Out-of-pocket costs for commercially insured patients with localized prostate cancer

The impact of management option on out-of-pocket costs and perceived financial burden among men with localised prostate cancer in Australia within 6 months of diagnosis

Objective This study aimed to quantify the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and perceived financial burden among Australian men with localised prostate cancer in the first 6 months after diagnosis, by primary management option. Methods This cost-analysis quantified OOP costs using administrative claims data and self-reported survey data. Financial burden was assessed using the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (COST-FACIT) tool. Participants were recruited into a randomised control trial from public or private treatment centres in Victoria and Queensland. Generalised linear models were used to predict OOP costs and COST-FACIT scores. Results Median total OOP costs within 6 months of diagnosis for 256 Australian patients with localised prostate cancer was A$1172 (A$343-2548). Up to 50% of the sample reported A$0 costs for most medical services. Compared with those managed with active surveillance, men having active treatment had 6.4 (95% CI: 3.2-12.7) times greater total OOP costs. Management option, higher Gleason score at diagnosis and having multiple comorbidities were significant predictors of higher OOP costs. Overall high scores on the COST-FACIT indicated low levels of financial burden for the entire sample. Conclusion Largely attributable to being managed with active surveillance, Australian men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer reported relatively low OOP costs and financial burden in the first 6 months post-diagnosis. Together with clinical outcomes, clinicians can use this up to date evidence on costs and perceived financial burdens to assist localised prostate cancer patients and their families make informed decisions about their preferred management option.

The Risk of Catastrophic Healthcare Expenditures Among Prostate and Bladder Cancer Survivors in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about the rates of catastrophic health care expenditures among survivors of prostate and bladder cancer or the factors that place patients at highest risk for undue cost.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey was utilized to identify prostate and bladder cancer survivors from 2011 to 2019. Rates of catastrophic health care expenditures (out-of-pocket health care spending >10% household income) were compared between cancer survivors and adults without cancer. A multivariable regression model was used to identify risk factors for catastrophic expenditures.

RESULTS

Among 2620 urologic cancer survivors, representative of 3,251,500 (95% CI 3,062,305-3,449,547) patients annually after application of survey weights, there were no significant differences in catastrophic expenditures among respondents with prostate cancer compared to adults without cancer. Respondents with bladder cancer had significantly greater rates of catastrophic expenditures (12.75%, 95% CI 9.36%-17.14% vs. 8.33%, 95% CI 7.66%-9.05%, P = .027). Significant predictors of catastrophic expenditures in bladder cancer survivors included older age, comorbidities, lower income, retirement, poor health status, and private insurance. Though White respondents with bladder cancer had no significantly increased risk of catastrophic expenditures, among Black respondents the risk of catastrophic expenditures increased from 5.14% (95% CI 3.95-6.33) without bladder cancer to 19.49% (95% CI 0.84-38.14) with bladder cancer (OR 6.41, 95% CI 1.28-32.01, P = .024).

CONCLUSIONS

Though limited by small sample size, these data suggest that bladder cancer survivorship is associated with catastrophic health care expenditures, particularly among Black cancer survivors. These findings should be taken as hypothesis-generating and warrant further investigation with larger sample sizes and, ideally, prospective investigation.

Financial hardship and psychosocial well-being and quality of life among prostate cancer survivors in the United States

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.

Impact of outpatient radiotherapy on direct non-medical cost in patients in the Central Macro Region of Peru 2021

Background

Financial toxicity arises in cancer patients due to the objective financial burden of the disease or treatment, being associated with worse clinical outcomes. Direct non-medical spending on cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy in Peru under its publicly funded health system has not been described.

Objective

To know the expenses related to the transfer of the radiotherapy outpatient.

Methodology

For patients who started radiation therapy in 2021, treatment demographics and expenses related to transporting the patient from home to the radiation therapy center were prospectively collected. Association and connection tests were used, such as the Mann-Whitney/Kruskal-Wallis U-test and Spearman's Rho. A value of p < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.

Results

398 patients were collected, with average weekly expenses for transportation, lodging and food of $17.04, $6.69 and $45.91, respectively. Confirmation was positive between weekly spending and remoteness, likewise it was negative between effective teletherapy and remoteness, both analyses being statistically significant.

Conclusion

The expense associated with transfer for radiotherapy is high, exceeding the average monthly income of the patient, as a consequence they have a worse therapeutic result, and may cause financial toxicity in cancer patients.

Financial toxicity in prostate cancer survivors: A national cross-sectional assessment of subjective financial burden

BACKGROUND

In prostate cancer (CaP) survivorship, subjective financial burden (SFB), an aspect of financial toxicity, has not been studied using a national sample. Our goal was to explore and identify factors associated with patient-reported SFB in CaP survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of 264 adult individuals with a history of CaP that completed the AHRQ - Medical Expenditures Panel Survey - Household Component and Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire Supplement in 2016 or 2017. Primary outcomes were the presence of cancer-related SFB and the severity of this burden. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with the severity of SFB and different domains of burden.

RESULTS

Most participants were non-Hispanic white, had 3 or more comorbidities and had a median age of 72 years. 62.1% of survivors indicated SFB associated with their CaP care and long-term effects. 49.2% of CaP survivors indicated coping SFB, 27.7% psychological, and 29.2% material. Older (OR: 0.95, 95%CI 0.92-0.98) was associated with less SFB. Low-income level (OR: 2.1, 95%CI 1.01-4.36) was associated with higher SFB. Hispanic survivors (OR: 2.8 95%CI 1.1-7.4) indicated more psychologic SFB. Presence of a caregiver was noted as a predictor of material (OR 2.6, 95%CI 1.45-4.49) and psychological (OR: 2.2, 95%CI 1.13-3.91) SFB.

CONCLUSIONS

Many CaP survivors experience SFB and associated factors differ in domain of financial burden. This provides evidence and groundwork for understanding financial burden and improving the quality of counseling and care for this population.

The Association Between Financial Toxicity and Treatment Regret in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling.

METHODS

Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations.

RESULTS

Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from "finances in general" was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.