Hung, Anna

PURPOSE Approximately three quarters of patients with sarcoma report financial toxicity, defined as the psychosocial and economic burden of cancer care. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) is a screening questionnaire validated in patients with cancer. However, its use is not widespread in sarcoma care, likely in part due to its complexity. This study aimed to characterize financial toxicity in patients with sarcoma and evaluate whether shorter screening tools can identify high-risk patients. METHODS We conducted a survey and retrospective cohort study of patients treated for sarcoma at a large, academic sarcoma center in 2016-2024. Patients completed the COST questionnaire (11 graded questions, each scored on a five-point Likert scale from 0 to 4) and the shorter, four-question Worry about Affording Healthcare Scale (WAHS). We obtained clinical information from the electronic health record. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses to COST, Pearson's correlation coefficient to assess the association between WAHS and COST, and stepwise Spearman correlations to evaluate whether an abbreviated (1-4 question) version of COST correlated highly with total COST score. RESULTS Among 205 participants, the mean COST score was 20/44 (standard deviation = 6; lower scores indicate greater financial toxicity). Respondents worried most about job loss (mean COST: 0.99) and family finances (mean COST: 1.11). WAHS was weakly correlated with COST (r = 0.47, P < .01). A four-item abbreviated COST tool was strongly correlated with the total COST (ρ = 0.906, P < .0001) and demonstrated high sensitivity (96%) and moderate specificity (75%). CONCLUSION An abbreviated four-item COST tool could act as a clinically feasible, accurate screening tool after external validation. Routine financial toxicity screening could facilitate timely detection and referral to essential financial navigation resources.

This economic evaluation estimates the implementation costs and cost per additional patient receiving the vaccine associated with each of the intervention strategies for increasing rates of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in primary care practices.

Abstract Purpose The 2025 ASHP Pharmacy Forecast report is written to identify and contextualize emerging trends that will influence healthcare, health systems, and the pharmacy profession. It provides recommendations to inform strategic planning that should prompt action by pharmacists and health-system leaders. Methods Drawing on the “wisdom of crowds” concept, a survey was constructed by an advisory committee with 6 themes, each with 7 focused statements and a seventh theme on preparedness (54 survey items in total). A survey panel of 321 pharmacy leaders was purposefully designed to capture opinions from a wide range of pharmacists across the United States. Panelists were asked to consider the likelihood of the statements occurring in the next 5 years as being likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely to occur. Forecast panelists also assessed health systems’ preparedness (from very unprepared to very prepared) for 12 of the statements. Results The 6 survey themes identified were The Business of Healthcare: Challenges in Health-System Pharmacy, Managing Ultra-High-Cost Drugs, Addressing the Gap in Primary Care, Whole Person Health, Navigating Generative Artificial Intelligence: Opportunity and Risk, and Stabilizing the Pharmacy Workforce. The survey was completed by 269 respondents, yielding an 84% response rate. Descriptive statistics of the survey results were provided to chapter authors to inform commentary and strategic recommendations for each theme. Conclusion The Pharmacy Forecast provides insights on large-scale, long-term trends that will influence healthcare and the pharmacy profession over the years ahead. Insight from the report can stimulate strategic thinking and provides a starting point to proactively position leaders, their teams, and departments for potential future trends.