018). Chronic GVHD risk increased significantly after 2006 (HR 2.81, p=0.018). The 2yr GREFS was 64% (95% CI 56-71%). Age ≥10yrs (HR 2.2, p=0.005), MUD (vs MSD, HR 3.00, p=0.002) and CSA prophylaxis (vs FK506, HR 0.49, p=0.011) were significantly associated with this outcome. Among the 175 patients with combined TED and PHIS data, the median total adjusted cost was $117,393 per 30 hospital days per patient (range: $36,244-$515,640) during the alloHCT year with a median of 53 hospital days per patient (range: 16-304). Age ≥10yrs and HCU were not significantly associated (p=0.775). MSD had the lowest HCU compared to CBT and unrelated transplants (p<0.001). CBT and peripheral blood stem cells were associated with higher HCU compared to bone marrow (p=0.004). Increased HCU was associated with prior stroke (p=0.0004) and pain crises (p=0.0094) but not acute chest syndrome (p=0.2913). Overall SCD complication and severity indices correlated with increased HCU (p=0.052, p=0.0219, respectively). Conclusions: AlloHCT outcomes in children with SCD were linked to age and donor type suggesting that early alloHCT before age 10 years is preferred. Specifically, SCD severity and MUD alloHCT are associated with poorer outcomes and increased HCU. This supports the recommendation of early alloHCT, prior to onset of SCD complications, for children with SCD and an available MSD. Donor source and type had a significant impact on both outcomes and HCU. CBT outcomes were similar to MSD bone marrow; yet CBT had higher HCU suggesting additional analysis is needed to determine if the clinical benefit outweighs the cost. Further analysis is also needed to better understand and mitigate risk factors associated with poor outcomes and increased HCU following MUD alloHCT. Disclosures Arnold: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program: Other: award. Hahn:NIH/NHLBI: Research Funding; Novartis: Equity Ownership.