Camilo Cid1, Cristian Herrera2, Rodrigo Rodríguez2, Gabriel Bastías2, Jorge Jiménez2. 1. Departamento de Salud Pública, Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. Address: Marcoleta 434, Santiago, Chile. Email: camilocid@gmail.com. 2. Departamento de Salud Pública, Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper aims to determine the economic impact that cancer represents to Chile, exploring the share of costs for the most important cancers and the differences between the public and private sector. METHODS: We used the cost of illness methodology, through the assessment of the direct and indirect costs associated with cancer treatment. Data was obtained from 2009 registries of the Chilean Ministry of Health and the Superintendence of Health. Indirect costs were calculated by days of job absenteeism and potential years of life lost. RESULTS: Over US$ 2.1 billion were spent on cancer in 2009, which represents almost 1% of Chiles Gross Domestic Product. The direct per capita cost was US$ 47. Indirect costs were 1.92 times more than direct costs. The three types of cancer that embody the highest share of costs were gastric cancer (17.6%), breast cancer (7%) and prostate cancer (4.2%) in the public sector, and breast cancer (14%), lung cancer (7.5%) and prostate cancer (4.1%) in the private sector. On average men spent 30.33% more than women. CONCLUSION: There are few studies of this kind in Chile and the region. The country can be classified as having a cancer economic impact below the average of those in European Union countries. We expect that this information can be used to develop access policies and resource allocation decision making, and as a first step into further cancer-costing studies in Chile and the Latin American and Caribbean region.
PURPOSE: This paper aims to determine the economic impact that cancer represents to Chile, exploring the share of costs for the most important cancers and the differences between the public and private sector. METHODS: We used the cost of illness methodology, through the assessment of the direct and indirect costs associated with cancer treatment. Data was obtained from 2009 registries of the Chilean Ministry of Health and the Superintendence of Health. Indirect costs were calculated by days of job absenteeism and potential years of life lost. RESULTS: Over US$ 2.1 billion were spent on cancer in 2009, which represents almost 1% of Chiles Gross Domestic Product. The direct per capita cost was US$ 47. Indirect costs were 1.92 times more than direct costs. The three types of cancer that embody the highest share of costs were gastric cancer (17.6%), breast cancer (7%) and prostate cancer (4.2%) in the public sector, and breast cancer (14%), lung cancer (7.5%) and prostate cancer (4.1%) in the private sector. On average men spent 30.33% more than women. CONCLUSION: There are few studies of this kind in Chile and the region. The country can be classified as having a cancer economic impact below the average of those in European Union countries. We expect that this information can be used to develop access policies and resource allocation decision making, and as a first step into further cancer-costing studies in Chile and the Latin American and Caribbean region.
Entities:
Keywords:
cost analysis; cost of illness; costs; neoplasms