William E Barlow1. 1. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98101, USA. williamb@crab.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methods to estimate the direct medical costs of cancer care have evolved into several commonly used methods. OBJECTIVES: We describe the different estimation techniques briefly to contrast these approaches and provide a framework for other articles in this monograph. MEASURES AND RESULTS: One can estimate costs for all individuals with a specific cancer in a fixed calendar period (prevalent costs) or describe costs starting at the point of diagnosis and estimate immediate and long-term costs (incident costs). A variant of the incidence approach is to divide cancer care into initial, continuing, and terminal care phases and apply these phase-specific cost estimates to survival probabilities. The additional burden because of the cancer may be computed using cancer services (attributable costs) or by subtracting costs of healthy matched individuals (net costs). CONCLUSIONS: The strengths and weaknesses of these approaches are illustrated to show that the most appropriate choice will depend on whether the goal is to plan for health care costs, set public policy, or assess impact of potential interventions.
BACKGROUND: Methods to estimate the direct medical costs of cancer care have evolved into several commonly used methods. OBJECTIVES: We describe the different estimation techniques briefly to contrast these approaches and provide a framework for other articles in this monograph. MEASURES AND RESULTS: One can estimate costs for all individuals with a specific cancer in a fixed calendar period (prevalent costs) or describe costs starting at the point of diagnosis and estimate immediate and long-term costs (incident costs). A variant of the incidence approach is to divide cancer care into initial, continuing, and terminal care phases and apply these phase-specific cost estimates to survival probabilities. The additional burden because of the cancer may be computed using cancer services (attributable costs) or by subtracting costs of healthy matched individuals (net costs). CONCLUSIONS: The strengths and weaknesses of these approaches are illustrated to show that the most appropriate choice will depend on whether the goal is to plan for health care costs, set public policy, or assess impact of potential interventions.
Authors: Stella Chang; Stacey R Long; Lucie Kutikova; Lee Bowman; Denise Finley; William H Crown; Charles L Bennett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Joan L Warren; Jessica Banthin; Deborah Schrag; Angela Mariotto; William Lawrence; Angela Meekins; Marie Topor; Martin L Brown Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Peter M Ravdin; Kathleen A Cronin; Nadia Howlader; Christine D Berg; Rowan T Chlebowski; Eric J Feuer; Brenda K Edwards; Donald A Berry Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Rod Walker; Patricia A Carney Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-08-14 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Shi-Yi Wang; Rong Wang; James B Yu; Xiaomei Ma; Xiao Xu; Simon P Kim; Pamela R Soulos; Avantika Saraf; Cary P Gross Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Benjamin T Allaire; Donatus U Ekwueme; Diana Poehler; Cheryll C Thomas; Gery P Guy; Sujha Subramanian; Justin G Trogdon Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Aileen B Chen; Ling Li; Angel M Cronin; Gabriel A Brooks; Brian D Kavanagh; Deborah Schrag Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Jennifer L Lund; K Robin Yabroff; Yoko Ibuka; Louise B Russell; Paul G Barnett; Joseph Lipscomb; William F Lawrence; Martin L Brown Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.983