Search

Background: Costs of cancer care can result in patient financial hardship; many professional organizations recommend provider discussions about treatment costs as part of high-quality care. In this pilot study, the authors examined patient-provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma-cancers with recently approved, high-cost treatment options., Methods: Individuals who were newly diagnosed in 2017-2018 with stage III/IV NSCLC (n = 1767) and in 2018 with stage III/IV melanoma (n = 689) from 12 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions were randomly selected for the National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Study. Documentation of cost discussions was abstracted from the medical record. The authors examined patient, treatment, and hospital factors associated with cost discussions in multivariable logistic regression analyses., Results: Cost discussions were documented in the medical records of 20.3% of patients with NSCLC and in 24.0% of those with melanoma. In adjusted analyses, privately insured (vs. publicly insured) patients were less likely to have documented cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80). Patients who did not receive systemic therapy or did not receive any cancer-directed treatment were less likely to have documented cost discussions than those who did receive systemic therapy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19-0.81] and 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.70], respectively), as were patients who were treated at hospitals without residency programs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98)., Conclusions: Cost discussions were infrequently documented in the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and melanoma, which may hinder identifying patient needs and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. Efforts to increase cost-of-care discussions and relevant referrals, as well as their documentation, are warranted., (© 2024 American Cancer Society. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Purpose: Although pain is a frequently reported symptom among individuals with cancer, there is limited information on the impact of pain on employment or financial outcomes. This study used nationally representative data to examine the role of pain levels on employment and financial outcomes., Methods: We used data from the 2016-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement to identify 1,213 adults diagnosed with cancer. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to examine association of pain levels and self-reported employment and financial outcomes., Results: Approximately 43% of adults with a cancer history reported no pain, 29% mild pain, 18% moderate pain, and 10% severe pain over the past 7 days. Compared with those reporting no pain, individuals reporting any pain had significantly increased likelihood of adverse employment outcomes including early retirement, feeling less productive, and staying at a job because of concerns about losing insurance. Individuals with any pain (compared with no pain) also had significantly increased likelihood of adverse financial outcomes including borrowing money or going into debt, inability to cover medical costs, and worrying about paying medical bills. For both employment and financial outcomes, there were dose-response relationships, with worse outcomes generally associated with greater pain levels., Conclusion: Pain is frequently associated with adverse employment and financial outcomes among cancer survivors, and greater pain is associated with worse outcomes. Better assessment of pain severity among survivors and implementation of strategies to assist with employment and financial objectives may be important steps to enhance patient-centered care., Competing Interests: Janet S. de MoorEmployment: BiogenStock and Other Ownership Interests: BiogenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: BiogenNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: The prevalence of cancer survivorship is increasing. In this study, we provide contemporary population-based estimates and projections of the overall and site-specific cancer-attributable medical care costs in the United States., Methods: We identified survivors aged ≥65 years diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2012 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database and used 2007 to 2013 claims to estimate costs by cancer site, phases of care, and stage at diagnosis. Annualized average cancer-attributable costs for medical care (Medicare Parts A and B) and oral prescription drugs (Medicare Part D) were estimated by subtracting costs between patients with cancer and matched controls. Costs are reported in 2019 U.S. dollars. We combined phase-specific attributable costs with prevalence projections to estimate national costs from 2015 through 2030., Results: Overall annualized average costs were highest in the end-of-life-cancer death phase, followed by the initial and continuing phases (medical care: $105,500, $41,800, and $5,300 and oral prescription drugs: $4,200, $1,800, $1,100, respectively). There was considerable variation in costs by cancer site and stage. Overall national costs in 2015 were $183 billion and projected to increase 34% to $246 billion by 2030, based only on population growth., Conclusions: Phase of care cancer-attributable cost estimates by cancer site and stage are key inputs for simulation models and cost-effectiveness analyses., Impact: The national cancer-attributed medical care costs in the United States are substantial and projected to increase dramatically by 2030, due to population changes alone, reflecting the rising burden of cancer care among cancer survivors., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: This study examined associations of both medical and nonmedical financial hardships with healthcare utilization and self-rated health among cancer survivors., Methods: The National Health Interview Survey (2013-2017) was used to identify cancer survivors (aged 18-64 years: n=4,939; aged ≥65 years: n=6,972). A total of 4 levels of medical financial hardship intensities were created with measures from material, psychological, and behavioral domains. A total of 5 levels of nonmedical financial hardship intensities were created with measures in food insecurity and worry about other economic needs (e.g., housing expenses). Generalized ordinal logistic regression examined associations between medical and nonmedical financial hardship intensities and emergency department visits, use of preventive services and cancer screenings, and self-rated health. All analyses were performed in 2019., Results: In adjusted analyses, cancer survivors with higher medical financial hardship intensity (Level 4 vs Level 1; aged 18-64 years: 42% vs 26.2%, p<0.001; aged ≥65 years: 37.6% vs 24.3%, p=0.001) and higher nonmedical financial hardship intensity (Level 5 vs Level 1; aged 18-64 years: 37.2% vs 27.9%, p=0.011) had more emergency department visits. Moreover, cancer survivors with higher medical financial hardship intensity had lower influenza vaccine (Level 4 vs Level 1; aged 18-64 years: 45.6% vs 52.5%, p=0.036; aged ≥65 years: 64.6% vs 75.6%, p=0.008) and lower breast cancer screening levels (Level 4 vs Level 1; 46.8% vs 61.2%, p=0.001). Similar patterns were found between higher financial hardship intensities and worse self-rated health., Conclusions: Higher medical and nonmedical financial hardships are independently associated with more emergency department visits, lower receipt of some preventive services, and worse self-rated health in cancer survivors. With growing healthcare costs, unmet medical and nonmedical financial needs may worsen health disparities among cancer survivors., (Copyright © 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Medical care costing studies have excluded patients with a prior cancer history. This study aims to update methods for estimating medical care costs attributable to cancer and to evaluate the effect of a prior history of cancer on costs for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data and matched cancer patients to controls without cancer to estimate cancer-attributable costs by phases of care using Medicare 2007-2013 claims. CRC annualized average cancer-attributable costs were $56.0 K, $5.3 K, $92.5 K, and $24.3 K in the initial, continuing, and end-of-life cancer and noncancer death phases, respectively, in 2014 dollars. Costs were higher for patients diagnosed with more advanced stage, younger ages, and nonwhite races. Costs for patients with prior cancers were consistently higher than patients without prior cancers, especially in the continuing (4.9 K vs 7.2 K) and end-of-life noncancer death (22.7 K vs 30.0 K). Our CRC costs improve previous estimates by using more recent data and updated methods., (Published by Oxford University Press 2020. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: Cancer costs should be discussed by patients and providers, but information is not readily available. Results from recently published studies (in the last 5 years) on direct and indirect cancer costs may help guide these discussions., Methods: The authors reviewed studies published between 2013 and 2017 that reported direct health care costs and indirect (productivity losses) costs. The annual mean total and net costs of cancer were summarized for all payers and for survivors only by age (ages 18-64 and ≥65 years), by phase of care (initial [ie, 12 months from diagnosis], continuing, and end-of-life [ie, 12 months before death]), or for recently diagnosed (within 1-2 years of diagnosis) and longer term survivors., Results: For all payers combined, costs for cancers like breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers were $20,000 to $100,000 in the initial phase, $1000 to $30,000 annually in the continuing phase, and ≥$60,000 in the end-of-life phase. Annual out-of-pocket costs to recently diagnosed survivors were >$1000 for medical care and time costs, approximately $2000 for productivity losses, and from $2500 to >$4000 for employment disability, depending on age. For longer term survivors, the cost of medical care was approximately $1500 for older survivors and $747 for younger survivors, time costs were $831 to $955 for older survivors and $459 to $630 for younger survivors, and productivity losses were approximately $800. Disability among long-term survivors was similar to that among short-term survivors. Limitations of the reviewed studies included older data and under-representation of higher cost cancers., Conclusions: Frequently updated cost information for all cancer types is needed to guide discussions of anticipated short-term and long-term cancer-related costs with survivors. Cancer 2018;000:000-000. © 2018 American Cancer Society., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

Introduction: This systematic review examines healthcare costs associated with mental health conditions among cancer survivors in the United States., Areas Covered: Ten published studies were identified. Studies varied substantially in terms of population, mental health conditions examined, data collection methods, and type of cost reported. Cancer survivors with mental health conditions incurred significantly higher total medical costs and costs of most service types compared to cancer survivors without a mental health condition. Additionally, the total healthcare expenditure related to mental health was higher among cancer survivors compared with people without history of cancer., Expert Commentary: Mental health conditions are associated with increased healthcare costs among cancer survivors. Future examination of other components of economic burden, including patient out-of-pocket costs, nonmedical costs, such as transportation, childcare, and productivity losses for patients and their caregivers, will be important. Additionally, evaluation of economic burden by cancer site, stage at diagnosis, duration of survivorship, and treatment(s) will increase understanding of the overall impact of mental health conditions on cancer survivors and on the healthcare system.

Cancer care in the United States faces a perfect storm: an aging population and expected increased cancer incidence, growing numbers of cancer survivors with ongoing care needs, and continued scientific advancements, offering extraordinary promise at extraordinary cost. How, then, do we as pediatric oncologists engage in the dialogue about cancer cost considerations? The purpose of this article and its accompanying session presented at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting is to introduce concepts of cost, value, and financial hardship. In the first section, we will provide an overview of principles of health economics, including components of cost, time horizon consideration, discounting, and methods to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness among therapeutic approaches. We will then introduce the value framework being debated in adult oncology and offer potential opportunities for its application in pediatric oncology. In the second section, we will describe the integration of the cost-effectiveness paradigm in an ongoing pediatric clinical trial, including design and analytic considerations. In the third section, we will shift away from cost to the health care system to cost to the patient, which is also termed "financial toxicity" or "financial hardship," focusing on the ongoing burden of cost on survivors of childhood cancer. Our goal is to provide our readers with the vocabulary and understanding of this complex and often thorny debate so that they can be active participants and informed advocates for their patients.

Background: The high economic burden of cancer is projected to continue growing. Cost-of-care estimates are key inputs for comparative effectiveness and economic analyses that aim to inform policies associated with cancer care. Existing estimates are based largely on SEER-Medicare data in the elderly, leaving a knowledge gap regarding costs for patients aged <65 years. Methods: We estimated total and net medical care costs using data on individuals diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer (n=45,522) and noncancer controls (n=314,887) enrolled in 1 of 4 participating health plans. Net costs were defined as the difference in mean total costs between patients with cancer and controls. The phase-of-care approach and Kaplan-Meier Sample Average method were used to estimate mean total and net 1- and 5-year costs (in 2015 US dollars) by cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and age group (<65 and ≥65 years). Results: Total and net costs were consistently highest for lung cancer and lowest for prostate cancer. Net costs were higher across all cancer sites for patients aged <65 years than those aged ≥65 years. Medical care costs for all cancers increased with advanced stage at diagnosis. Conclusions: This study improves understanding of medical care costs for the 4 most common invasive cancers in the United States. Higher costs among patients aged <65 years highlight limitations of relying on SEER-Medicare data alone to understand the national burden of cancer, whereas higher costs for patients with advanced-stage cancer underscore the importance of early detection to curtail high long-term costs. These cost estimates can be used in the development and evaluation of interventions and policies across the cancer care continuum., (Copyright © 2018 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.)

Introduction: This systematic review examines the excess cost of chronic conditions on the economic burden of cancer survivorship among adults in the US. Areas covered: Twelve published studies were identified. Although studies varied substantially in populations, comorbidities examined, methods, and types of cost reported, costs for cancer survivors with comorbidities generally increased with greater numbers of comorbidities or an increase in comorbidity index score. Survivors with comorbidities incurred significantly more in total medical costs, out-of-pocket costs, and costs by service type compared to cancer survivors without additional comorbidities. Expert commentary: Cancer survivors with comorbidities bear significant excess out-of-pocket costs and their care is also more expensive to the healthcare system. On-going evaluation of different payment models, care coordination, and disease management programs for cancer survivors with comorbidities will be important in monitoring impact on healthcare costs., Competing Interests: Declaration of interest The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Adolescent and young adult cancer survivors-those who were ages 15-39 at their first cancer diagnosis-have important health limitations. These survivors are at risk for higher health care expenditures and lost productivity, compared to adults without a history of cancer. Using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data, we present nationally representative estimates of the economic burden among people who were diagnosed with cancer in adolescence or young adulthood. Our findings demonstrate that surviving cancer at this age is associated with a substantial economic burden. Compared to adults without a history of cancer, adolescent and young adult cancer survivors had excess annual medical expenditures of $3,170 per person and excess annual productivity losses of $2,250 per person. Multifaceted prevention strategies, including education and sustained intervention programs to ensure access to lifelong risk-based follow-up care, may be effective ways to improve the economic outcomes associated with cancer survivorship in this population., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Purpose: To present nationally representative estimates of the impact of cancer survivorship on medical expenditures and lost productivity among adults in the United States., Methods: Using the 2008 to 2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we identified 4,960 cancer survivors and 64,431 individuals without a history of cancer age ≥ 18 years. Direct medical costs were measured using annual health care expenditures and examined by source of payment and service type. Indirect morbidity costs were estimated from lost productivity as a result of employment disability, missed work days, and lost household productivity. We evaluated the economic burden of cancer survivorship by estimating excess costs among cancer survivors, stratified by time since diagnosis (recently diagnosed [≤ 1 year] and previously diagnosed [> 1 year]), compared with individuals without a history of cancer using multivariable regression models stratified by age (18 to 64 and ≥ 65 years), controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and comorbidities., Results: In 2008 to 2010, the annual excess economic burden of cancer survivorship among recently diagnosed cancer survivors was $16,213 per survivor age 18 to 64 years and $16,441 per survivor age ≥ 65 years. Among previously diagnosed cancer survivors, the annual excess burden was $4,427 per survivor age 18 to 64 years and $4,519 per survivor age ≥ 65 years. Excess medical expenditures composed the largest share of the economic burden among cancer survivors, particularly among those recently diagnosed., Conclusion: The economic impact of cancer survivorship is considerable and is also high years after a cancer diagnosis. Efforts to reduce the economic burden caused by cancer will be increasingly important given the growing population of cancer survivors.

Estimates of the costs associated with cancer care are essential both for assessing burden of disease at the population level and for conducting economic evaluations of interventions to prevent, detect, or treat cancer. Comparisons of cancer costs between health systems and across countries can improve understanding of the economic consequences of different health-care policies and programs. We conducted a structured review of the published literature on colorectal cancer (CRC) costs, including direct medical, direct nonmedical (ie, patient and caregiver time, travel), and productivity losses. We used MEDLINE to identify English language articles published between 2000 and 2010 and found 55 studies. The majority were conducted in the United States (52.7%), followed by France (12.7%), Canada (10.9%), the United Kingdom (9.1%), and other countries (9.1%). Almost 90% of studies estimated direct medical costs, but few studies estimated patient or caregiver time costs or productivity losses associated with CRC. Within a country, we found significant heterogeneity across the studies in populations examined, health-care delivery settings, methods for identifying incident and prevalent patients, types of medical services included, and analyses. Consequently, findings from studies with seemingly the same objective (eg, costs of chemotherapy in year following CRC diagnosis) are difficult to compare. Across countries, aggregate and patient-level estimates vary in so many respects that they are almost impossible to compare. Our findings suggest that valid cost comparisons should be based on studies with explicit standardization of populations, services, measures of costs, and methods with the goal of comparability within or between health systems or countries. Expected increases in CRC prevalence and costs in the future highlight the importance of such studies for informing health-care policy and program planning.

Introduction: The prevalence of cancer survivorship in the USA is expected to increase in the future because the US population is increasing in size and is aging and because survival following diagnosis is improving for many types of cancer. Medical care costs associated with cancer are also projected to increase dramatically. However, currently available data for estimating medical care costs and other important aspects of the burden of cancer, including time spent receiving medical care, productivity loss due to morbidity for patients and their families, and financial hardship, are limited, particularly in the population under the age of 65., Methods: We describe selected publicly available data sources for estimating the burden of cancer in the USA and a new collaborative effort to improve the quality of these data: the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement., Conclusions: Data from this effort can be used to address key gaps in cancer survivorship research related to medical care costs, employment patterns, financial hardship, and other aspects of the burden of illness for cancer survivors and their families., Implications for Cancer Survivors: Research using the MEPS Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement can inform efforts by health care policy makers, healthcare systems, providers, and employers to improve the cancer survivorship experience in the USA.

The economic burden of cancer in the United States is substantial and expected to increase significantly in the future because of expected growth and aging of the population and improvements in survival as well as trends in treatment patterns and costs of care following cancer diagnosis. In this article, we describe measures of the economic burden of cancer and present current estimates and projections of the national burden of cancer in the United States. We discuss ongoing efforts to characterize the economic burden of cancer in the United States and identify key areas for future work including developing and enhancing research resources, improving estimates and projections of economic burden, evaluating targeted therapies, and assessing the financial burden for patients and their families. This work will inform efforts by health care policy makers, health care systems, providers, and employers to improve the cancer survivorship experience in the United States., (©2011 AACR)

Background: Current estimates of the costs of cancer care in the United States are based on data from 2003 and earlier. However, incidence, survival, and practice patterns have been changing for the majority of cancers., Methods: Cancer prevalence was estimated and projected by phase of care (initial year following diagnosis, continuing, and last year of life) and tumor site for 13 cancers in men and 16 cancers in women through 2020. Cancer prevalence was calculated from cancer incidence and survival models estimated from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data. Annualized net costs were estimated from recent SEER-Medicare linkage data, which included claims through 2006 among beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with a cancer diagnosis. Control subjects without cancer were identified from a 5% random sample of all Medicare beneficiaries residing in the SEER areas to adjust for expenditures not related to cancer. All cost estimates were adjusted to 2010 dollars. Different scenarios for assumptions about future trends in incidence, survival, and cost were assessed with sensitivity analysis., Results: Assuming constant incidence, survival, and cost, we projected 13.8 and 18.1 million cancer survivors in 2010 and 2020, respectively, with associated costs of cancer care of 124.57 and 157.77 billion 2010 US dollars. This 27% increase in medical costs reflects US population changes only. The largest increases were in the continuing phase of care for prostate cancer (42%) and female breast cancer (32%). Projections of current trends in incidence (declining) and survival (increasing) had small effects on 2020 estimates. However, if costs of care increase annually by 2% in the initial and last year of life phases of care, the total cost in 2020 is projected to be $173 billion, which represents a 39% increase from 2010., Conclusions: The national cost of cancer care is substantial and expected to increase because of population changes alone. Our findings have implications for policy makers in planning and allocation of resources.

Objective: To develop an inventory of data sources for estimating health care costs in the United States and provide information to aid researchers in identifying appropriate data sources for their specific research questions., Methods: We identified data sources for estimating health care costs using 3 approaches: (1) a review of the 18 articles included in this supplement, (2) an evaluation of websites of federal government agencies, non profit foundations, and related societies that support health care research or provide health care services, and (3) a systematic review of the recently published literature. Descriptive information was abstracted from each data source, including sponsor, website, lowest level of data aggregation, type of data source, population included, cross-sectional or longitudinal data capture, source of diagnosis information, and cost of obtaining the data source. Details about the cost elements available in each data source were also abstracted., Results: We identified 88 data sources that can be used to estimate health care costs in the United States. Most data sources were sponsored by government agencies, national or nationally representative, and cross-sectional. About 40% were surveys, followed by administrative or linked administrative data, fee or cost schedules, discharges, and other types of data. Diagnosis information was available in most data sources through procedure or diagnosis codes, self-report, registry, or chart review. Cost elements included inpatient hospitalizations (42.0%), physician and other outpatient services (45.5%), outpatient pharmacy or laboratory (28.4%), out-of-pocket (22.7%), patient time and other direct nonmedical costs (35.2%), and wages (13.6%). About half were freely available for downloading or available for a nominal fee, and the cost of obtaining the remaining data sources varied by the scope of the project., Conclusions: Available data sources vary in population included, type of data source, scope, and accessibility, and have different strengths and weaknesses for specific research questions.

Background: National prevalence costs of medical care can be key inputs in health policy decisions. Cost estimates vary across data sources, patient populations, and methods, however, the objective of this study was to compare 3 approaches for estimating the prevalence costs of colorectal cancer (CRC) care using different data sources, but similar patient populations and methods., Methods: We identified prevalent CRC patients aged 65 and older from: (1) linked Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry-Medicare data, (2) Medicare claims only, and (3) the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Controls were matched by sex, age-group, and geographic location. Mean per person total and net costs, measured as the difference between patients and controls, were compared for each approach during a similar observation period. The SEER-Medicare approach was our reference, and we evaluated the impact of patient selection criteria with sensitivity analyses. Aggregate prevalence estimates were also compared., Results: We found considerable variability across the different approaches to estimating prevalence costs of CRC. Mean net annual per person estimates in the SEER-Medicare reference were $5341 (95% CI: $5243, $5439), compared with $8736 (95% CI: $8203, $9269) for the Medicare claims only and $11,614 (95% CI: $7566, $15,663) for the MEPS. Aggregate national estimates of net prevalence costs of CRC in 2004 ranged from $4524 million, using the SEER-Medicare approach, to $9629 million, using the MEPS approach. Estimates varied by data source based on the payors included and identification of prevalent CRC patients., Conclusions: CRC prevalence cost estimates vary substantially depending on the data sources. Our findings have implications for estimating prevalence costs for other cancers and other diseases without registry systems that can be used to identify newly diagnosed individuals as well as those diagnosed less recently.

Background: Estimates of the costs of medical care vary across patient populations, data sources, and methods. The objective of this study was to compare 3 approaches for estimating the incidence costs of colorectal cancer (CRC) care using similar patient populations, but different data sources and methods., Methods: We used 2 data sources, linked SEER-Medicare and Medicare claims alone, to identify newly diagnosed CRC patients aged 65 and older and estimated their healthcare costs during the observation period, 1998 to 2002. Controls were matched by sex, age-group, and geographic location. We compared mean net costs, measured as the difference in total cost between cases and controls, for: (1) a SEER-Medicare cohort, (2) a Medicare claims alone cohort, and (3) a modeled phase of care approach using linked SEER-Medicare data. The SEER-Medicare cohort approach was considered the reference., Results: We found considerable variability across approaches for estimating net costs of care in CRC patients. In the first year after diagnosis, mean net costs were $32,648 (95% CI: $31,826 and $33,470) in the SEER-Medicare cohort. The other approaches understated mean net costs in year 1 by about 16%. Mean net 5-year costs of care were $37,227 (95% CI: $35,711 and $38,744) in the SEER-Medicare cohort, and $30,310 (95% CI: $25,894 and $34,726) in the claims only approach, with the largest difference in the 65 to 69 age group. Mean net 5-year costs of care were more similar to the reference in the modeled phase of care approach ($37,701 [range: $36,972 and $38,446]). Differences from the SEER-Medicare cohort estimates reflect misclassification of prevalent cancer patients as newly diagnosed patients in the Medicare claims only approach, and differences in years of data and assumptions about comparison groups in the modeled phase of care approach., Conclusions: CRC incidence cost estimates vary substantially depending on the strategy and data source for identifying newly diagnosed cancer patients and methods for estimating longitudinal costs. Our findings may inform estimation of costs for other cancers as well as other diseases.

Because of aging trends in the US, the number of prevalent colorectal cancer patients is expected to increase. We projected economic burden to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries through the year 2020. Burden was estimated for the initial phase of care, the period following diagnosis, the last year of life, and the continuing phase. Projected burden was evaluated with varying assumptions about incidence, survival, and costs of care. Estimated costs of care in 2000 in the initial, continuing, and last year of life phases of care were approximately $3.18 billion, $1.68 billion, and $2.63 billion, respectively. By the year 2020 under the 'fixed' current incidence, survival, and cost scenario, projected costs for the initial, continuing, and last year of life phases were $4.75 billion, $2.63 billion, and $4.05 billion. Under the current trends scenario (decreasing incidence, improving survival, and increasing costs), costs were $5.19 billion, $3.57 billion, and $5.27 billion. By the year 2020, estimated costs of colorectal cancer care among individuals aged 65 and older increased by 53% in the fixed scenario and by 89% in the current trends scenario. The future economic burden of colorectal cancer to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries in the US will be substantial., (Published in 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Despite reports of increases in the cost of cancer treatment, little is known about how costs of cancer treatment have changed over time and what services have contributed to the increases., Methods: We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database for 306,709 persons aged 65 and older and diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer between 1991 and 2002 to assess the number of patients assigned to initial cancer care, from 2 months before diagnosis to 12 months after diagnosis, and mean annual Medicare payments for this care according to cancer type and type of treatment. Mutually exclusive treatment categories were cancer-related surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and other hospitalizations during the period of initial cancer care. Linear regression models were used to assess temporal trends in the percentage of patients receiving treatment and costs for those treated. We extrapolated our results based on the SEER data to the US Medicare population to estimate national Medicare payments by cancer site and treatment category. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: For patients diagnosed in 2002, Medicare paid an average of $39,891 for initial care for each lung cancer patient, $41 134 for each colorectal cancer patient, and $20,964 for each breast cancer patient, corresponding to inflation-adjusted increases from 1991 of $7139, $5345, and $4189, respectively. During the same interval, the mean Medicare payment for initial care for prostate cancer declined by $196 to $18261 in 2002. Costs for any hospitalization accounted for the largest portion of payments for all cancers. Chemotherapy use increased markedly for all cancers between 1991 and 2002, as did radiation therapy use (except for colorectal cancers). Total 2002 Medicare payments for initial care for these four cancers exceeded $6.7 billion, with colorectal and lung cancers being the most costly overall., Conclusions: The statistically significant increase in costs of initial cancer treatment reflects more patients receiving surgery and adjuvant therapy and rising prices for these treatments. These trends are likely to continue in the near future, although more efficient targeting of costly therapies could mitigate the overall economic impact of this trend.

Background: Timely estimates of the costs of care for cancer patients are an important element in the formulation of national cancer programs and policies. We estimated net costs of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States for the 18 most prevalent cancers and for all other tumor sites combined., Methods: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare files to identify 718,907 cancer patients and 1,623,651 noncancer control subjects. Within each tumor site, noncancer control subjects were matched to patients by sex, age group, geographic location, and phase of care (ie, initial, continuing, and last year of life). Costs of care were estimated for each phase by use of Medicare claims data from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2003. Per-patient net costs of care were applied to the 5-year survival of cancer patients by phase of care to estimate 5-year costs of care and extrapolated to the elderly US Medicare population diagnosed with cancer in 2004., Results: Across tumor sites, mean net costs of care were highest in the initial and last year of life phases of care and lowest in the continuing phase. Mean 5-year net costs varied widely, from less than $20,000 for patients with breast cancer or melanoma of the skin to more than $40,000 for patients with brain or other nervous system, esophageal, gastric, or ovarian cancers or lymphoma. For elderly cancer patients diagnosed in 2004, aggregate 5-year net costs of care to Medicare were estimated to be approximately $21.1 billion. Costs to Medicare were highest for lung, colorectal, and prostate cancers, reflecting underlying incidence, stage distribution at diagnosis, survival, and phase-specific costs for these tumor sites., Conclusions: The costs of cancer care to Medicare are substantial and vary by tumor site, phase of care, stage at diagnosis, and survival.

Although many studies assessing the cost of cancer care have been conducted in the US, to date, these studies and the underlying methods used to estimate costs have not been reviewed systematically. We conducted a descriptive review of the published literature on the cost of cancer care in the US, and identified 60 papers published between 1995 and 2006 pertinent to our study. We found heterogeneity across the studies in terms of the settings, populations studied, measurement of costs, and study methods. We also identified limitations in the generalizability of findings, the misclassification of patient groups and costs, and concerns with study methods. Among studies that reported costs of cancer care in multiple phases of care and for multiple tumor sites, costs were generally highest in the initial year following diagnosis and the last year of life, and lower in the continuing phase (i.e. the period between the initial and last year of life phases), following a 'u-shaped' curve. Within phase of care, costs for lung and colorectal cancer care were generally higher than those for breast and prostate cancer care, however, the long-term or lifetime costs for each type of cancer were more similar, reflecting the differences in survival and costs in each phase between the different disease types.

Background: Recent advancements in the clinical management of metastatic prostate cancer include several costly therapies and diagnostic tests. The objective of this study was to provide updated information on the cost to payers attributable to metastatic prostate cancer among men aged 18 to 64 years with employer‐sponsored health plans and men aged 18 years or older covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement insurance. Methods: By using Merative MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental data for 2009–2019, the authors calculated differences in spending between men with metastatic prostate cancer and their matched, prostate cancer‐free controls, adjusting for age, enrollment length, comorbidities, and inflation to 2019 US dollars. Results: The authors compared 9011 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by commercial insurance plans with a group of 44,934 matched controls and also compared 17,899 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement plans with a group of 87,884 matched controls. The mean age of patients with metastatic prostate cancer was 58.5 years in the commercial samples and 77.8 years in the Medicare supplement samples. Annual spending attributable to metastatic prostate cancer was $55,949 per person‐year (95% confidence interval [CI], $54,074–$57,825 per person‐year) in the commercial population and $43,682 per person‐year (95% CI, $42,022–$45,342 per person‐year) in the population covered by Medicare supplement plans, both in 2019 US dollars. Conclusions: The cost burden attributable to metastatic prostate cancer exceeds $55,000 per person‐year among men with employer‐sponsored health insurance and $43,000 among those covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement plans. These estimates can improve the precision of value assessments of clinical and policy approaches to the prevention, screening, and treatment of prostate cancer in the United States. Annual spending attributable to metastatic prostate cancer was $55,949 per person‐year in the population covered by commercial insurance and $43,682 in the population covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement plans, both in 2019 US dollars. These estimates can improve the precision of value assessments of clinical and policy approaches to the prevention, screening, and treatment of prostate cancer in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]