Inconsistent housing support for oncologic patients at NCI–Designated Cancer Centers.

Abstract

e13520 Background: Affordable housing accommodations during cancer care is critical for reducing financial toxicity and improving patient outcomes. 1 However, the availability and accessibility of housing resources at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers is not uniform. For patients and families who travel for cancer care, or who may be admitted, housing costs may exacerbate financial challenges. Our study investigates the availability and limitations of supportive housing programs at NCI cancer centers. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 67 NCI-designated cancer center websites assessing institutional housing programs, charity-supported accommodations, and discounted hotel programs. Non-NCI-treatment centers were excluded. Housing programs were categorized as free or subsidized, and cost-of-living indices were derived from Census 2021 data. Statistical analysis was completed using Python V3.12.1 (2024). Results: Among 67 NCI cancer centers, 52 (78%) provided housing program information online. Of these, 15 (22%) listed institutional housing programs, 32 (48%) listed charity-supported accommodations, and 36 (54%) listed discounted hotel options. Free housing options were available at 35 centers (67%). Centers offering free housing were in regions with a lower average cost-of-living index (52.45) compared to those without free housing (56.90), though this trend was not significant (t-test, p = 0.30). Notably, cancer centers with institutional housing programs were significantly more likely to offer free housing (chi-square = 4.93, p = 0.026). Charity housing programs included the Ronald McDonald House (n = 20) and the American Cancer Society (n = 12). The most likely census region to have free housing was East South Central, with 100% of institutions. The least likely census region to have free housing was Middle Atlantic, with only 36.36% of institutions. Nine programs imposed restrictions, predominantly limiting eligibility to families with pediatric patients or those residing greater than 40 miles. Conclusions: This study examines the current state of housing resources as a component of comprehensive cancer care. Nearly a quarter (22%) of NCI centers lacked online housing information, which may represent a barrier to planning treatment logistics for patients and families. Centers without free housing options highlight disparities in care accessibility, potentially exacerbating financial toxicity for vulnerable families. Increasing visibility and expanding institutional housing programs is needed to promote equitable access and alleviate financial toxicity for patients and their families. References: Smith GL, Lopez-Olivo MA, Advani PG, et al. Financial Burdens of Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors and Outcomes. J Natl Compr Canc Netw . 2019;17(10):1184-1192. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2019.7305.