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. The authors examined patient–provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma—cancers with high‐cost treatment options. Cost discussions were infrequently documented, which may hinder identifying patient cost barriers to care and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis among men in the United States and the prevalence of prostate cancer survivors is growing. Cancer treatment and lasting or late effects of disease and treatment can adversely affect financial health, psychosocial well-being, and health-related quality of life for prostate cancer survivors, even many years after cancer diagnosis and treatment. These outcomes are important, especially because most men live for many years following a prostate cancer diagnosis. In this essay, we describe health care spending associated with prostate cancer, including patient out-of-pocket costs, and summarize research examining medical financial hardship and associations of financial hardship and psychosocial well-being and health-related quality of life among cancer survivors. We then discuss implications for health care delivery and opportunities to mitigate financial hardship for patients with prostate cancer and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We estimated trends in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs around the first year of diagnosis for privately insured nonelderly adult cancer patients.Methods: We constructed incident cohorts of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2016 using claims data from the Health Care Cost Institute. We identified cancer-related surgery, intravenous (IV) systemic therapy, and radiation and calculated associated total and OOP costs (in 2020 US dollars). We assessed trends in health-care utilization and cost by cancer site with logistic regressions and generalized linear models, respectively.Results: The cohorts included 105 255 breast, 23 571 colorectal, 11 321 lung, and 59 197 prostate cancer patients. For patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2016, total mean costs per patient increased from $109 544 to $140 732 for breast (29%), $151 751 to $168 730 for lung (11%) or $53 300 to $55 497 for prostate (4%) cancer were statistically significant. Increase for colorectal cancer (1%, $136 652 to $137 663) was not statistically significant (P = .09). OOP costs increased to more than 15% for all cancers, including colorectal, to more than $6000 by 2016. Use of IV systemic therapy and radiation statistically significantly increased, except for lung cancer. Cancer surgeries statistically significantly increased for breast and colorectal cancer but decreased for prostate cancer (P < .001). Total costs increased statistically significantly for nearly all treatment modalities, except for IV systemic therapy in colorectal and radiation in prostate cancer.Conclusions: Rising costs of cancer treatments, compounded with greater cost sharing, increased OOP costs for privately insured, nonelderly cancer patients. Policy initiatives to mitigate financial hardship should consider cost containment as well as insurance reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obesity is associated with a substantial health and economic burden in the general population in the United States. This study estimates the excess health care utilization and medical spending associated with overweight and obesity among long‐term cancer survivors. Methods: Long‐term cancer survivors (≥2 years after their diagnosis) aged ≥18 years (N = 12,547) were identified from the nationally representative 2008‐2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. A 2‐part modeling approach was used to calculate the average annual care utilization and spending by service type. Excess care utilization and spending associated with overweight (25 kg/m2 ≤ body mass index [BMI] < 30 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), and severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2), in comparison with normal weight (18.5 kg/m2 ≤ BMI < 25 kg/m2), were estimated. Results: Compared with normal‐weight cancer survivors, overweight survivors had comparable care utilization and medical spending; survivors with obesity had an additional $3216 (95% CI, $1940‐$4492) of medical spending, including $1243 (95% CI, $417‐$2070) on hospital inpatient services and $1130 (95% CI, $756‐$1504) on prescriptions per person per year. The excess annual medical spending associated with obesity among long‐term cancer survivors translated to $19.7 billion in 2016 in the United States. The excess medical spending was magnified in cancer survivors with severe obesity ($5317 [95% CI, $2849‐$7785], which translated to $6.7 billion in 2016). Excess care utilization and medical spending were mostly explained by comorbid conditions related to obesity. Conclusions: For long‐term cancer survivors, obesity was associated with increased health care utilization and substantial excess medical spending. This suggests that policies and practices promoting a healthy lifestyle and achieving and maintaining a healthy body weight for cancer survivors may reduce their health care utilization and economic burden. Long‐term cancer survivors with obesity had $3216 of excess medical spending per person per year in comparison with normal‐weight survivors, and this translated into nearly $20 billion annually nationally in 2016 US dollars. Maintaining a healthy body weight for cancer survivors may reduce their health care utilization and economic burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries provide annual information about cancer occurrence and trends in the United States. Part 1 of this annual report focuses on national cancer statistics. This study is part 2, which quantifies patient economic burden associated with cancer care.Methods: We used complementary data sources, linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to develop comprehensive estimates of patient economic burden, including out-of-pocket and patient time costs, associated with cancer care. The 2000-2013 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data were used to estimate net patient out-of-pocket costs among adults aged 65 years and older for the initial, continuing, and end-of-life phases of care for all cancer sites combined and separately for the 21 most common cancer sites. The 2008-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data were used to calculate out-of-pocket costs and time costs associated with cancer among adults aged 18-64 years and 65 years and older.Results: Across all cancer sites, annualized net out-of-pocket costs for medical services and prescriptions drugs covered through a pharmacy benefit among adults aged 65 years and older were highest in the initial ($2200 and $243, respectively) and end-of-life phases ($3823 and $448, respectively) and lowest in the continuing phase ($466 and $127, respectively), with substantial variation by cancer site. Out-of-pocket costs were generally higher for patients diagnosed with later-stage disease. Net annual time costs associated with cancer were $304.3 (95% confidence interval = $257.9 to $350.9) and $279.1 (95% confidence interval = $215.1 to $343.3) for adults aged 18-64 years and ≥65 years, respectively, with higher time costs among more recently diagnosed survivors. National patient economic burden, including out-of-pocket and time costs, associated with cancer care was projected to be $21.1 billion in 2019.Conclusions: This comprehensive study found that the patient economic burden associated with cancer care is substantial in the United States at the national and patient levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Health insurance is associated with better care in the U.S., but little is known about the associations of coverage disruptions (i.e., periods without insurance) with care access, receipt, and affordability.Methods: Adults aged 18-64 years with current private (n=124,746), public (n=30,932), or no (n=31,802) insurance coverage were identified from the 2011-2018 National Health Interview Survey. Data were analyzed in 2020. Separate multivariable logistic regressions evaluated the associations of having coverage disruptions or being uninsured with care access, receipt, and affordability.Results: Overall, 5.0% of currently insured adults with private and 10.7% with public insurance reported a coverage disruption in the previous year, representing nearly 9.1 million adults in 2018. Among currently uninsured, 24.9% reported coverage loss within the previous year, representing nearly 8.1 million adults in 2018. Among adults with current private or current public coverage, disruptions were associated with lower receipt of all preventive services (AOR=0.42, 95% CI=0.37, 0.46 and AOR=0.48, 95% CI=0.40, 0.58, respectively), with forgoing any needed care because of cost (AOR=4.79, 95% CI=4.44, 5.17 and AOR=4.28, 95% CI=3.86, 4.75), and with medication nonadherence because of cost (AOR=3.55, 95% CI=3.13, 4.03 and AOR=4.09, 95% CI=3.43, 4.88) compared with that among adults with continuous coverage (p<0.05). Longer disruptions among currently insured adults were significantly associated with worse care access, receipt, and affordability, with dose-response patterns. Currently uninsured adults, especially those with longer uninsured periods, reported significantly worse care access, receipt, and affordability than currently insured adults with coverage disruptions or continuous coverage.Conclusions: Findings highlight the importance of continuous insurance coverage; disruptions owing to the COVID-19 pandemic will likely have adverse consequences for care access and affordability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The disruption to patient and family well-being introduced by the rising costs of cancer care is a growing clinical problem. In addition to logistical questions, there is a compelling, existential one: "How should healthcare teams address patient and caregiver distress and uncertainty from financial toxicity?" We argue that the principles and practice of palliative care can help alleviate this element and often unaddressed component of human suffering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: End-of-life (EOL) cancer care is costly, with challenges regarding intensity and place of care. We described EOL care and costs for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States and the province of Ontario, Canada, to inform better care delivery. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with CRC from 2007 to 2013, who died of any cancer from 2007 to 2013 at age ≥ 66 years, were selected from the US SEER cancer registries linked to Medicare claims (n = 16,565) and the Ontario Cancer Registry linked to administrative health data (n = 6,587). We estimated total and resource-specific costs (2015 US dollars) from public payer perspectives over the last 360 days of life by 30-day periods, by stage at diagnosis (0-II, III, IV). RESULTS: In all months, especially 30 days before death, higher percentages of SEER-Medicare than Ontario patients received chemotherapy (15.7% v 8.0%), and imaging tests (39.4% v 31.1%). A higher percentage of Ontario patients were hospitalized (62.5% v 51.0%), but 43.2% of hospitalized SEER-Medicare patients had intensive care unit (ICU) admissions versus 17.9% of hospitalized Ontario patients. Cost differences between cohorts were greater for patients with stage IV disease. In the last 30 days, mean total costs for patients with stage IV disease were $15,881 (SEER-Medicare) and $12,034 (Ontario) versus $19,354 and $17,312 for stage 0-II. Hospitalization costs were higher for SEER-Medicare patients ($11,180 v $9,434), with lower daily hospital costs in Ontario ($1,067 v $2,004). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest opportunities for reducing chemotherapy and ICU use in the United States and hospitalizations in Ontario. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High patient out-of-pocket (OOP) spending for medical care is associated with medical debt, distress about household finances, and forgoing medical care because of cost in the USA.Objective: To examine the national prevalence of medical financial hardship domains: (1) material conditions from increased OOP expenses (e.g., medical debt), (2) psychological responses (e.g., distress), and (3) coping behaviors (e.g., forgoing care); and factors associated with financial hardship.Design and Participants: We identified adults aged 18-64 years (N = 68,828) and ≥ 65 years (N = 24,614) from the 2015-2017 National Health Interview Survey. Multivariable analyses of nationally representative cross-sectional survey data were stratified by age group, 18-64 years and ≥ 65 years.Main Measures: Prevalence of material, psychological, and behavioral hardship and hardship intensity.Key Results: Approximately 137.1 million (95% CI 132.7-141.5) adults reported any medical financial hardship in the past year. Hardship is more common for material, psychological and behavioral domains in adults aged 18-64 years (28.9%, 46.9%, and 21.2%, respectively) than in adults aged ≥ 65 years (15.3%, 28.4%, and 12.7%, respectively; all p < .001). Lower educational attainment and more health conditions were strongly associated with hardship intensity in multivariable analyses in both age groups (p < .001). In the younger group, the uninsured were more likely to report multiple domains of hardship (52.8%), compared to those with some public (26.5%) or private insurance (23.2%) (p < .001). In the older group, individuals with Medicare only were more likely to report hardship in multiple domains (17.1%) compared to those with Medicare and public (12.1%) or Medicare and private coverage (10.1%) (p < .001).Conclusions: Medical financial hardship is common in the USA, especially in adults aged 18-64 years and those without health insurance coverage. With trends towards higher patient cost-sharing and increasing health care costs, risks of hardship may increase in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Poor prescription drug adherence is common, jeopardizing the benefits of treatment and increasing the costs of health care in the United States. A frequently reported barrier to adherence is patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Areas Covered: This systematic review examines interventions that address patient cost-sharing to improve adherence to prescription drugs and reduce costs of care. Twenty-eight published studies were identified with 22 distinct interventions. Most papers were published in or after 2010, and nearly a third were published after 2014. Expert Opinion: Many of the interventions were associated with improved adherence compared to controls, but effects were modest and varied across drug classes. In some studies, adherence remained stable in the intervention group, but declined in the control group. Patient OOP costs generally declined following the intervention, usually as a direct result of the financial structure of the intervention, such as elimination of copayments, and costs to health plans for prescription drugs increased accordingly. For those studies that reported drug and nondrug costs, lower health plan nondrug medical spending generally compensated for increased spending on prescription drugs. With increasing health-care spending, especially for prescription drugs, efforts to improve prescription drug adherence in the United States are important. Federal policies regarding prescription drug prices may have an impact on cost-related nonadherence, but the content and timing of any policies are hard to predict. As such, employers and health plans will face greater pressure to explore innovative approaches to lowering costs and increasing access for beneficiaries. Value-based financial incentive models have the potential to be a part of this effort; research should continue to evaluate their effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With rising cancer care costs, including high-priced cancer drugs, financial hardship is increasingly documented among cancer survivors in the United States; research findings have not been synthesized.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of articles published between 1990 and 2015 describing the financial hardship experienced by cancer survivors using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. We categorized measures of financial hardship into: material conditions (eg, out-of-pocket costs, productivity loss, medical debt, or bankruptcy), psychological responses (eg, distress or worry), and coping behaviors (eg, skipped medications). We abstracted findings and conducted a qualitative synthesis.Results: Among 676 studies identified, 45 met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated in the review. The majority of the studies (82%, n = 37) reported financial hardship as a material condition measure; others reported psychological (7%, n = 3) and behavioral measures (16%, n = 7). Financial hardship measures were heterogeneous within each broad category, and the prevalence of financial hardship varied by the measure used and population studied. Mean annual productivity loss ranged from $380 to $8236, 12% to 62% of survivors reported being in debt because of their treatment, 47% to 49% of survivors reported experiencing some form of financial distress, and 4% to 45% of survivors did not adhere to recommended prescription medication because of cost.Conclusions: Financial hardship is common among cancer survivors, although we found substantial heterogeneity in its prevalence. Our findings highlight the need for consistent use of definitions, terms, and measures to determine the best intervention targets and inform intervention development in order to prevent and minimize the impact of financial hardship experienced by cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Cancer survivors require appropriate health care to manage their unique health needs. This study describes access to cancer care among cancer survivors in the United States and compares access to general medical care between cancer survivors and people who have no history of cancer. Methods: We assessed access to general medical care using the core 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). We assessed access to cancer care using the MEPS Experiences With Cancer Survey. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare access to general medical care among 2 groups of cancer survivors (those who reported having access to all necessary cancer care [n = 1088] and those who did not [n = 70]) with self-reported access to general medical care among people who had no history of cancer (n = 22434). Results: Of the 1158 cancer survivors, 70 (6.0%) reported that they did not receive all necessary cancer care. Adjusted analyses found that cancer survivors who reported not receiving all necessary cancer care were also less likely to report receiving general medical care (78.0%) than cancer survivors who reported having access to necessary cancer care (87.1 %) and people who had no history of cancer (87.8%). Conclusions: This study provides nationally representative data on the proportion of cancer survivors who have access to necessary cancer care and yields insight into factors that impede survivors' access to both cancer care and general medical care. This study is a reference for future work on access to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is increasing concern regarding the financial burden of cancer on patients and their families. This study presents nationally representative estimates of annual out-of-pocket (OOP) burden among non-elderly cancer survivors and assesses the association between high OOP burden and access to care and preventive service utilization.Methods: Using the 2008-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 4,271 cancer survivors and 96,780 individuals without a history of cancer were identified, all aged 18-64 years. High annual OOP burden was defined as spending >20% of annual family income on OOP healthcare costs. Associations between high OOP burden and access to care were evaluated with multivariable logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2015.Results: Compared with individuals without a cancer history, cancer survivors were more likely to report a high OOP burden (4.3% vs 3.4%, p=0.009) in adjusted analyses. High OOP burden was more common among cancer survivors who were poor (18.4%), with either public insurance (7.9%) or uninsured (5.7%), and not working (10.2%). Among cancer survivors, high OOP burden was associated with being unable to obtain necessary medical care (19.2% vs 12.5%, p=0.002), delaying necessary medical care (21.6% vs 13.8%, p=0.002), and lower breast cancer screening rates among age-appropriate women (63.2% vs 75.9%, p=0.02).Conclusions: High OOP burden is more common among adults with a cancer history than those without a cancer history. High OOP burden was associated with being unable to obtain necessary medical care, delaying necessary medical care, and lower breast cancer screening rates among women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patterns of end-of-life cancer care differ in Canada and the United States; yet little is known about differences in service-specific and overall costs. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare end-of-life costs in Ontario, Canada, and the United States, using administrative health data. Design: Advanced-stage nonsmall cell lung cancer patients who died from cancer at age ⩾65.5 years in 2001–2005 were selected from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare database (N = 16,858) and the Ontario Cancer Registry (N = 8643). We estimated total and service-specific costs (2009 US dollars) in each of the last 6 months of life from the public payer perspectives for short-term and long-term survivors (lived <180 and ⩾180 days post-diagnosis, respectively). Services were defined for comparisons between systems. Results: Mean monthly costs increased as death approached, were higher in short-term than long-term survivors, and were generally higher in the United States than in Ontario until the month before death, when they were similar (long-term survivors: US$10,464 and US$10,094 (p = 0.53), short-term survivors US$14,455 and US$12,836 (p = 0.11), in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare and Ontario, respectively). Costs for Medicare hospice and Ontario’s palliative care components were similar and increased closer to death. Inpatient hospitalization was the main cost driver with similar costs in both cohorts, despite lower utilization in the United States. The compositions of many services and costs differed. Conclusion: Costs for nonsmall cell lung cancer patients were slightly higher in the United States than Ontario until 1 month before death. Administrative data allow exploration and international comparisons of reimbursement policies, health-care delivery, and costs at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer recurrence and disease-free survival are key outcomes for measuring the burden of illness, assessing the quality of cancer care, and informing decisions about increasingly costly cancer therapies. Yet information about recurrence is not collected in cancer registries or other population-based data sources. To address the lack of population-based recurrence information, researchers are increasingly using algorithms applied to health claims to infer recurrence. However, the validity of these approaches has not been comprehensively evaluated. In this commentary, we review existing studies and discuss options for improving the availability of recurrence data. We found that the validity of claims-based approaches appears promising in small, single institution studies, but larger population-based studies have identified substantial limitations with using claims to identify recurrence. With the increasing availability of health data, there are potential options that can be implemented to enhance information about recurrence. These options include design of software for the electronic medical record that enables rapid and standardized reporting of recurrence, use of electronic pathology reports to facilitate streamlined collection of recurrence by cancer registries, and mandates by insurers to require reporting of recurrence on health claims submitted by physicians. All of these options will require that governmental agencies, health insurers, professional societies, and other groups recognize the importance of population-based recurrence data and determine that this information is a priority for assessing cancer outcomes and costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which examined the annual medical costs and productivity losses incurred by cancer survivors in the U.S. in 2008-2011. In the study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other groups studied data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) that was sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Based on the study, private health insurance was the biggest source of payment, followed by Medicare.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Financial problems caused by cancer and its treatment can substantially affect survivors and their families and create barriers to seeking health care. METHODS: The authors Identified cancer survivors diagnosed as adults (n = 1556) from the nationally representative 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, the authors report sociodemo-graphic, clinical, and treatment-related factors associated with perceived cancer-related financial problems and the association between financial problems and forgoing or delaying health care because of cost. Adjusted percentages using the predictive margin-als method are presented. RESULTS: Cancer-related financial problems were reported by 31.8% (95% confidence interval, 29.3%-34.5%) of survivors. Factors found to be significantly associated with cancer-related financial problems in survivors included younger age at diagnosis, minority race/ethniclty, history of chemotherapy or radiation treatment, recurrence or multiple cancers, and shorter time from diagnosis. After adjustment for covariates, respondents who reported financial problems were more likely to report delay-ing (18.3% vs 7.4%) or forgoing overall medical care (13.8% vs 5.0%), prescription medications (14.2% vs 7.6%), dental care (19.8% vs 8.3%), eyeglasses (13.9% vs 5.8%), and mental health care (3.9% vs 1.6%) than their counterparts without financial problems (all PC.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer-related financial problems are not only disproportionately represented in survivors who are younger, members of a minority group, and have a higher treatment burden, but may also contribute to survivors forgoing or delaying medical care after cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Medicare spending varies substantially across the United States. We evaluated the association between mean regional spending and survival in advanced cancer. Methods We identified 116 523 subjects with advanced cancer from 2002 to 2007, using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked data. Subjects were aged 65 years and older with non–small cell lung, colon, breast, prostate, or pancreas cancer. Of these subjects, 61 083 had incident advanced-stage cancer (incident cohort) and 98 935 had death from cancer (decedent cohort); 37% of subjects were included in both cohorts. Subjects were linked to one of 80 hospital referral regions within SEER areas. We estimated mean regional spending in both cohorts. We assessed the primary outcome, survival, in the incident cohort; the exposure measure was the quintile of regional spending in the decedent cohort. Survival in quintiles 2 through 5 was compared with that in quintile 1 (lowest spending quintile) using Cox regression models. Results From quintile 1 to 5, mean regional spending increased by 32% and 41% in the incident and decedent cohorts (incident cohort: $28 854 to $37 971; decedent cohort: $27 446 to $38 630). The association between spending and survival varied by cancer site and quintile; hazard ratios ranged from 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 1.04, pancreas cancer quintile 5) to 1.24 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.39, breast cancer quintile 3). In most cases, differences in survival between quintile 1 and quintiles 2 through 5 were not statistically significant. Conclusion There is substantial regional variation in Medicare spending for advanced cancer, yet no consistent association between mean regional spending and survival. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the minimization of the financial toxicity of associated with cancer care.

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 306709 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 $39891 for initial care for each lung cancer patient, $41 134 for each colorectal cancer patient, and $20964 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 718907 cancer patients and 1623651 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 $20000 for patients with breast cancer or melanoma of the skin to more than $40000 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Although costs of medical care for cancer have been investigated extensively, patient time costs associated with cancer care have rarely been estimated systematically. In this study, we estimated patient time costs associated with cancer care in patients aged 65 years and older in the United States. Methods We identified 763527 patients with breast, colorectal, corpus uteri, gastric, head and neck, lung, melanoma of the skin, ovary, prostate, renal, and urinary bladder cancers from linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare files and 1145159 noncancer control subjects among Medicare enrollees who were matched by sex, age-group, and geographic location. Frequency of service use was calculated by category for patients and control subjects using Medicare claims data from 1995 to 2001. For each service category, time estimates were combined with service frequency and an hourly value of patient time. Net patient time costs were summed in the initial, continuing, and last-year-of-life phases of care for each tumor site. Net time cost estimates for the initial phase of care were applied to national estimates of numbers of new cancers in 2005 to obtain national time costs for the initial phase of care. Results Net patient time costs during the initial phase of care ranged from $271 (95% confidence interval [CI] = $213 to $329) and $842 (95% CI = $806 to $878) for melanoma of the skin and prostate cancer, respectively, to $5348 (95% CI = $4978 to $5718) and $5605 (95% CI = $5273 to $5937) for gastric and ovarian cancers, respectively. Net patient time costs for care during the last year of life ranged from $1509 (95% CI = $1343 to $1675) for melanoma of the skin to $7799 (95% CI = $7433 to $8165), $7435 (95% CI = $7207 to $7663), and $7388 (95% CI = $7018 to $7758) for gastric, lung, and ovarian cancers, respectively. In 2005, patient time costs for the initial phase of care were $2.3 billion. Conclusions Patient time costs for cancer care in the United States are substantial and vary by tumor site and phase of care, likely reflecting differences in stage at diagnosis and availability and intensity of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the costs of medical resource use associated with complications of intravenous (IV) drug therapy. List of IV complications; Links to the incidence of IV complications; Estimates of medical resource utilization and costs associated with complications of IV therapy; Economic impact of IV complications; Demographic and insurance characteristics of the subjects experiencing IV complications.

The article explores the financial burden of the prevention and treatment of cancer. Evidence shows the increasing financial burden of cancer on health-care systems, patients and their families, and society overall. A study examined out-of-pocket expenditures during the treatment of women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer in Quebec. The impact of increasing medical care costs on cancer patients without health insurance is also discussed.

The authors comment on a study which compared the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab monotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer patients who participated in the National Cancer Institute of Canada trial CO.17. The results indicate that extrapolation of trial-based estimates to the general population requires considering the cost of KRAS mutation testing and would likely lead to even higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for cetuximab therapy.

A response by K. Robin Yabroff and colleagues to a letter to the editor about the article "Cost of Care for the Elderly Cancer Patients in the United States," is presented.

Objectives: In January 2014, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) preexisting condition protections prohibited coverage denials, premium increases, and claim denials on the basis of preexisting conditions. This study aimed to examine changes in coverage and premiums and out-of-pocket spending after the implementation of the preexisting condition protections under the ACA.Methods: We identified adults aged 18 to 64 years with (n = 59 041) and without preexisting conditions (n = 61 970) from the 2011-2013 and 2015-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We used a difference-in-differences and a difference-in-difference-in-differences approach to assess the associations of preexisting condition protections and changes in insurance coverage, premium contributions, and out-of-pocket spending after the ACA. Simple and multivariable logistic or multivariable 2-part models were fitted for the full sample and stratified by family income (low ≤138% federal poverty level [FPL]; middle 139%-400% FPL; and high > 400 FPL).Results: The ACA increased nongroup insurance coverage to a similar extent for individuals with or without preexisting conditions at all income levels. Decreases in premium contributions were observed to a similar extent among families with nongroup private coverage regardless of declinable preexisting condition status, whereas no significant changes were observed among families with group coverage. We found greater decreases in out-of-pocket spending for individuals with preexisting conditions than those without conditions among both individuals covered by nongroup and group insurance, and a greater difference was observed among those covered by nongroup insurance (difference-in-difference-in-differences -$279; 95% confidence interval -$528 to -$29).Conclusions: The ACA protections were associated with decreases in out-of-pocket spending among adults with preexisting conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between cancer history and cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN) as well as cost-coping strategies, by health insurance coverage.Methods: We used the 2013 to 2016 National Health Interview Survey to identify adults aged 18 to 64 years with (n = 3599) and without (n = 56 909) a cancer history. Cost-related changes in medication use included (1) CRN, measured as skipping, taking less, or delaying medication because of cost, and (2) cost-coping strategies, measured as requesting lower cost medication or using alternative therapies to save money. Separate multivariable logistic regressions were used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of CRN and cost-coping strategies associated with cancer history, stratified by insurance.Results: Cancer survivors were more likely than adults without a cancer history to report CRN (AOR 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.43) and cost-coping strategies (AOR 1.10; 95% CI 0.99-1.19). Among the privately insured, the difference in CRN by cancer history was the greatest among those enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) without health savings accounts (HSAs) (AOR 1.78; 95% CI 1.30-2.44). Among adults with HDHP and HSA, cancer survivors were less likely to report cost-coping strategies (AOR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.90). Regardless of cancer history, CRN and cost-coping strategies were the highest for those uninsured, enrolled in HDHP without HSA, and without prescription drug coverage under their health plan (all P<.001).Conclusions: Cancer survivors are prone to CRN and more likely to use cost-coping strategies. Expanding options for health insurance coverage, use of HSAs for those with HDHP, and enhanced prescription drug coverage may effectively address CRN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Skin cancer, the most common cancer in the U.S., is a major public health problem. The incidence of nonmelanoma and melanoma skin cancer is increasing; however, little is known about the economic burden of treatment. Purpose: To examine trends in the treated prevalence and treatment costs of nonmelanoma and melanoma skin cancers. Methods: This study used data on adults from the 2002-2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey full-year consolidated files and information from corresponding medical conditions and medical event files to estimate the treated prevalence and treatment cost of nonmelanoma skin cancer, melanoma skin cancer, and all other cancer sites. Analyses were conducted in January 2014. Results: The average annual number of adults treated for skin cancer increased from 3.4 million in 2002-2006 to 4.9 million in 2007-2011 (p<0.001). During this period, the average annual total cost for skin cancer increased from $3.6 billion to $8.1 billion (p=0.001), representing an increase of 126.2%, while the average annual total cost for all other cancers increased by 25.1%. During 2007-2011, nearly 5 million adults were treated for skin cancer annually, with average treatment costs of $8.1 billion each year. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that the health and economic burden of skin cancer treatment is substantial and increasing. Such findings highlight the importance of skin cancer prevention efforts, which may result in future savings to the healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]