This article explores the relationships among cancer care, financial challenges, and mental health, emphasizing the growing significance of addressing these interconnected issues. Increased frequency of cancer diagnoses and i.

UNASSIGNED: This study evaluates the impact of Real-Time Prescription Benefits (RTPB), a tool integrated into electronic health records (EHRs), on patient out-of-pocket costs in an academic institution. RTPB provides prescribers with alternative, less expensive medications based on insurance plans. The primary measure was cost-savings, defined as the difference between the out-of-pocket cost of the prescribed medication and its alternative.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective analysis of prescriptions from outpatient clinics in a university-based health system was conducted between May 2020 and July 2021. Prescriptions were analyzed at the 2nd level of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. Costs were standardized to a 30-day supply. Standardized cost and total cost per prescription, and overall savings for the top 20 medication classes at the 2nd ATC level were calculated. The overall impact of RTPB was estimated based on selecting the least expensive alternative suggested by RTPB.
UNASSIGNED: The study found that RTPB information was provided for 22% of prescriptions, with suggested alternatives for 1.26%. Among prescriptions with an alternative selected, the standardized average cost saving was $38.83. The study realized $15,416 in patient total cost savings. If the least expensive RTPB-suggested alternative were chosen for all prescriptions, an estimated $276,386 could have been saved. Psychoanaleptic and psycholeptic medications were the most prescribed with an alternative, with most savings in specialty drugs like anthelmintic and immunostimulant medications.
UNASSIGNED: The study highlights the importance of RTPB in reducing patient costs. It reports patient cost-savings with RTPB in prescribing decisions. Future research could explore the impact of RTPB on medication adherence using pharmacy claims data.

This study aimed to examine provincial differences in patient spending for cancer care and reductions in household spending including decisions to forego care in Canada.
Nine-hundred and one patients with cancer, from twenty cancer centers across Canada, completed a self-administered questionnaire (P-SAFE version 7.2.4) (344 breast, 183 colorectal, 158 lung, and 216 prostate) measuring direct and indirect costs and spending changes.
Provincial variations showed a high mean out-of-pocket cost (OOPC) of CAD 938 (Alberta) and a low of CAD 280 (Manitoba). Differences were influenced by age and income. Income loss was highest for Alberta (CAD 2399) and lowest for Manitoba (CAD 1126). Travel costs were highest for Alberta (CAD 294) and lowest for British Columbia (CAD 67). Parking costs were highest for Ontario (CAD 103) and lowest for Manitoba (CAD 53). A total of 41% of patients reported reducing spending, but this increased to 52% for families earning Levels of financial burden for patients with cancer in Canada vary provincially, including for OOPC, travel and parking costs, and lost income. Decisions to forego cancer care are highest in relation to vitamins/supplements, CAM, and drugs. Provincial differences suggest that regional health policies and demographics may impact patients\' overall financial burden.

UNASSIGNED: Many parents struggle to find mental health care for their children, and many mental health clinicians do not accept insurance payments. The authors aimed to estimate the frequency and cost of self-pay psychotherapy and psychotropic medication management visits for youths and to determine how service use varies by family income.
UNASSIGNED: A descriptive cross-sectional analysis was performed among youths ages 5-17 years in the 2018-2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Specialist visits included those with psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and mental health counselors or family therapists.
UNASSIGNED: Approximately one in five of 13,639 outpatient mental health specialist visits were self-pay, with psychologists (23% of visits) and social workers (24% of visits) most likely to see youths on a self-pay basis. Use of self-pay care was strongly associated with higher income, but even families earning <$28,000 per year utilized some self-pay care, at a median cost of $95 per visit. Self-pay visits were associated with slightly lower clinical need than insurance-covered visits, although this measure varied by income.
UNASSIGNED: The self-pay market for child mental health care potentially exacerbates inequities in access to care by burdening low-income families with high costs. Incentivizing mental health providers to participate in insurance for larger portions of their patient panels, for example, by increasing reimbursement rates and reducing paperwork, may help improve equitable access to mental health care. To the extent that reimbursement rates drive insurance acceptance, the frequency of self-pay mental health visits suggests that mental health services are underreimbursed relative to their benefit to patients and families.

OBJECTIVE: Telepsychiatry items in the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) were expanded following the COVID-19 pandemic. However, their out-of-pocket costs have not been examined. We describe and compare patient out-of-pocket payments for face-to-face and telepsychiatry (videoconferencing and telephone) MBS items for outpatient psychiatric services to understand the differential out-of-pocket cost burden for patients across these modalities.
METHODS: out-of-pocket cost information was obtained from the Medical Costs Finder website, which extracted data from Services Australia\'s Medicare claims data in 2021-2022. Cost information for corresponding face-to-face, video, and telephone MBS items for outpatient psychiatric services was compared, including (1) Median specialist fees; (2) Median out-of-pocket payments; (3) Medicare reimbursement amounts; and (4) Proportions of patients subject to out-of-pocket fees.
RESULTS: Medicare reimbursements are identical for all comparable face-to-face and telepsychiatry items. Specialist fees for comparable items varied across face-to-face to telehealth options, with resulting differences in out-of-pocket costs. For video items, higher proportions of patients were not bulk-billed, with greater out-of-pocket costs than face-to-face items. However, the opposite was true for telephone items compared with face-to-face items.
CONCLUSIONS: Initial cost analyses of MBS telepsychiatry items indicate that telephone consultations incur the lowest out-of-pocket costs, followed by face-to-face and video consultations.

UNASSIGNED: The financial toxicity of cancer causes higher morbidity and mortality. As the financial burden due to head and neck cancer (HNC) in European healthcare systems with legally established compulsory health insurance is still poorly understood, we set up an investigation to assess the financial impact of HNC.
UNASSIGNED: Between August 2022 and March 2023, HNC consecutive patients (n = 209) attending the cancer aftercare program of a university hospital in an outpatient setting were surveyed utilizing self-administered questionnaires about their socioeconomic situation, income loss, and out-of-pocket payments (OOPPs).
UNASSIGNED: The majority of HNC patients (n = 119, 59.5%) reported significant financial burden as a consequence of OOPP (n = 100, 50.0%) and/or income loss (n = 51, 25.5%). HNC patients reporting financial burden due to OOPP had on average 1,716 € per year costs related to their disease, whereas patients reporting an income loss had a mean monthly income loss of 620.53 €. Advanced UICC (7th edition, 2017) stage, T3 or T4 category, and larynx/hypopharynx cancer are significant predictors of financial burden.
UNASSIGNED: HNC survivors suffer from significant financial burden after HNC treatment, even in Germany with a healthcare system with statutory health insurance. The findings from this study offer valuable insights for healthcare professionals and policymakers, helping them acknowledge the economic impact of HNC.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmacies sell generic prescription drugs, often at lower prices than traditional retail pharmacies; however, not all drugs are available, and prices vary.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the availability and cost of generic drugs at DTC pharmacies.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Five national DTC pharmacies in April and May 2023.
METHODS: Each qualifying form of 100 generic drugs with the highest cost-per-patient (expensive) and the 50 generic drugs with the highest number of patients (common) in Medicare Part D in 2020 MAIN MEASURES: Availability of these drugs and the lowest DTC pharmacy price for a standardized drug strength and supply (e.g., 30 pills), compared to GoodRx retail pharmacy prices.
RESULTS: Of the 118 expensive generic dosage forms, 94 (80%) were available at 1 or more DTC pharmacies; out of 52 common generic dosage forms, 51 (98%) were available (p < 0.001). Of the 88 expensive generics available in comparable quantities and strengths across pharmacies, 42 (47%) had the lowest cost at Amazon, 23 (26%) at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, 13 (14%) at Health Warehouse, and 12 (13%) at Costco; for 51 common generic formulations, 16 (31%) had the lowest cost at Costco, 14 (27%) at Amazon, 10 (20%) at Walmart, 6 (12%) at Health Warehouse, and 5 (10%) at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. For the 77 expensive generics with available GoodRx retail pharmacy prices, the median cost savings at DTC pharmacies were $231 (95% CI, $129-$792) or 76% (IQR, 53-91%); for 51 common generics, savings were $19 (95% CI, $10-$34) or 75% (IQR, 67-83%).
CONCLUSIONS: Many of the most expensive generic drugs are unavailable at direct-to-consumer pharmacies. Meanwhile, less expensive, commonly used generics are widely available, but drug prices vary by pharmacy and savings are modest, requiring patients to shop around for the lowest cost.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether annual changes in prices for clinician-administered drugs are associated with changes in patient out-of-pocket costs.
METHODS: National commercial claims database, 2009 to 2018.
METHODS: In a serial, cross-sectional study, we calculated the annual percent change in manufacturer list prices and net prices after rebates. We used two-part generalized linear models to assess the relationship between annual changes in price with (1) the percentage of individuals incurring any out-of-pocket costs and (2) the percent change in median non-zero out-of-pocket costs.
METHODS: We created annual cohorts of privately insured individuals who used one of 52 brand-name clinician-administered drugs.
RESULTS: List prices increased 4.4%/yr (interquartile range [IQR], 1.1% to 6.0%) and net prices 3.3%/yr (IQR, 0.3% to 5.5%). The median percentage of patients with any out-of-pocket costs increased from 38% in 2009 to 48% in 2018, and median non-zero annual out-of-pocket costs increased by 9.6%/yr (IQR, 4.1% to 15.4%). There was no association between changes in prices and out-of-pocket costs for individual drugs.
CONCLUSIONS: From 2009 to 2018, prices and out-of-pocket costs for brand-name clinician-administered drugs increased, but these were not directly related for individual drugs. This may be due to changes to insurance benefit design and private insurer drug reimbursement rates.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy is indicated for cancers that would be difficult to treat with conventional radiotherapy. Compulsory healthcare insurance covers the costs of this therapy in Switzerland, but this does not mean that proton therapy is cost-neutral for every cancer patient. Significant out-of-pocket (OOP) costs may arise due to expenses associated with proton therapy, and patients may experience treatment-related financial distress-an effect known as \"financial toxicity.\" This study investigates the financial toxicity of patients undergoing proton therapy in a high-income country with a compulsory health insurance policy.
METHODS: Between September 2019 and November 2021, 146 Swiss cancer patients treated with proton therapy participated in this study, of whom 90 (62%) were adults and 56 (38%) were caregivers of child cancer patients. Financial toxicity was assessed using the FACIT Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST). OOP costs during proton therapy were recorded weekly, and financial coping strategies were captured at the end of treatment.
RESULTS: The median COST score, indicating financial toxicity, was 29.9 (IQR 21.0; 36.0) for all patients, 30.0 (IQR 21.3; 37.9) for adults, and 28.0 (IQR 20.5; 34.0) for children\'s caregivers. Higher income (estimate 8.1, 95% CI 3.7 to 12.4, p ≤ 0.001) was significantly associated with higher COST scores, indicating less financial toxicity. Further distance from home to the treatment centre per 100 km (estimate -3.7, 95% CI -5.7 to -1.9, p ≤ 0.001) was significantly associated with lower COST scores, indicating increased financial toxicity. Married adult patients had substantially lower COST scores than single patients (estimate: -9.1, 95% CI -14.8 to -3.4, p ≤ 0.001). The median OOP cost was 2050 Swiss francs (CHF) and was spent mainly on travel, accommodation, and eating out. Sixty-three (43%) patients used their savings; 54 (37%) cut spending on leisure activities; 21 (14.4%) cut living expenses; 14 (9.6%) borrowed money; nine (6.2%) worked more; and four (2.7%) sold property. Patients with high COST scores used significantly fewer coping strategies such as saving on leisure activities (estimate -9.5, 95% CI -12.4 to -6.6, p ≤ 0.001), spending savings (estimate -3.9, 95% CI -6.3 to -1.4, p = 0.002), borrowing money (estimate -6.3, 95% CI -10.4 to -2.2, p = 0.003), and increasing workload (estimate -5.5, 95% CI -10.5 to -0.4, p = 0.035).
CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of cancer patients treated with proton therapy experience financial toxicity in Switzerland. Long travel distances to the proton therapy centre and low income negatively affect the financial well-being of these patients during proton therapy.

The Australian government, through Medicare, defines the type of medical specialist services it covers and subsidizes, but it does not regulate prices. Specialists in private practice can charge more than the fee listed by Medicare depending on what they feel \'the market will bear\'. This can sometimes result in high and unexpected out-of-pocket (OOP) payments for patients. To reduce pricing uncertainty and \'bill shock\' faced by consumers, the government introduced a price transparency website in December 2019. It is not clear how effective such a website will be and whether specialists and patients will use it. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore factors influencing how specialists set their fees, and their views on and participation in price transparency initiatives. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with surgical specialists. We analysed the data using thematic analysis and responses were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behavior model. We identified several patient, specialist and system-level factors influencing fee setting. Patient-level factors included patient characteristics, circumstance, complexity, and assumptions regarding perceived value of care. Specialist-level factors included perceived experience and skills, ethical considerations, and gendered-behavior. System-level factors included the Australian Medical Association recommended price list, practice costs, and supply and demand factors including perceived competition and practice location. Specialists were opposed to price transparency websites and lacked motivation to participate because of the complexity of fee setting, concerns over unintended consequences, and feelings of frustration they were being singled out. If price transparency websites are to be pursued, specialists\' lack of motivation to participate needs to be addressed.