Dataset Information

How much does it cost to care for survivors of colorectal cancer? Caregiver's time, travel and out-of-pocket costs.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Cancer treatment is increasingly delivered in an outpatient setting. This may entail a considerable economic burden for family members and friends who support patients/survivors. We estimated financial and time costs associated with informal care for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Two hundred twenty-eight carers of colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed on October 2007-September 2009 were sent a questionnaire. Informal care costs included hospital- and domestic-based foregone caregiver time, travel expenses and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs during two phases: diagnosis and treatment and ongoing care (previous 30 days). Multiple regression was used to determine cost predictors.

Results

One hundred fifty-four completed questionnaires were received (response rate = 68%). In the diagnosis and treatment phase, weekly informal care costs per person were: hospital-based costs, incurred by 99% of carers, mean = €393 (interquartile range (IQR), €131-€541); domestic-based time costs, incurred by 85%, mean = €609 (IQR, €170-€976); and domestic-based OOP costs, incurred by 68%, mean = €69 (IQR, €0-€110). Ongoing costs included domestic-based time costs incurred by 66% (mean = €66; IQR, €0-€594) and domestic-based OOP costs incurred by 52% (mean = €52; IQR, €0-€64). The approximate average first year informal care cost was €29,842, of which 85 % was time costs, 13% OOP costs and 2% travel costs. Significant cost predictors included carer age, disease stage, and survivor age.

Conclusion

Informal caregiving associated with colorectal cancer entails considerable time and OOP costs. This burden is largely unrecognised by policymakers, service providers and society in general. These types of studies may facilitate health decision-makers in better assessing the consequences of changes in cancer care organisation and delivery.

SUBMITTER: Hanly P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6763575 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How much does it cost to care for survivors of colorectal cancer? Caregiver's time, travel and out-of-pocket costs.

Hanly Paul P Céilleachair Alan Ó AÓ Skally Mairead M O'Leary Eamonn E Kapur Kanika K Fitzpatrick Patricia P Staines Anthony A Sharp Linda L

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 20130507 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>Cancer treatment is increasingly delivered in an outpatient setting. This may entail a considerable economic burden for family members and friends who support patients/survivors. We estimated financial and time costs associated with informal care for colorectal cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>Two hundred twenty-eight carers of colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed on October 2007-September 2009 were sent a questionnaire. Informal care costs included hospital- and domestic-based foregone c ...[more]

PMID: 23649879

Similar Datasets

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:IntroductionOut-of-pocket (OOP) costs for medical and surgical care can result in substantial financial burden for patients and families. Relatively little is known regarding OOP costs for commercially insured patients receiving orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study is to analyze the trends in OOP costs for common, elective orthopaedic surgeries performed in the hospital inpatient setting.MethodsThis study used an employer-sponsored insurance claims database to analyze billing data of commercially insured patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF), single-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) were identified. OOP costs associated with the surgical episode were calculated as the sum of deductible payments, copayments, and coinsurance. Monetary data were adjusted to 2019 dollars. General linear regression, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for analysis, as appropriate.ResultsIn total, 10,225 ACDF, 28,841 PLF, 70,815 THA, and 108,940 TKA patients were analyzed. Most patients in our study sample had preferred provider organization insurance plans (ACDF 70.3%, PLF 66.9%, THA 66.2%, and TKA 67.0%). The mean OOP costs for patients, by procedure, were as follows: ACDF $3,180 (SD = 2,495), PLF $3,166 (SD = 2,529), THA $2,884 (SD = 2,100), and TKA $2,733 (SD = 1,994). Total OOP costs increased significantly from 2014 to 2019 for all procedures (P < 0.0001). Among the insurance plans examined, patients with high-deductible health plans had the highest episodic OOP costs. The ratio of patient contribution (OOP costs) to total insurer contribution (payments from insurers to providers) was 0.07 for ACDF, 0.04 for PLF, 0.07 for THA, and 0.07 for TKA.ConclusionAmong commercially insured patients who underwent elective spinal fusion and major lower extremity joint arthroplasty surgery, OOP costs increased from 2014 to 2019. The OOP costs for elective orthopaedic surgery represent a substantial and increasing financial burden for patients.

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

How much does it cost to care for survivors of colorectal cancer? Caregiver's time, travel and out-of-pocket costs.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

How much does it cost to care for survivors of colorectal cancer? Caregiver's time, travel and out-of-pocket costs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets