Pandey M, Bramhankar M, Anand A. Exploring the financial burden due to additional mobility among cancer patients: A cross-sectional study based on National Sample Survey.
J Cancer Policy 2024;
39:100469. [PMID:
38278353 DOI:
10.1016/j.jcpo.2024.100469]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2023] [Revised: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 01/22/2024] [Indexed: 01/28/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Cancer imposes a substantial economic burden due to treatment costs, supportive care, and loss of productivity. Besides all the affecting factors, major concerns lead to significant financial burdens of cancer treatment, bringing unwanted huge unbearable direct and indirect treatment costs. The aim was to explore the nature of additional mobility/travel required for accessing health care for cancer patients and also to assess financial burden due to additional mobility/travel costs for cancer treatment.
METHODS
This study employed unit-level cross-sectional data from the 75th round (2017-18) of India's National Sample Survey (NSS). The primary analysis commenced with descriptive and bivariate analyses to explore mean health spending and out-of-pocket expenses. Subsequently, multivariable logistic regression models were utilized to estimate the associations between catastrophic health expenditure, distress financing, and the treatment location.
RESULTS
The findings highlight distinct healthcare utilization patterns: inpatient treatments predominantly occur within the same district (50.4 %), followed by a different district (38.8 %), and a smaller share in other states (10.8 %). Outpatients largely receive treatment in the same district (65.5 %), followed by a different district (26.8 %), and around 8 % percent in other states. Urban areas show higher inpatient visits within the same district (41.8 %) and different districts (33.5 %). Outpatients, particularly those seeking treatment in other states, experience higher total expenditures, notably with higher out-of-pocket expenses. Distress financing is more common among inpatients (20.6 %) and combined inpatient/outpatient cases (23.9 %), while outpatients exhibit a lower rate (6.8 %).
CONCLUSION
The findings collectively suggest the importance of developing local healthcare infrastructures to reduce the additional mobility of cancer patients. The policy should focus to train and deploy oncologists in non-urban areas can help bridge the gap in cancer care proficiency and reduce the need for patients to travel long distances for treatment.
Collapse