Griffin, Joan M.

70 Background: The prevalence of health insurance literacy (HIL) and financial literacy (FL) in cancer patients is not well described. Further, a better understanding of the association between these constructs and the domains of financial hardship (FH) can guide potential interventions. Methods: We examined the prevalence of HIL and FL and FH in cancer patients on active treatment at our institution. HIL and FL were assessed using Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM) and 5 questions from the National Financial Capability Study respectively. COST FACIT and National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) questions were used to examine overall FH and its 3 domains (material, behavioral and psychological hardship). Pearson correlation coefficient was used to describe the relation between the COST score and FH domains assessed by NHIS questions. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the associations of overall FH (measured by COST FACIT) with FL and HIL. Results: Among 256 patients approached, 202 completed questionnaires. Median age was 67 (range 22 to 91) years. 51% were male, 93% Whites and 5% were Hispanic. 69% had a solid tumor with 37% stage IV. Median number of lines of treatment was 4 (range 1 to 18). 21% were currently employed, 59% had ≥college degree, 41% had private insurance and 42% had monthly income≥$7000. 50% participants answered at least 4/5 FL questions correctly, indicating high FL. Being male, White, having insurance, higher education and income ≥$7000 were associated with higher FL. 72% of participants had high HIL, and they were more likely to be Non-Hispanic, married and have received more lines of treatment. FL significantly correlated with HIL (r = 0.29, p < .001). 65% patients endorsed FH based on NHIS questions (10% behavioral, 20% material, and 62% psychological hardship). 48% patients had FH based on a COST score < 28 (Median score), which correlated with material (r = -0.59, p < .001), psychological (r = -0.55, p < .001) and behavioral FH (r = -0.42, p < .001). The association between FH and HIL was not significant (OR 0.78; p = 0.08), though higher FL was associated with lower FH (OR 0.69; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Despite high FL and HIL (as compared to national standards), the prevalence of FH in our relatively affluent patient cohort was high, driven mainly by psychological hardship. We did not find strong association between the HIL and FH unlike in the reported literature. Our findings behoove us to develop tailored interventions to address unique domains of the FH in a diverse population.

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.

Context.— Autopsy rates have decreased dramatically despite providing important clinical information to medical practices and social benefits to decedents' families. Objective.— To assess the impact of an institutional Office of Decedent Affairs (ODA), a direct communication link between pathology and decedents' families, on hospital autopsy consent rates, autopsy-related communication, practitioner views, and next-of-kin experiences. Design.— A before and after study involving all hospital decedents whose deaths did not fall within the jurisdiction of the medical examiner's office from 2013 to 2018. A pathology-run ODA launched in May 2016 to guide next-of-kin through the hospital death process (including autopsy-related decisions) and serve as the next-of-kin's contact for any subsequent autopsy-related communication. Critical care and hematology/oncology practitioners were assessed for their autopsy-related views and decedents' next-of-kin were assessed for their autopsy-related experiences. Autopsy consent rates for non–medical examiner hospital deaths, autopsy-related communication rates, practitioner views on the role and value of autopsy, and next-of-kin autopsy experiences and decisions factors were compared prior to and after ODA launch. Results.— Autopsy consent rates significantly increased from 13.2% to 17.3% (480 of 3647 deaths versus 544 of 3148 deaths; P &lt; .001). There were significant increases in the rate of autopsy-related discussions and bereavement counseling provided to decedents' families. Practitioner views on the positive role of autopsy for any hospital death and those with advanced stage cancer also significantly increased. Next-of-kin indicated more consistent autopsy-related discussions with the potential benefits of autopsy discussed becoming key decision factors. Conclusions.— An ODA improves hospital autopsy consent rates, autopsy-related communication, providers' autopsy-related views, and next-of-kins autopsy experiences.

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.

Introduction: With the expanding use of CAR-T cell therapy, which is associated with serious adverse effects (AEs), there is a need to characterize the patient's experience over time to guide patient/provider education, and help optimize symptom management. This study reports on longitudinal evaluation of patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden of CAR-T cell therapy compared with established forms of cellular therapy i.e autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT) and allogeneic SCT (alloSCT). Methods: Patients with hematologic malignancies were prospectively recruited in three cohorts: CAR-T, autoSCT and alloSCT. The primary endpoint was change in QOL from baseline, using the FACT-G questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were patient-reported AEs (PRO-AEs) using 7 items from the PRO-CTCAE and assessment of cognition/memory using the NeuroQOLv2 questionnaire. PRO-CTCAE data was graded using a composite score (combining frequency, severity, and interference) and rates, using a method adjusting for pre-existing baseline symptoms, were compared using Fisher's exact test. We also evaluated the time profile of PRO-AEs using the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) approach, a longitudinal approach to AE analysis (Thanarajasingam Lancet Onc 2016). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, week 2 and monthly thereafter. Results: From 07/2018 to 06/2019, 93 patients were recruited (CAR-T: 20; autoSCT: 37; alloSCT: 36). At data cut-off, week 2 and months 1, 2 and 3 data were available in 74, 62, 46 and 35 patients, respectively. There was no difference in patient age across the 3 groups (median age 63, range 23-77; p=0.26). Baseline QOL by FACT-G total score (mean=83.4, SD=14.7; p=0.77), side effect bother by FACT-G GP5 (66/93 [71%] a little bit or less; p=0.72), activities and function (70/93 [75%] fairly normal activities or no limitations; p=0.68) and cognition by NeuroQOL t-score (mean=52.2, SD=8.13; p=0.39) were similar across 3 groups at baseline. The CAR-T group experienced significantly less worsening in QOL (FACT-G) than both autoSCT and alloSCT groups (Fig. 1a). Worsening in overall QOL nadired at week 2, after which QOL gradually returned to baseline in all groups. When comparing changes from baseline in overall QOL, statistically significant differences between groups were evident at week 2 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p&lt;0.001; vs alloSCT p&lt;0.001), month 1 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p=0.02; vs alloSCT p=0.003), month 2 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p=0.02; vs alloSCT p=0.001) and month 3 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p=NS; vs alloSCT p=0.03). Results for physical (Fig. 1b) and functional well-being (WB) were similar, with significantly less QOL worsening at week 2 in CAR-T vs autoSCT and alloSCT groups. The most common PRO-AEs (Table 1) in the CAR-T group were decreased appetite (59%), diarrhea (53%) and fatigue (44%). There was no statistically significant difference in the PRO-AEs between CAR-T and autoSCT groups. However, patients undergoing alloSCT had significantly higher proportion of PRO-AEs vs the CAR-T group, except for neuropathy and sad feelings. AutoSCT and alloSCT groups had significant worsening of FACT-G side effect bother (GP5) at week 2, which was significantly different from that of the CAR-T group, following which the side effect bother gradually returned to baseline. (Fig. 1c) This was the first application of ToxT to PRO-CTCAE data (graphs not shown). Bar charts of maximum grade frequency and stream plots of mean grade over time demonstrate that mouth sores, fatigue, diarrhea and decreased appetite peak at week 2 and improve by month 3, and are of lesser severity in the CAR-T vs autoSCT and alloSCT groups. The trajectory of maximum grade across all PRO-AEs was similar by group as overall side effect burden by FACT-G GP5. Heatmap visualization demonstrated significant intra-patient variability and allowed inspection of data completeness. No difference in cognition and memory was observed across the three groups over the first three months. (Fig. 1d) Conclusion: This study is the first to our knowledge to provide comprehensive PRO data comparing QOL, patient-reported AEs and cognition in CAR-T cell therapy vs. auto- and alloSCT, and the first application of ToxT to PRO-CTCAE data. Short-term QOL, including physical and functional WB domains was better in the CAR-T group vs. SCT groups. These data can serve as a guide for patient education and symptom management in CAR-T cell therapy. Co-senior authors: SKK & ACD Disclosures Paludo: Celgene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding; Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding. Gertz:Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties. Dispenzieri:Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Bennani:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

16 Background: Family caregivers have been shown to have their own unique challenges when caring for someone with advanced cancer. These challenges may be more pronounced among rural caregivers. We present early lessons regarding caregiver needs from an intervention study that provides teaching, guidance, and counseling to rural family caregivers of individuals who received palliative care in the hospital and transitioned home. Methods: A randomized clinical trial is underway to test the efficacy of a care model that focuses on supporting rural family caregivers’ medical needs, self-care, and direct caregiving needs. We have developed a nurse-led, technology-enhanced intervention for family caregivers delivered over 8 weeks after hospital discharge of those receiving palliative care consults. The intervention includes video and phone visits between a palliative care nurse and caregiver. Caregiver needs and nurse strategies are documented using a standardized terminology in an electronic datafile. Results: Preliminary data from 21 family caregivers of individuals with advanced cancer who completed the intervention to date indicate caregivers personally had an average of 2.2 chronic conditions (up to 10) and were taking an average of 3.14 (up to 11) medications. In addition to challenges providing direct care, caregivers reported difficulty managing stress or depression (7/21; 33.3%); issues related to grief (6/21; 28.5%); inadequate sleep and rest (6/21; 28.5%), low or no income or uninsured medical expenses (5/21; 23.8%); and interpersonal challenges within families and with friends (5/21, 23.8%). Conclusions: Preliminary data from our study suggest that assessing the caregiver’s individual needs related to well being and self-care as well as direct caregiving is imperative to delivering caregiver support services that can improve the ability of family caregivers to provide care for their loved ones with advanced cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03339271.

Abstract Family caregivers are major providers of long-term care and support for family members with age-related decline and disability. Caregiving is a demanding and complex undertaking that has demonstrated extensive physical, emotional, relational, and financial burden on families. These factors underscore the urgency of addressing the needs of family caregivers at the policy level. This presentation focuses on the origins, goals, and mandates of federal policy efforts that support family caregivers. This includes an analysis on how federal support for caregivers has evolved over time, most notably through the National Family Caregiver Support Program, part of the Older Americans Act. It will also discuss the passage of more recent legislation (e.g., RAISE Family caregiver Act and the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Act) that will contribute to a national strategy to support family caregivers. Moreover, through the discussion of these policies, we will articulate specific areas where gerontology research and public policy can and should intersect in order to optimize the effectiveness of policy efforts to support family caregivers.

Abstract The presence of family caregivers in clinical encounters is becoming more common with the aging of the US population and the continued shift of care responsibilities from health professionals in clinical settings to family caregivers at home. Patients accompanied to clinical encounters by caregivers are more likely to be older, sicker, and have lower health literacy. Research shows, however, that providers often do not initiate any caregiver participation and when they do, conversations center on relaying technical medical information rather than preferences and capacity to provide caregiving assistance. Little is known about provider perceptions of engaging caregivers in clinical encounters. Using data from 20 semi-structured interviews with physicians from primary and specialty care, we identified 3 inter-related themes about engaging caregivers in clinical encounters: 1) ambivalence about caregivers’ role in clinical encounters; 2) trepidation about posing questions directly to caregivers; and, 3) beliefs that systemic barriers exist that inhibit integration of caregivers. Providers, especially in primary care encounters, chiefly view caregivers as sources of supplemental information or for absorbing or reinforcing clinical instructions for care at home. Providers also voiced concerns about the ethics of assessing caregiver capacity to provide assistance to the patient without having clinical authority to treat or adequate resources to provide to caregivers. Finally, providers identified structural barriers, including time constraints, for integrating caregivers into the clinical care team. Findings provide insight into provider attitudes on the caregivers’ role, a perspective that is essential for understanding opportunities and challenges for implementing caregiver interventions in clinical settings.