Dataset Information

Out-of-pocket costs for childhood stroke: the impact of chronic illness on parents' pocketbooks.

ABSTRACT: Direct costs for children who had stroke are similar to those for adults. There is no information regarding the out-of-pocket costs families encounter. We described the out-of-pocket costs families encountered in the first year after a child's ischemic stroke.Twenty-two subjects were prospectively recruited at four centers in the United States and Canada in 2008 and 2009 as part of the "Validation of the Pediatric NIH Stroke Scale" study; families' indirect costs were tracked for 1 year. Every 3 months, parents reported hours they did not work, nonreimbursed costs for medical visits or other health care, and mileage. They provided estimates of annual income. We calculated total out-of-pocket costs in US dollars and reported costs as a proportion of annual income.Total median out-of-pocket cost for the year after an ischemic stroke was $4354 (range, $0-$28,666; interquartile range, $1008-$8245). Out-of-pocket costs were greatest in the first 3 months after the incident stroke, with the largest proportion because of lost wages, followed by transportation, and nonreimbursed health care. For the entire year, median costs represented 6.8% (range, 0%-81.9%; interquartile range, 2.7%-17.2%) of annual income.Out-of-pocket expenses are significant after a child's ischemic stroke. The median costs are noteworthy provided that the median American household had cash savings of $3650 at the time of the study. These results with previous reports of direct costs provide a more complete view of the overall costs to families and society. Childhood stroke creates an under-recognized cost to society because of decreased parental productivity.

SUBMITTER: Plumb P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4276532 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Out-of-pocket costs for childhood stroke: the impact of chronic illness on parents' pocketbooks.

Plumb Patricia P Seiber Eric E Dowling Michael M MM Lee JoEllen J Bernard Timothy J TJ deVeber Gabrielle G Ichord Rebecca N RN Bastian Rachel R Lo Warren D WD

Pediatric neurology 20140928 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Direct costs for children who had stroke are similar to those for adults. There is no information regarding the out-of-pocket costs families encounter. We described the out-of-pocket costs families encountered in the first year after a child's ischemic stroke.<h4>Methods</h4>Twenty-two subjects were prospectively recruited at four centers in the United States and Canada in 2008 and 2009 as part of the "Validation of the Pediatric NIH Stroke Scale" study; families' indirect cost ...[more]

PMID: 25447931

Similar Datasets

Project description:Over 1.7 billion children lack access to surgical care, mostly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with substantial risks of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and impoverishment. Increasing interest in reducing out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures as a tool to reduce the rate of poverty is growing. However, the impact of reducing OOP expenditures on CHE remains poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to estimate the global impact of reducing OOP expenditures for pediatric surgical care on the risk of CHE within and between countries. Our goal was to estimate the impact of reducing OOP expenditures for surgical care in children for 149 countries by modeling the risk of CHE under various scale-up scenarios using publicly available World Bank data. Scenarios included reducing OOP expenditures from baseline levels to paying 70%, 50%, 30%, and 10% of OOP expenditures. We also compared the impact of these reductions across income quintiles (poorest, poor, middle, rich, richest) and differences by country income level (low-income, lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries).Reducing OOP expenditures benefited people from all countries and income quintiles, although the benefits were not equal. The risk of CHE due to a surgical procedure for children was highest in low-income countries. An unexpected observation was that upper-middle income countries were at higher risk for CHE than LMICs. The most vulnerable regions were Africa and Latin America. Across all countries, the poorest quintile had the greatest risk for CHE. Increasing interest in financial protection programs to reduce OOP expenditures is growing in many areas of global health. Reducing OOP expenditures benefited people from all countries and income quintiles, although the benefits were not equal across countries, wealth groups, or even by wealth groups within countries. Understanding these complexities is critical to develop appropriate policies to minimize the risks of poverty.

Project description:IntroductionLittle is known about the societal burden of cancer surgical care in terms of out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The current study sought to define OOP costs incurred by patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection.MethodsPrivately insured patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection between 2013 and 2017 were identified from the IBM MarketScan database. Total and OOP costs were calculated within 1 year prior to and 1 year post surgery. A multivariable linear regression model was used to estimate total OOP costs relative to patient demographic and clinical characteristics.ResultsAmong 10,935 patients, 7289 (66.7%) had primary colon cancer while 3643 (33.3%) had rectal cancer. Median total costs were US$93,967 (IQR US$51027-168,251). Median OOP costs were US$4417 (IQR US$2519-6943), or 4.5% (IQR 2.2-8.1%) of total costs. OOP costs varied over the course of patient care; specifically, median OOP costs in the preoperative period were US$432 (IQR US$130-1452) versus US$2146 (IQR US$851-3525) in the perioperative period and US$969 (IQR US$327-2239) in the postoperative period. On multivariable analysis, receipt of chemotherapy (+US$1368, 95%CI +US$1211 to +US$1525) or radiotherapy (+US$842, 95% CI +US$626 to +US$1059) was associated with higher total OOP costs. Patients with a health maintenance organization (HMO) (-US$2119, 95% CI -US$2550 to -US$1689) or a point-of-service plan (-US$938, 95% CI -US$1385 to -US$491) had lower total OOP costs than patients with comprehensive insurance. In contrast, patients with a consumer-driven or a high-deductible health plan had considerably higher total OOP costs than patients with comprehensive insurance (+US$1400, 95% CI +US$972 to +US$1827 and +US$3243, 95% CI +US$2767 to +US$3717, respectively).ConclusionsPrivately insured colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgical resection pay a median of US$4417 in OOP costs, or 4.5% of total costs. OOP costs varied with receipt of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, region of residence, and insurance plan type.

Project description:ImportanceOne-third of US residents have trouble paying their medical bills. They often turn to their physicians for help navigating health costs and insurance coverage.ObjectiveTo determine whether physicians can accurately estimate out-of-pocket expenses when they are given all of the necessary information about a drug's price and a patient's insurance plan.Design, setting, and participantsThis national mail-in survey used a random sample of US physicians. The survey was sent to 900 outpatient physicians (300 each of primary care, gastroenterology, and rheumatology). Physicians were excluded if they were in training, worked primarily for the Veterans Administration or Indian Health Service, were retired, or reported 0% outpatient clinical effort. Analyses were performed from July to December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresIn a hypothetical vignette, a patient was prescribed a new drug costing $1000/month without insurance. A summary of her private insurance information was provided, including the plan's deductible, coinsurance rates, copays, and out-of-pocket maximum. Physicians were asked to estimate the drug's out-of-pocket cost at 4 time points between January and December, using the plan's 4 types of cost-sharing: (1) deductibles, (2) coinsurance, (3) copays, and (4) out-of-pocket maximums. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess differences in performance by specialty, adjusting for attitudes toward cost conversations, demographics, and clinical characteristics.ResultsThe response rate was 45% (405 of 900) and 371 respondents met inclusion criteria. Among the respondents included in this study, 59% (n = 220) identified as male, 23% (n = 84) as Asian, 3% (n = 12) as Black, 6% (n = 24) as Hispanic, and 58% (n = 216) as White; 30% (n = 112) were primary care physicians, 35% (n = 128) were gastroenterologists, and 35% (n = 131) were rheumatologists; and the mean (SD) age was 49 (10) years. Overall, 52% of physicians (n = 192) accurately estimated costs before the deductible was met, 62% (n = 228) accurately used coinsurance information, 61% (n = 224) accurately used copay information, and 57% (n = 210) accurately estimated costs once the out-of-pocket maximum was met. Only 21% (n = 78) of physicians answered all 4 questions correctly. Ability to estimate out-of-pocket costs was not associated with specialty, attitudes toward cost conversations, or clinic characteristics.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found that many US physicians have difficulty estimating out-of-pocket costs, even when they have access to their patients' insurance plans. The mechanics involved in calculating real-time out-of-pocket costs are complex. These findings suggest that increased price transparency and simpler insurance cost-sharing mechanisms are needed to enable informed cost conversations at the point of prescribing.

Project description:Importance:Expensive technologies-including robotic surgery-experience rapid adoption without evidence of superior outcomes. Although previous studies have examined perioperative outcomes and costs, differences in out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing robotic surgery are not well understood. Objective:To assess out-of-pocket costs and total payments for 5 types of common oncologic procedures that can be performed using an open or robotic approach. Design, Setting, and Participants:A retrospective, cross-sectional, propensity score-weighted analysis was performed using deidentified insurance claims for 1.9 million enrollees from the MarketScan database from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. The final study sample comprised 15?893 US adults aged 18 to 64 years who were enrolled in an employer-sponsored health plan. Patients underwent either an open or robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, partial colectomy, radical nephrectomy, or partial nephrectomy for a solid-organ malignant neoplasm. Statistical analysis was performed from December 18, 2018, to June 5, 2019. Exposures:Type of surgical procedure-robotic vs open. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome of interest was out-of-pocket costs associated with robotic and open surgery. The secondary outcome of interest was associated total payments. Results:Among 15?893 patients (11?102 men; mean [SD] age, 55.4 [6.6] years), 8260 underwent robotic and 7633 underwent open procedures; patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy were older than those undergoing open hysterectomy (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [6.7] vs 54.6 [7.2] years), and patients undergoing open radical nephrectomy had more comorbidities than those undergoing robotic radical nephrectomy (?2 comorbidities, 658 of 861 [76.4%] vs 244 of 347 [70.3%]). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all procedures: -$137.75 (95% CI, -$240.24 to -$38.63) for radical prostatectomy (P?=?.006); -$640.63 (95% CI, -$933.62 to -$368.79) for hysterectomy (P?<?.001); -$1140.54 (95% CI, -$1397.79 to -$896.54) for partial colectomy (P?<?.001); -$728.32 (95% CI, -$1126.90 to -$366.08) for radical nephrectomy (P?<?.001); and -$302.74 (95% CI, -$523.14 to -$97.10) for partial nephrectomy (P?=?.003). The robotic approach was similarly associated with lower adjusted total payments: -$3872.62 (95% CI, -$5385.49 to -$2399.04) for radical prostatectomy (P?<?.001); -$29?640.69 (95% CI, -$36?243.82 to -$23?465.94) for hysterectomy (P?<?.001); -$38?151.74 (95% CI, -$46?386.16 to -$30?346.22) for partial colectomy; (P?<?.001); -$33?394.15 (95% CI, -$42?603.03 to -$24?955.20) for radical nephrectomy (P?<?.001); and -$9162.52 (95% CI, -$12?728.33 to -$5781.99) for partial nephrectomy (P?<?.001). Conclusions and Relevance:This study found significant variation in perioperative costs according to surgical technique for both patients (out-of-pocket costs) and payers (total payments); the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all studied oncologic procedures.

Dataset Information

Out-of-pocket costs for childhood stroke: the impact of chronic illness on parents' pocketbooks.

Publications

Out-of-pocket costs for childhood stroke: the impact of chronic illness on parents' pocketbooks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets