Financial Toxicity in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: a Review and Need for Interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Financial toxicity is a developing research area to quantify the financial stress experienced by patients and caregivers, as well as the mechanisms by which they manage the costs associated with treatment and the very real harms that this stress can inflict upon cancer care. Patients with blood malignancies experience increased costs associated with their diagnosis due to possible inpatient admissions for treatment, frequent office visits, and even more frequent lab evaluations and testing. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Multiple studies have examined the causes and effects of financial toxicity on patient care and outcomes, and there have been several validated tools developed to identify patients experiencing or at risk for financial harm. DISCUSSION: However, few studies to date have focused on implementing successful interventions to assist in mitigating financial difficulties for patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies and their families. In this review, we examine the current literature with an emphasis on levels of care, including providers, systems, and policies. Specifically, we discuss published interventions including physician education about treatment costs, financial navigation in cancer centers, and novel institutional multidisciplinary review of patients' financial concerns. We also discuss the urgent need for societal and governmental interventions to lessen financial distress experienced by these highly vulnerable blood cancer patients.

HIT-It or Quit It: Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Testing Appropriateness Using 4T Scoring and Inappropriate Testing Cost Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The American Society of Hematology's 4T scoring system is a validated tool to assess a patient's probability of having heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) before testing is performed. There is no benefit to testing patients with a low probability 4T score for HIT. This study aimed to assess for inappropriate HIT testing at our institution based on 4T scoring. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 201 patient charts and calculated 4T scores and testing costs to assess for inappropriate testing and the economic impact of such testing. RESULTS: HIT testing often occurred in the least appropriate patients and resulted in tens of thousands of dollars of waste for unnecessary testing. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate testing for HIT is still a prevalent issue despite literature supporting the 4T score for guidance in testing appropriateness.