Dataset Information

A population-level comparison of cancer-related and non-cancer-related health care costs using publicly available provincial administrative data.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Costs associated with cancer care are increasing. Cancer costs in the context of other common non-cancer diagnoses have not been extensively studied at the population level. Knowledge from such analyses can inform health care resource allocation and highlight strategies to reduce overall costs.

Methods

Using cross-sectional data from publicly available population-level administrative data sources (health insurance claims, physician billing, and hospital discharge abstracts), we calculated incidence-adjusted health care costs (in 2014 Canadian dollars) for cancers and common non-cancer diagnoses in the adult population in a large Canadian province. Subgroup analyses were also performed for various provincial health administrative regions.

Results

Total costs related to cancer care amounted to $495 million for the province, of which at least $67 million (14%) was attributable to radiation and chemotherapy. Of the various cancer subtypes, hematologic malignancies were most costly at $70 million, accounting for 14% of the total cancer budget. Colon cancer followed at $51 million (10%), and lung cancer, at $44 million (9%). Cancer costs (with and without costs for radiation and chemotherapy) exceeded those for cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, mental health, and trauma (p < 0.001). In addition, the costs of specific cancer subtypes varied by region, but hematologic and lung cancers were typically the most costly no matter the health region.

Conclusions

Using provincial administrative data to establish cost trends can help to inform health care allocation and budget decisions, and can facilitate comparisons between provinces.

SUBMITTER: Sam D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6476450 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A population-level comparison of cancer-related and non-cancer-related health care costs using publicly available provincial administrative data.

Sam D D Cheung W Y WY

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) 20190401 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Costs associated with cancer care are increasing. Cancer costs in the context of other common non-cancer diagnoses have not been extensively studied at the population level. Knowledge from such analyses can inform health care resource allocation and highlight strategies to reduce overall costs.<h4>Methods</h4>Using cross-sectional data from publicly available population-level administrative data sources (health insurance claims, physician billing, and hospital discharge abst ...[more]

PMID: 31043809

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAdministrative costs in the US health care system are an important component of total health care spending, and a substantial proportion of these costs are attributable to billing and insurance-related activities.ObjectiveTo examine and estimate the administrative costs associated with physician billing activities in a large academic health care system with a certified electronic health record system.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used time-driven activity-based costing. Interviews were conducted with 27 health system administrators and 34 physicians in 2016 and 2017 to construct a process map charting the path of an insurance claim through the revenue cycle management process. These data were used to calculate the cost for each major billing and insurance-related activity and were aggregated to estimate the health system's total cost of processing an insurance claim.ExposuresEstimated time required to perform billing and insurance-related activities, based on interviews with management personnel and physicians.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated billing and insurance-related costs for 5 types of patient encounters: primary care visits, discharged emergency department visits, general medicine inpatient stays, ambulatory surgical procedures, and inpatient surgical procedures.ResultsEstimated processing time and total costs for billing and insurance-related activities were 13 minutes and $20.49 for a primary care visit, 32 minutes and $61.54 for a discharged emergency department visit, 73 minutes and $124.26 for a general inpatient stay, 75 minutes and $170.40 for an ambulatory surgical procedure, and 100 minutes and $215.10 for an inpatient surgical procedure. Of these totals, time and costs for activities carried out by physicians were estimated at a median of 3 minutes or $6.36 for a primary care visit, 3 minutes or $10.97 for an emergency department visit, 5 minutes or $13.29 for a general inpatient stay, 15 minutes or $51.20 for an ambulatory surgical procedure, and 15 minutes or $51.20 for an inpatient surgical procedure. Of professional revenue, professional billing costs were estimated to represent 14.5% for primary care visits, 25.2% for emergency department visits, 8.0% for general medicine inpatient stays, 13.4% for ambulatory surgical procedures, and 3.1% for inpatient surgical procedures.Conclusions and relevanceIn a time-driven activity-based costing study in a large academic health care system with a certified electronic health record system, the estimated costs of billing and insurance-related activities ranged from $20 for a primary care visit to $215 for an inpatient surgical procedure. Knowledge of how specific billing and insurance-related activities contribute to administrative costs may help inform policy solutions to reduce these expenses.

Project description:Background: Antibiotics are often prescribed empirically to treat infection syndromes before causative bacteria and their susceptibility to antibiotics are identified. Guidelines on empiric antibiotic prescribing are key to effective treatment of infection syndromes, and need to be informed by likely bacterial aetiology and antibiotic resistance patterns. We aimed to create a clinically-relevant composite index of antibiotic resistance for common infection syndromes to inform recommendations at the national level. Methods: To create our index, we used open-access antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance datasets, including the ECDC Surveillance Atlas, CDDEP ResistanceMap, WHO GLASS and the newly-available Pfizer ATLAS dataset. We integrated these with data on aetiology of common infection syndromes, existing empiric prescribing guidelines, and pricing and availability of antibiotics. Results: The ATLAS dataset covered many more bacterial species (287) and antibiotics (52) than other datasets (ranges = 8-11 and 16-32 respectively), but had a similar number of samples per country per year. Using these data, we were able to make empiric prescribing recommendations for bloodstream infection, pneumonia and cellulitis/skin abscess in up to 44 countries. There was insufficient data to make national-level recommendations for the other six syndromes investigated. Results are presented in an interactive web app, where users can visualise underlying resistance proportions to first-line empiric antibiotics for infection syndromes and countries of interest. Conclusions: We found that whilst the creation of a composite resistance index for empiric antibiotic therapy was technically feasible, the ATLAS dataset in its current form can only inform on a limited number of infection syndromes. Other open-access AMR surveillance datasets are largely limited to bloodstream infection specimens and cannot directly inform treatment of other syndromes. With improving availability of international AMR data and better understanding of infection aetiology, this approach may prove useful for informing empiric prescribing decisions in settings with limited local AMR surveillance data.

Project description:Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer in men, and the second leading cause of death from cancer in men. Many studies on PCa have been carried out, each taking much time before the data is collected and ready to be analyzed. However, on the internet there is already a wide range of PCa datasets available, which could be used for data mining, predictive modelling or other purposes, reducing the need to setup new studies to collect data. In the current scientific climate, moving more and more to the analysis of "big data" and large, international, multi-site projects using a modern IT infrastructure, these datasets could be proven extremely valuable. This review presents an overview of publicly available patient-centered PCa datasets, divided into three categories (clinical, genomics and imaging) and an "overall" section to enable researchers to select a suitable dataset for analysis, without having to go through days of work to find the right data. To acquire a list of human PCa databases, scientific literature databases and academic social network sites were searched. We also used the information from other reviews. All databases in the combined list were then checked for public availability. Only databases that were either directly publicly available or available after signing a research data agreement or retrieving a free login were selected for inclusion in this review. Data should be available to commercial parties as well. This paper focuses on patient-centered data, so the genomics data section does not include gene-centered databases or pathway-centered databases. We identified 42 publicly available, patient-centered PCa datasets. Some of these consist of different smaller datasets. Some of them contain combinations of datasets from the three data domains: clinical data, imaging data and genomics data. Only one dataset contains information from all three domains. This review presents all datasets and their characteristics: number of subjects, clinical fields, imaging modalities, expression data, mutation data, biomarker measurements, etc. Despite all the attention that has been given to making this overview of publicly available databases as extensive as possible, it is very likely not complete, and will also be outdated soon. However, this review might help many PCa researchers to find suitable datasets to answer the research question with, without the need to start a new data collection project. In the coming era of big data analysis, overviews like this are becoming more and more useful.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing number of interactive web-based advance care planning (ACP) support tools, which are web-based aids in any format encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of publicly available information, most of which cannot be found in the peer-reviewed literature.ObjectiveThis study aims to conduct a systematic review of web-based ACP support tools to describe the characteristics, readability, and quality of content and investigate whether and how they are evaluated.MethodsWe systematically searched the web-based gray literature databases OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, British Library, Grey Literature in the Netherlands, and Health Services Research Projects in Progress, as well as Google and app stores, and consulted experts using the following eligibility criteria: web-based, designed for the general population, accessible to everyone, interactive (encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of information), and in English or Dutch. The quality of content was evaluated using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (score 0-28-a higher score indicates better quality). To synthesize the characteristics of the ACP tools, readability and quality of content, and whether and how they were evaluated, we used 4 data extraction tables.ResultsA total of 30 tools met the eligibility criteria, including 15 (50%) websites, 10 (33%) web-based portals, 3 (10%) apps, and 2 (7%) with a combination of formats. Of the 30 tools, 24 (80%) mentioned a clear aim, including 7 (23%) that supported reflection or communication, 8 (27%) that supported people in making decisions, 7 (23%) that provided support to document decisions, and 2 (7%) that aimed to achieve all these aims. Of the 30 tools, 7 (23%) provided information on the development, all of which were developed in collaboration with health care professionals, and 3 (10%) with end users. Quality scores ranged between 11 and 28, with most of the lower-scoring tools not referring to information sources.ConclusionsA variety of ACP support tools are available on the web, varying in the quality of content. In the future, users should be involved in the development process of ACP support tools, and the content should be substantiated by scientific evidence.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020184112; https://tinyurl.com/mruf8b43.

Dataset Information

A population-level comparison of cancer-related and non-cancer-related health care costs using publicly available provincial administrative data.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A population-level comparison of cancer-related and non-cancer-related health care costs using publicly available provincial administrative data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets