Out-of-Pocket Cancer Care Costs and Value Frameworks: A Case Study in a Community Oncology Practice with a Financial Navigator Program.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Leopold C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7248137 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Out-of-Pocket Cancer Care Costs and Value Frameworks: A Case Study in a Community Oncology Practice with a Financial Navigator Program.
Leopold Christine C Araujo-Lane Carina C Rosenberg Carol C Gilkey Melissa M Wagner Anita K AK
PharmacoEconomics - open 20200601 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:The objective of this study is to characterize how financial hardship related to oral health care (OHC) out-of-pocket (OOP) spending has been conceptualized, defined, and measured in the literature and to identify evidence gaps in this area. This scoping review follows Arksey and O'Malley's framework and synthesizes financial hardship from OHC concepts, methodologies, and evidence gaps. We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EconLit, Business Source Premier, and the Cochrane Library. Gray literature was sourced from institutional websites (World Health Organization, United Nations, World Bank Group, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and governmental health agencies) as well as ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis Global. We used defined inclusion and exclusion criteria to select studies published between 2000 and 2023. Of the 1,876 records, 65 met our criteria. The studies conceptualized financial hardship as catastrophic spending, impoverishment, negative coping strategies, bankruptcy, financial burden, food insecurity, and personal financial hardship experience. We found heterogeneity in defining OHC OOP payments and services. Also, financial hardship was frequently measured as catastrophic health expenditure using cross-sectional designs and national household spending surveys from high-income and to a lesser extent lower-middle-income countries. We identify and discuss challenges in terms of conceptualizing financial hardship, study designs, and measurement instruments in the OHC context. Some of the common evidence gaps identified include studying the causal relationship in financial hardship from OHC, assessing the financial hardship and unmet dental needs due to cost relationship, and distinguishing the effect between pain/discomfort and esthetic/cosmetic dental treatments on financial hardship. Financial hardship in OHC needs further exploration and the use of consistent definitions as well must distinguish between treatments alleviating pain/discomfort from esthetic/cosmetic treatments. Our study is relevant for policy makers and researchers aiming to monitor financial protection of OOP payments on OHC in the wake of universal health coverage for oral health.
| S-EPMC11562291 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo quantify financial toxicity and out-of-pocket costs for patients with HNC in Australia and explore their relationship with health-related quality of life (HRQoL).MethodsA cross-sectional survey was administered to patients with HNC 1-3 years after radiotherapy at a regional hospital in Australia. The survey included questions on sociodemographics, out-of-pocket expenses, HRQoL, and the Financial Index of Toxicity (FIT) tool. The relationship between high financial toxicity scores (top quartile) and HRQoL was explored.ResultsOf the 57 participants included in the study, 41 (72%) reported out-of-pocket expenses at a median of AUD 1796 (IQR AUD 2700) and a maximum of AUD 25,050. The median FIT score was 13.9 (IQR 19.5) and patients with high financial toxicity (n = 14) reported poorer HRQoL (76.5 vs. 114.5, p < 0.001). Patients who were not married had higher FIT scores (23.1 vs. 11.1, p = 0.01), as did those with lower education (19.3 vs. 11.1, p = 0.06). Participants with private health insurance had lower financial toxicity scores (8.3 vs. 17.6, p = 0.01). Medications (41%, median AUD 400), dietary supplements (41%, median AUD 600), travel (36%, median AUD 525), and dental (29%, AUD 388) were the most common out-of-pocket expenses. Participants living in rural locations (≥100 km from the hospital) had higher out-of-pocket expenses (AUD 2655 vs. AUD 730, p = 0.01).ConclusionFinancial toxicity is associated with poorer HRQoL for many patients with HNC following treatment. Further research is needed to investigate interventions aimed at reducing financial toxicity and how these can best be incorporated into routine clinical care.
| S-EPMC10217128 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9013274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedication nonadherence imposes high morbidity, mortality, and costs but is challenging to address given its multiple causes. Subscription models are increasingly used in health care to encourage healthy behaviors; in January 2023, Amazon Pharmacy launched RxPass, a subscription program offering Amazon Prime members (hereafter, company members) in 45 states access to 60 common generic medications for a flat $5 monthly fee.ObjectiveTo evaluate the associations of program enrollment with medication refills, days' supply, and out-of-pocket costs.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective, population-based cohort study, a difference-in-differences approach with doubly robust estimation was used to assess outcomes 6 months before and after program enrollment, compared with a contemporaneous control group (study period included July 24, 2022, to January 24, 2024). Participants were younger than 65 years, company members, and not enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. Exposure individuals were enrolled in the program in the first 6 months of program launch. Control individuals resided in the 5 states where the program was not available but who clicked on the enrollment webpage in the first 6 months of program launch.ExposureSubscription program enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of days' supply of medications on the subscription program list per person per month (PPPM). Secondary outcomes were the number of prescription refills and out-of-pocket costs of medications on the program list, including program subscription costs, PPPM.ResultsAfter propensity score weighting, there were 5003 enrollees (mean [SD] age, 45.9 [11.1] years; 2076 female [41.5%]) and 5137 controls (mean [SD] age, 45.8 [11.1] years; 2116 female [41.2%]). The program was associated with an increase in days' supply of 10.39 days PPPM (95% CI, 10.29-10.48 days PPPM), a 27% increase, an increase in prescription refills of 0.19 PPPM (95% CI, 0.19-0.19 refills PPPM), a 29% increase, and a decrease in out-of-pocket spending by $2.35 PPPM (95% CI, $2.37-$2.33 PPPM), a 30% decrease.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, program enrollment was associated with increased medication refills and total days' supply and reduced out-of-pocket costs. Future research should investigate the potential cognitive and/or behavioral mechanisms by which subscription programs encourage healthy behaviors and whether the results could be replicated among other pharmacies or cohorts.
| S-EPMC11774089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: This systematic review was conducted to identify cancer patient experiences, and the impact of out-of-pocket costs and financial burden in Australia. (2) Methods: A systematic review, following the Preferring Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted. Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PubMed were searched. The primary outcome was financial burden among cancer patients and their families in Australia. The secondary outcome was out-of-pocket costs associated with cancer care and treatment within the population sample, and the impact of financial burden. (3) Results: Nineteen studies were included, covering more than 70,000 Australians affected by cancer. Out-of-pocket costs varied by cancer type and ranged from an average of AUD 977 for breast cancer and lymphoedema patients to AUD 11,077 for prostate cancer patients. Younger aged patients (≤65 years), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people in rural and/or remote areas, households with low income, those who were unemployed and people with private health insurance were at increased risk of experiencing out-of-pocket costs, financial burden or a combination of both. (4) Conclusions: Australians diagnosed with cancer frequently experience financial burden, and the health and financial consequences are significant. Focusing efforts on the costs of care and options about where to have care within the context of informed decisions about cancer care is necessary.
| S-EPMC7967550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Heart failure (HF) poses a major public health burden in the United States. We examined the burden of out-of-pocket healthcare costs on patients with HF and their families. Methods and Results In the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we identified all families with ≥1 adult member with HF during 2014 to 2018. Total out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures included yearly care-specific costs and insurance premiums. We evaluated 2 outcomes of financial toxicity: (1) high financial burden-total out-of-pocket healthcare expense to postsubsistence income ratio of >20%, and (2) catastrophic financial burden with the ratio of >40%-a bankrupting expense defined by the World Health Organization. There were 788 families in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey with a member with HF representing 0.54% (95% CI, 0.48%-0.60%) of all families nationally. The overall mean annual out-of-pocket healthcare expenses were $4423 (95% CI, $3908-$4939), with medications and health insurance premiums representing the largest categories of cost. Overall, 14% (95% CI, 11%-18%) of families experienced a high burden and 5% (95% CI, 3%-6%) experienced a catastrophic burden. Among the two-fifths of families considered low income, 24% (95% CI, 18%-30%) experienced a high financial burden, whereas 10% (95% CI, 6%-14%) experienced a catastrophic burden. Low-income families had 4-fold greater risk-adjusted odds of high financial burden (odds ratio [OR] , 3.9; 95% CI, 2.3-6.6), and 14-fold greater risk-adjusted odds of catastrophic financial burden (OR, 14.2; 95% CI, 5.1-39.5) compared with middle/high-income families. Conclusions Patients with HF and their families experience large out-of-pocket healthcare expenses. A large proportion encounter financial toxicity, with a disproportionate effect on low-income families.
| S-EPMC8483501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEmpirical evidence informing policies aiming at ensuring affordability of long-term care (LTC) costs is limited. Combining system-level with individual-level data, we quantify the burden of out-of-pocket costs of LTC services on households in 13 European countries and the USA and explore how social protection systems impact affordability of care.MethodsIn this observational study, we use harmonised data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), collected between 2012 and 2016, and from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe, collected between 2013 and 2017. We assess the severity of LTC needs of older adults (65+) on the basis of self-reported limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). We classify countries' social protection systems in terms of affordability and progressivity using information obtained from country officials. We examine variation in individual-level out-of-pocket LTC costs by social protection systems' affordability and progressivity.FindingsOut-of-pocket LTC costs are heterogeneous across countries and increase with individuals' needs. In countries where LTC is more affordable and social protection systems less progressive, older adults incur significantly lower levels of LTC costs. Within Europe, not only are costs lower where systems are characterized by higher affordability and lower progressivity, but they also represent a lower share of households' disposable income.InterpretationOur findings indicate that the social protection systems significantly affect the level of out-of-pocket costs faced and reported by older adults with LTC needs as well as the share of their income that is devoted to pay for care.FundingWe received funding from the National Institute on Aging (grant number R01 AG030153). The OECD programme of work on ageing and long-term care is partly funded by the European Union.
| S-EPMC9240998 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Adverse childhood experiences are associated with higher risk of common chronic mental and physical illnesses in adulthood, but little evidence exists on whether this influences medical costs or expenses. This study estimated increases in household medical expenses associated with adults' reported adverse childhood experience scores. METHODS:Household out-of-pocket medical cost and adverse childhood experience information was collected in the 2011 and 2013 waves of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and its linked 2014-2015 Panel Study of Income Dynamics Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study supplement and analyzed in 2017. Generalized linear regression models estimated adjusted annual household out-of-pocket medical cost differences by retrospective adverse childhood experience count and compared costs by family type and size. Logistic models estimated odds of out-of-pocket costs that were >10% of household income or >100% of savings, as well as odds of household debt. RESULTS:Adverse childhood experience scores were associated with higher out-of-pocket costs. Annual household total out-of-pocket medical costs were $184 (95% CI=$90, $278) or 1.18-fold higher when respondents reported one to two adverse childhood experiences and $311 (95% CI=$196, $426) or 1.30-fold higher when three or more adverse childhood experiences were reported by an adult in the household. Odds of household medical costs >10% of income, >100% of savings, and the presence of household medical debt were 2.48-fold (95% CI=1.40, 4.38), 2.25-fold (95% CI=1.69, 2.99), and 2.29-fold (95% CI=1.56, 3.34) higher when an adult in the household reported three or more adverse childhood experiences compared with none. CONCLUSIONS:Greater exposure to adverse childhood experiences is associated with higher household out-of-pocket medical costs and financial burden in adulthood.
| S-EPMC6475485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare beneficiaries with cancer are at risk for financial hardship given increasingly expensive cancer care and significant cost sharing by beneficiaries.ObjectivesTo measure out-of-pocket (OOP) costs incurred by Medicare beneficiaries with cancer and identify which factors and services contribute to high OOP costs.Design, setting, and participantsWe prospectively collected survey data from 18 166 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries, including 1409 individuals who were diagnosed with cancer during the study period, who participated in the January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2012, waves of the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative panel study of US residents older than 50 years. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015.Main outcomes and measuresOut-of-pocket medical spending and financial burden (OOP expenditures divided by total household income).ResultsAmong the 1409 participants (median age, 73 years [interquartile range, 69-79 years]; 46.4% female and 53.6% male) diagnosed with cancer during the study period, the type of supplementary insurance was significantly associated with mean annual OOP costs incurred after a cancer diagnosis ($2116 among those insured by Medicaid, $2367 among those insured by the Veterans Health Administration, $5976 among those insured by a Medicare health maintenance organization, $5492 among those with employer-sponsored insurance, $5670 among those with Medigap insurance coverage, and $8115 among those insured by traditional fee-for-service Medicare but without supplemental insurance coverage). A new diagnosis of cancer or common chronic noncancer condition was associated with increased odds of incurring costs in the highest decile of OOP expenditures (cancer: adjusted odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.55-2.23; P < .001; chronic noncancer condition: adjusted odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.69-1.97; P < .001). Beneficiaries with a new cancer diagnosis and Medicare alone incurred OOP expenditures that were a mean of 23.7% of their household income; 10% of these beneficiaries incurred OOP expenditures that were 63.1% of their household income. Among the 10% of beneficiaries with cancer who incurred the highest OOP costs, hospitalization contributed to 41.6% of total OOP costs.Conclusions and relevanceMedicare beneficiaries without supplemental insurance incur significant OOP costs following a diagnosis of cancer. Costs associated with hospitalization may be a primary contributor to these high OOP costs. Medicare reform proposals that restructure the benefit design for hospital-based services and incorporate an OOP maximum may help alleviate financial burden, as can interventions that reduce hospitalization in this population.
| S-EPMC5441971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOut-of-pocket costs (OOPC) associated with treatment have significant implications on quality of life and survival in cancer patients. Head and neck cancer patients face unique treatment-related challenges, but to date OOPC have been understudied in this population.AimsThis study aims to identify and measure OOPC for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) in Ontario.MethodsHNC patients between 2015 and 2018 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto were recruited. Participants completed OOPC questionnaires and lost income questions during radiation, post-surgery, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after completion of treatment. Associations between OOPC and treatment modality and disease site were tested with multivariable hurdle regression.ResultsA total of 1545 questionnaires were completed by 657 patients. Median estimated OOPC for the total duration of treatment for participants undergoing chemoradiation was $1452 [$0-14 616], for surgery with adjuvant radiation or chemoradiation (C/RT) was $1626, for radiation therapy alone was $635, and for surgery alone was $360. The major expenses for participants at the mid-treatment time-point was travel (mean $424, standard error of the mean [SEM] $34) and meals, parking, and accommodations (mean $617, SEM $67). In multivariable analysis, chemoradiation, surgery with C/RT, and radiation were associated with significantly higher OOPC than surgery alone during treatment (791% higher, p < .001; 539% higher, p < .001; 370% higher, p < .001 respectively) among patients with non-zero OOPC. Participants with non-zero OOPC in the laryngeal cancer group paid 49% lower OOPC than those with oropharyngeal cancers in adjusted analysis (p = .025).ConclusionsPatients undergoing treatment for HNC pay significant OOPC. These costs are highest during treatment and gradually decrease over time. OOPC vary by patient demographics, clinical factors, and, in particular, treatment modality.
| S-EPMC9327650 | biostudies-literature