PURPOSE: Cancer patients face substantial care-related out-of-pocket (oop) costs that may influence treatment decisions, attitudes, and use of drug- or appointment-related cost-saving strategies. We examined the relationship between oop costs and care-related responses by patients. METHODS: We surveyed 170 prostate and 131 breast cancer patients presenting at clinics or support groups, or listed on the cancer registry in Newfoundland and Labrador. RESULTS: In the 3-month period before the survey, 18.8% of prostate and 25.2% of breast cancer patients had oop costs greater than $500. Those oop costs consumed more than 7.5% of quarterly household income for 15.9% of prostate and 19.1% of breast cancer patients. Few patients (8.8% prostate, 15.3% breast) ever adopted any drug- or appointment-related cost-saving strategy. Few patients (7.2% prostate, 9.6% breast) said oop costs influenced treatment decisions, told their physicians about their oop costs (27.0% prostate, 21.1% breast), or were aware of available financial assistance programs (27.3% prostate, 36.9% breast). Compared with patients having low or moderate oop costs (22.9% prostate, 16.7% breast, and 25.7% prostate, 58.3% breast respectively), a larger proportion of prostate (56.0%) and breast (58.3%) cancer patients with high oop costs said that those costs created stress. Among prostate cancer patients, a larger proportion of those having high oop costs (compared with low or moderate costs) used drug-related (22.2% vs. 3.3% and 9.6% respectively) and appointment-related (11.1% vs. 1.1% and 3.8% respectively) cost-saving strategies, said oop costs created an unusual amount of stress (48.0% vs. 18.4% and 10.4%), and had difficulty paying those costs (29.2% vs. 6.2% and 10.4%). CONCLUSIONS: For a small group of breast and prostate cancer patients, oop costs are high, but rarely lead to the use of care-related cost-saving strategies or influence care decisions.
PURPOSE:Cancerpatients face substantial care-related out-of-pocket (oop) costs that may influence treatment decisions, attitudes, and use of drug- or appointment-related cost-saving strategies. We examined the relationship between oop costs and care-related responses by patients. METHODS: We surveyed 170 prostate and 131 breast cancerpatients presenting at clinics or support groups, or listed on the cancer registry in Newfoundland and Labrador. RESULTS: In the 3-month period before the survey, 18.8% of prostate and 25.2% of breast cancerpatients had oop costs greater than $500. Those oop costs consumed more than 7.5% of quarterly household income for 15.9% of prostate and 19.1% of breast cancerpatients. Few patients (8.8% prostate, 15.3% breast) ever adopted any drug- or appointment-related cost-saving strategy. Few patients (7.2% prostate, 9.6% breast) said oop costs influenced treatment decisions, told their physicians about their oop costs (27.0% prostate, 21.1% breast), or were aware of available financial assistance programs (27.3% prostate, 36.9% breast). Compared with patients having low or moderate oop costs (22.9% prostate, 16.7% breast, and 25.7% prostate, 58.3% breast respectively), a larger proportion of prostate (56.0%) and breast (58.3%) cancerpatients with high oop costs said that those costs created stress. Among prostate cancerpatients, a larger proportion of those having high oop costs (compared with low or moderate costs) used drug-related (22.2% vs. 3.3% and 9.6% respectively) and appointment-related (11.1% vs. 1.1% and 3.8% respectively) cost-saving strategies, said oop costs created an unusual amount of stress (48.0% vs. 18.4% and 10.4%), and had difficulty paying those costs (29.2% vs. 6.2% and 10.4%). CONCLUSIONS: For a small group of breast and prostate cancerpatients, oop costs are high, but rarely lead to the use of care-related cost-saving strategies or influence care decisions.
Authors: Sophie Lauzier; Pascale Levesque; Mélanie Drolet; Douglas Coyle; Jacques Brisson; Benoît Mâsse; André Robidoux; Jean Robert; Elizabeth Maunsell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W J Mackillop; P A Groome; J Zhang-Solomons; Y Zhou; D Feldman-Stewart; L Paszat; P Dixon; E J Holowaty; B J Cummings Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher J Longo; Margaret I Fitch; Laura Banfield; Paul Hanly; K Robin Yabroff; Linda Sharp Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-07-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Christopher J Longo; Margaret I Fitch; Jonathan M Loree; Linda E Carlson; Donna Turner; Winson Y Cheung; Darin Gopaul; Janet Ellis; Jolie Ringash; Maria Mathews; Jim Wright; Christiaan Stevens; David D'Souza; Robin Urquhart; Tuhin Maity; Fanor Balderrama; Evette Haddad Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 3.603