Uneven economic burden of non-communicable diseases among Indian households: A comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading global cause of death and disproportionately concentrate among those living in low-income and middle-income countries. However, its economic impact on households remains less well known in the Indian context. This study aims to assess the economic impact of NCDs in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) and its catastrophic impact on NCDs affected households in India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected from the 75th round of the National Sample Survey Office, Government of India, conducted in the year 2017-18. This is the latest round of data available on health, which constitutes a sample of 113,823 households. The collection of data is based on a stratified multi-stage sampling method. Generalised Linear Regression model was employed to identify the socio-economic covariates associated with the catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) on hospitalisation.

RESULTS

The result shows a higher burden of OOPE on NCDs affected households. The mean expenditure by NCDs households in public hospitals is INR 13,170 which is more than twice as compared to the non-NCDs households INR 6,245. Particularly, the proportion of total medical expenditure incurred on medicines (0.39) and diagnostics (0.15) is troublesome for households with NCDs, treated in public hospitals. Moreover, results from the generalised linear regression model confirm the significant relationship between CHE with residence, caste, religion, household size, and economic status of households. The intensity of CHE is more for the households who are poor, drinking unsafe water, using firewood as cooking fuel, and household size of 1-5 members.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, an urgent need for a prevention strategy should be made by the government to protect households from the economic burden of NCDs. Specifically, to reduce the burden of CHE associated with NCDs, a customised disease-specific health insurance package should be introduced by the government of India in both public and private facilities.

Physician-patient communication of costs and financial burden of cancer and its treatment: a systematic review of clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND

Optimising the care of individuals with cancer without imposing significant financial burden related to their anticancer treatment is becoming increasingly difficult. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has recommended clinicians discuss costs of cancer care with patients to enhance shared decision-making. We sought information to guide oncologists' discussions with patients about these costs.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE and clinical practice guideline databases from January 2009 to 1 June 2019 for recommendations about discussing the costs of care and financial burden. Guideline quality was assessed with the AGREE-II instrument.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven guidelines met our eligibility criteria, including 16 from ASCO (59%). 21 of 27 (78%) guidelines included recommendations about discussion or consideration of treatment costs when prescribing, with information about actual costs in four (15%). Recognition of the risk of financial burden or financial toxicity was described in 81% (22/27) of guidelines. However, only nine guidelines (33%) included information about managing the financial burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Current clinical practice guidelines have little information to guide physician-patient discussions about costs of anticancer treatment and management of financial burden. This limits patients' ability to control costs of treatment, and for the healthcare team to reduce the incidence and severity of financial burden. Current guidelines recommend clinician awareness of price variability and high costs of treatment. Clinicians are recommended to explore cost concerns and address financial worries, especially in high risk groups. Future guidelines should include advice on facilitating cost transparency discussions, with provision of cost information and resources.

Medical-Financial Partnerships: Cross-Sector Collaborations Between Medical and Financial Services to Improve Health

Financial stress is the root cause of many adverse health outcomes among poor and low-income children and their families, yet few clinical interventions have been developed to improve health by directly addressing patient and family finances. Medical-Financial Partnerships (MFPs) are novel cross-sector collaborations in which health care systems and financial service organizations work collaboratively to improve health by reducing patient financial stress, primarily in low-income communities. Financial services provided by MFPs include individually tailored financial coaching, free tax preparation, budgeting, debt reduction, savings support, and job assistance, among others. MFPs have been shown to improve finances and, in the few existing studies available, health outcomes. We describe the rationale for MFPs and examine 8 established MFPs providing financial services under 1 of 3 models: full-scope on-site service partnerships; targeted on-site service partnerships; and partnerships facilitating referral to off-site financial services. The services MFPs provide complement clinical social risk screening and navigation programs by preventing or repairing common financial problems that would otherwise lead to poverty-related social needs, such as food and housing insecurity. We identify common themes, as well as unique strengths and solutions to a variety of implementation challenges MFPs commonly encounter. Given that the financial circumstances and health outcomes of socially marginalized patients and families are closely linked, MFPs represent a promising and feasible cross-sector service delivery approach and a new model for upstream health care to promote synergistic financial well-being and health improvement.