Patient-Provider Discussions About Out-of-Pocket Costs of Cancer Care in the U.S.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Despite the importance of cost-related discussions in cancer care, little is known about the prevalence or drivers of these discussions in clinical practice. This study estimates the prevalence and examines the correlates of cancer survivors' discussions about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care with providers.Methods
The 2016 and 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Surveys were used to identify 1,550 survivors who responded to the question on discussion about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. Multivariable multinomial logistic regression examined the correlates of discussions about out-of-pocket costs. Analyses were performed in 2019.Results
Approximately one quarter of cancer survivors reported having discussed the out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. In multivariable analyses, respondents in the following categories were less likely to report no cost discussion than any cost discussion: black non-Hispanic/other race (RRR=0.67, 95% CI=0.45, 0.98; white non-Hispanic race as reference), no health insurance at diagnosis (RRR=0.51, 95% CI=0.27, 0.95; private health insurance as reference), and any experience of financial hardship (RRR=0.48, 95% CI=0.35, 0.66; no financial hardship as reference).Conclusions
Patient-reported discussions about out-of-pocket costs for cancer care are infrequent in the U.S. The findings highlight the needs to improve the understanding of the barriers and facilitators for effective discussions about out-of-pocket costs of cancer care.
SUBMITTER: Rai A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9278513 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundRural Indigenous Maya communities in Guatemala have some of the worst obstetrical health outcomes in Latin America, due to widespread discrimination in healthcare and an underfunded public sector. Multiple systems-level efforts to improve facility birth outcomes have been implemented, primarily focusing on early community-based detection of obstetrical complications and on reducing discrimination and improving the quality of facility-level care. However, another important feature of public facility-level care are the out-of-pocket payments that patients are often required to make for care.ObjectiveTo estimate the burden of out-of-pocket costs for public obstetrical care in Indigenous Maya communities in Guatemala.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical record data on obstetrical referrals collected as part of an obstetrical care navigation intervention, which included documentation of out-of-pocket costs by care navigators accompanying patients within public facilities. We compared the median costs for both emergency and routine obstetrical facility care.FindingsCost data on 709 obstetric referrals from 479 patients were analyzed (65% emergency and 35% routine referrals). The median OOP costs were Q100 (IQR 75-150) [$13 USD] and Q50 (IQR 16-120) [$6.50 USD] for emergency and routine referrals. Costs for transport were most common (95% and 55%, respectively). Costs for medication, supply, laboratory, and imaging costs occurred less frequently. Food and lodging costs were minimal.ConclusionOut-of-pocket payments for theoretically free public care are a common and important barrier to care for this rural Guatemalan setting. These data add to the literature in Latin American on the barriers to obstetrical care faced by Indigenous and rural women.
| S-EPMC8344954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceList prices set by manufacturers for brand-name prescription drugs in the US have been increasing faster than inflation, although confidential manufacturer rebates offset some of these increases. Most commercially insured patients pay at least some out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, and higher patient spending is associated with lower adherence and worse health outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine whether price changes for brand-name drugs are correlated with changes in patient out-of-pocket spending and whether this association varies by insurance benefit design.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study of 79 brand-name drugs with available pricing data from January 2015 to December 2017 was conducted, with data obtained from a national commercial insurance claims database.ExposuresChange in the list prices set by manufacturers and estimated net prices after rebates among non-Medicaid payers.Main outcomes and measuresChange in median out-of-pocket spending among all patients and stratified by insurance pharmacy benefit design, including high-deductible insurance plans and plans with any amount of deductibles or coinsurance.ResultsAmong 79 drugs, median increases were 16.7% (interquartile range [IQR], 13.6%-21.1%) for list prices, 5.4% (IQR, -3.9% to 11.7%) for net prices, and 3.5% (IQR, 1.4%-9.1%) for out-of-pocket spending from 2015 to 2017. Changes in list prices were correlated with changes in net prices (r = 0.34; P = .002). Overall, changes in out-of-pocket spending were not correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.14; P = .22) or net prices (r = 0.04; P = .71). Among 53.7% of patients who paid any drug deductible or coinsurance, median out-of-pocket spending increased by 15.0%, and changes were moderately correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.38; P = .001) but not net prices (r = 0.06; P = .62).Conclusions and relevanceSome commercially insured patients who pay only prescription drug copayments appear to be insulated from increases in drug prices. However, more than half of patients pay deductibles or coinsurance and may experience substantial increases in out-of-pocket spending when drug prices increase. Among these patients, there was no evidence that manufacturer rebates to insurers are associated with patients' out-of-pocket spending. Policies to rein in unregulated annual increases in list prices for brand-name drugs may have important consequences for patient out-of-pocket spending.
| S-EPMC8097497 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10817198 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient/caregiver out-of pocket costs associated with hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are not well known. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate patient/caregiver out-of-pocket costs in the first 3 months after allogeneic HCT. Thirty patients were enrolled at three sites. Before HCT, participants completed a baseline survey regarding household income and insurance coverage. Subsequently, they maintained a paper-based diary to track daily out-of-pocket expenses for the first 3 months after HCT. Telephone interviews were conducted to follow-up on the missing/incomplete diaries and on study completion. Twenty-five patients/caregivers completed the baseline survey. Among these, the median pre-tax household income was $66?500 (range, $30-$375?000) and 48% had to temporarily relocate close to the transplant center. Insurance coverage was managed care plan (56%), Medicaid (20%), Medicare (17%) and other (8%). Twenty-two patients/caregivers completed ?4 diaries; the median out-of-pocket expenses were $2440 (range, $199-$13?769). Patients/caregivers who required temporary lodging had higher out-of-pocket expenses compared with those who did not (median, $5247 vs $716). Patients/caregivers can incur substantial out-of-pocket costs over the first 3 months, especially if they need to temporarily relocate close to the transplant center. Our study lays the foundation for future research on the early and long-term financial impact of allogeneic HCT on patients/caregivers.
| S-EPMC3596484 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUrinary incontinence (UI) is prevalent in women and has been associated with decreased quality of life and institutionalization. Despite this, and the fact that several treatment options exist, few women discuss UI with clinicians. The aim of this study was to examine the proportion of middle aged and older women with urinary incontinence who have discussed UI with clinicians, focusing on female health professionals as a way to examine this question outside of issues of health care access.MethodsData are from the Nurses Health Studies (NHS), two ongoing observational, prospective, cohort studies. The surveys collected detailed information about UI, including frequency, amount and type. Women were also asked if they had discussed UI with a clinician. We used multivariable-adjusted logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) of participants reporting discussion about UI.Results94,692 women with UI aged 49-91 years old were included in this study. Of these, 34% reported that they had discussed their incontinence with a clinician. Women with daily UI had 4.4 times greater odds of discussing it with clinicians when compared to those with monthly UI (OR = 4.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.06-4.69). When controlling for severity of symptoms, the oldest women, greater than eighty years, were 20% less likely to have discussed UI with their clinician, compared to the youngest women (OR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.89).ConclusionsA minority of women with UI, even among health professionals, discuss their symptoms with clinicians. Oldest women were the least likely to discuss their UI with a provider.
| S-EPMC7907491 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6991257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate expenditures for fall-related injuries (FRIs) among older Medicare beneficiaries.Data sourcesThe 2007-2009 Medicare claims and 2008 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) data for 5,497 (228 FRI and 5,269 non-FRI) beneficiaries.Study designFRIs were indicated by inpatient/outpatient ICD-9 diagnostic codes for fractures, trauma, dislocations, and by e-codes. A pre-post comparison group design was used to estimate the differential change in pre-post expenditures for the FRI relative to the non-FRI cohort (FRI expenditures). Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, service category total annual FRI-related Medicare expenditures, expenditures related to the type of initial FRI treatment (inpatient, ED, outpatient), and the risk of persistently high expenditures (4th quartile for each post-FRI quarter) were estimated.Principal findingsEstimated FRI expenditures were $9,389 (95 percent CI: $5,969-$12,808). Inpatient, physician/outpatient, skilled nursing facility, and home health comprised 31, 18, 39, and 12 percent of the total. OOP costs were $1,363.0 (95 percent CI: $889-$1,837). Expenditures for FRIs initially treated in inpatient/ED/outpatient settings were $21,424/$6,142/$8,622. The FRI cohort had a 64 percent increased risk of persistently high expenditures. Total Medicare expenditures were $13 billion (95 percent CI: $9-$18 billion).ConclusionsFRIs are associated with substantial, persistent Medicare expenditures. Cost-effectiveness of multifactorial falls prevention programs should be assessed using these expenditure estimates.
| S-EPMC5583303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) were approved in 2015, their high cost has led to strict prior authorization practices and high copays, and use of PSCK9i in clinical practice has been low.ObjectiveTo evaluate patient access to PCSK9i among those prescribed therapy.Design, setting, and participantsUsing pharmacy transaction data, we evaluated 45 029 patients who were newly prescribed PCSK9i in the United States between August 1, 2015, and July 31, 2016.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of PCSK9i prescriptions approved and abandoned (approved but unfilled); multivariable analyses examined factors associated with approval/abandonment including payor, prescriber specialty, pharmacy benefit manager, out-of-pocket cost (copay), clinical diagnoses, lipid-lowering medication use, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.ResultsOf patients given an incident PCSK9i prescription, 51.2% were women, 56.6% were 65 years or older, and 52.5% had governmental insurance. Of the patients given a prescription, 20.8% received approval on the first day, and 47.2% ever received approval. Of those approved, 65.3% filled the prescription, resulting in 30.9% of those prescribed PCSK9i ever receiving therapy. After adjustment, patients who were older, male, and had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were more likely to be approved, but approval rates did not vary by patient low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level nor statin use. Other factors associated with drug approval included having government vs commercial insurance (odds ratio [OR], 3.3; 95% CI, 2.8-3.8), and those filled at a specialty vs retail pharmacy (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.66-2.33). Approval rates varied nearly 3-fold among the top 10 largest pharmacy benefit managers. Prescription abandonment by patients was most associated with copay costs (C statistic, 0.86); with abandonment rates ranging from 7.5% for those with $0 copay to more than 75% for copays greater than $350.Conclusions and relevanceIn the first year of availability, only half of patients prescribed a PCSK9i received approval, and one-third of approved prescriptions were never filled owing to copay.
| S-EPMC5963012 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeCancer 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.MethodsTwo 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.ResultsOne 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.ConclusionInformal 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.
| S-EPMC6763575 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10511135 | biostudies-literature