Longitudinal outcomes after financial toxicity and health-related social risks screening and referral.

17 Background: Financial toxicity (FT) is associated with delayed/omitted care, reduced quality of life, and worse mortality. Routine screening for FT and health-related social risks (HRSR) is recommended during clinical care, but there is limited longitudinal evidence on outcomes after patients screen positive and are referred for assistance. Methods: FT and HRSR screening for patients with breast, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, or thoracic cancers was implemented at an urban comprehensive cancer center. Screening included the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool (0-44, lower scores=worse FT) and a HRSR checklist to identify food, housing, and transportation insecurity. COST score ≤16-20 or reported HRSR was a “positive” screen and counseling referral was offered: patients could accept the referral by identifying their current concerns. Analysis sample was limited to receiving chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery 120 days prior to baseline survey and had a follow-up survey 4-12 months later. Data were collected 10/2022-12/2023. Results: 2196 patients met inclusion criteria, median time between surveys was 5.5 months (IQR 4.4, 6.9). 20% (n=438) screened positive and accepted referral; 11% (n=246) screened positive and declined referral; the remaining 69% (n=1512) screened negative. Sociodemographic factors of age (median 58 vs 62, p<.001), sex (82% vs 74% female, p =.015), and race (31% vs 17% racial/ethnic minority, p<.001) were associated with accepting vs declining referral. Those who accepted referral had lower COST scores (median 10 vs 19) and more HRSR (39% vs 20% housing; 32% vs 18% food; 37% vs 17% transportation) at baseline (all p≤.001). At follow-up, both cohorts had COST decrease, indicating worsened FT mean difference (95% CI): accepted referral -2.0 (-2.8, -1.2) vs declined referral -2.8 (-4.0, 1.5). Across all collected HRSR, those who accepted referral had small benefits in previously reported HRSR, however were more likely to have newly designated HRSR (Table shows changes). Conclusions: Screening for FT and HRSR identified one-third of patients on recent cancer treatment with financial or social needs. Those who accepted financial assistance referral had significantly higher FT and more reported HRSR. Although referral did appear to have some benefit on initial needs, new HRSR were identified at follow-up. Future work will focus on optimizing available assistance to meet ongoing patient needs during and after cancer treatment. Accepted Referraln = 438 (%) Declined Referraln = 246 (%) Housing Resolved need 67 (15) 31 (13) New need 54 (12) 15 (6.1) Stable unmet need 102 (23) 18 (7.3) Stable no need 215 (49) 182 (74) Food Resolved need 64 (15) 31 (13) New need 69 (16) 16 (6.5) Stable unmet need 77 (18) 14 (5.7) Stable no need 228 (52) 185 (75) Transportation Resolved need 73 (17) 34 (14) New need 56 (13) 20 (8.1) Stable unmet need 87 (20) 8 (3.3) Stable no need 222 (51) 184 (75)