Out-of-Pocket Costs of Treatment Among Employer-Insured Women With Invasive Breast Cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hager A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9984972 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Out-of-Pocket Costs of Treatment Among Employer-Insured Women With Invasive Breast Cancer.
Hager Audrey A Gracia Gabriela G Rodin Danielle D Conti Rena M RM
JAMA network open 20230301 3
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8371567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdherence to aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and tamoxifen has considerable survival benefits for postmenopausal women diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Reduced out-of-pocket costs and treatment-related side effects could increase therapy adherence. Given that individuals' side effect profiles could differ across AIs, generic AI entry could facilitate switching between AIs to manage side effects and improve adherence.MethodsFrom Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, we selected women first diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer at age 65+ years and initiated an AI within 1 year of diagnosis between January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2008, or June 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012, and followed them for up to 2 years (N = 20 677). We estimated changes in probabilities of adherence with and without switching for Part D enrollees with and without the low-income subsidy (LIS vs non-LIS) before and after generic entry using linear probability models. Tests of statistical significance are 2-sided.ResultsAfter generic entry reduced out-of-pocket costs of AIs (larger reduction for non-LIS), the percentage of women who ever switched from one AI to another AI increased from 8.8% to 14.6% for non-LIS and from 7.3% to 12.5% for LIS. Adherence without switching increased by 8.0 percentage points (pp) for non-LIS (P < .001) but decreased by 4.9 pp (P < .001) for LIS. Adherence with switching increased for both non-LIS (6.4 pp, P < .001) and LIS (4.4 pp, P < .001).ConclusionsIncreased switching after generic entry contributed to increased adherence, suggesting switching allowed better management of treatment-related side effects. Subsidized women also experienced increased adherence with switching after generic entry, suggesting that patients and physicians might not understand Part D benefit design when making decisions.
| S-EPMC9275769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOut-of-pocket costs (OOPC) associated with treatment have significant implications on quality of life and survival in cancer patients. Head and neck cancer patients face unique treatment-related challenges, but to date OOPC have been understudied in this population.AimsThis study aims to identify and measure OOPC for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) in Ontario.MethodsHNC patients between 2015 and 2018 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto were recruited. Participants completed OOPC questionnaires and lost income questions during radiation, post-surgery, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after completion of treatment. Associations between OOPC and treatment modality and disease site were tested with multivariable hurdle regression.ResultsA total of 1545 questionnaires were completed by 657 patients. Median estimated OOPC for the total duration of treatment for participants undergoing chemoradiation was $1452 [$0-14 616], for surgery with adjuvant radiation or chemoradiation (C/RT) was $1626, for radiation therapy alone was $635, and for surgery alone was $360. The major expenses for participants at the mid-treatment time-point was travel (mean $424, standard error of the mean [SEM] $34) and meals, parking, and accommodations (mean $617, SEM $67). In multivariable analysis, chemoradiation, surgery with C/RT, and radiation were associated with significantly higher OOPC than surgery alone during treatment (791% higher, p < .001; 539% higher, p < .001; 370% higher, p < .001 respectively) among patients with non-zero OOPC. Participants with non-zero OOPC in the laryngeal cancer group paid 49% lower OOPC than those with oropharyngeal cancers in adjusted analysis (p = .025).ConclusionsPatients undergoing treatment for HNC pay significant OOPC. These costs are highest during treatment and gradually decrease over time. OOPC vary by patient demographics, clinical factors, and, in particular, treatment modality.
| S-EPMC9327650 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10407758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This cohort study uses a longitudinal access and adjudication data set to evaluate prescription out-of-pocket costs and filling behaviors of commercially insured individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
| S-EPMC9142864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeCancer patients carry rising burdens of health care-related out-of-pocket expenses, and a growing number of patients are considered "underinsured." Our objective was to describe experiences of insured cancer patients requesting copayment assistance and to describe the impact of health care expenses on well-being and treatment.MethodsWe conducted baseline and follow-up surveys regarding the impact of health care costs on well-being and treatment among cancer patients who contacted a national copayment assistance foundation along with a comparison sample of patients treated at an academic medical center.ResultsAmong 254 participants, 75% applied for drug copayment assistance. Forty-two percent of participants reported a significant or catastrophic subjective financial burden; 68% cut back on leisure activities, 46% reduced spending on food and clothing, and 46% used savings to defray out-of-pocket expenses. To save money, 20% took less than the prescribed amount of medication, 19% partially filled prescriptions, and 24% avoided filling prescriptions altogether. Copayment assistance applicants were more likely than nonapplicants to employ at least one of these strategies to defray costs (98% vs. 78%). In an adjusted analysis, younger age, larger household size, applying for copayment assistance, and communicating with physicians about costs were associated with greater subjective financial burden.ConclusionInsured patients undergoing cancer treatment and seeking copayment assistance experience considerable subjective financial burden, and they may alter their care to defray out-of-pocket expenses. Health insurance does not eliminate financial distress or health disparities among cancer patients. Future research should investigate coverage thresholds that minimize adverse financial outcomes and identify cancer patients at greatest risk for financial toxicity.
| S-EPMC3639525 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8406208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe financial protection of the prevention provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) doesn't apply to breast MRI but only to mammography for breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study is to examine the financial burden among women who received breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for screening.MethodsThis observational study used the Marketscan database. Women who underwent breast MRI between 2009 and 2017 and had screening mammography within 6 months of the MRI were included. We compared the time trend of the proportion of zero cost-share for women undergoing screening mammography and that for MRI. We quantified out-of-pocket (OOP) costs as the sum of copayment, coinsurance, and deductible and defined zero cost-share as having no OOP cost. We conducted multivariable logistic regression and 2-part model to examine factors associated with zero cost-share and OOP costs of MRI, respectively.ResultsDuring the study period, 16 341 women had a screening breast MRI. The proportion of screening MRI claims with zero cost-share decreased from 43.1% (2009) to 26.2% (2017). The adjusted mean OOP cost for women in high-deductible plans was more than twice the cost for their counterparts ($549 vs $251; 2-sided P < .001). Women who resided in the South in the post-Affordable Care Act era were less likely to have zero cost-share and paid higher OOP costs for screening MRI.ConclusionsMany women are subject to high financial burden when receiving MRI for breast cancer screening. Those enrolled in high-deductible plans and who reside in the South are especially vulnerable financially.
| S-EPMC8826560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a paucity of research on the cost of breast cancer (BC) treatment from the patient's perspective in Vietnam.MethodsIndividual-level data about out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures on use of services were collected from women treated for BC (n = 202) using an online survey and a face-to-face interview at two tertiary hospitals in 2019. Total expenditures on diagnosis and initial BC treatment were presented in terms of the mean, standard deviation, and range for each type of service use. A generalised linear model (GLM) was used to assess the relationship between total cost and socio-demographic characteristics.Results19.3% of respondents had stage 0/I BC, 68.8% had stage II, 9.4% had stage III, none had stage IV. The most expensive OOP elements were targeted therapy with mean cost equal to 649.5 million VND ($28,025) and chemotherapy at 36.5 million VND ($1575). Mean total OOP cost related to diagnosis and initial BC treatment (excluding targeted therapy cost) was 61.8 million VND ($2667). The mean OOP costs among patients with stage II and III BC were, respectively, 66 and 148% higher than stage 0/I.ConclusionsBC patients in Vietnam incur significant OOP costs. The cost of BC treatment was driven by the use of therapies and presentation stage at diagnosis. It is likely that OOP costs of BC patients would be reduced by earlier detection through raised awareness and screening programmes and by providing a higher insurance reimbursement rate for targeted therapy.
| S-EPMC8750856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients up to 3 years after bariatric surgery in a large, commercially-insured population.Summary of background dataMore information on OOP costs following bariatric surgery may affect patients' procedure choice.MethodsRetrospective study using the IBM MarketScan commercial claims database, representing patients nationally who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2017. We compared total OOP costs after the surgical episode between the 2 procedures using difference-in-differences analysis adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, operative year, and insurance type.ResultsOf 63,674 patients, 64% underwent SG and 36% underwent RYGB. Adjusted OOP costs after SG were $1083, $1236, and $1266 postoperative years 1, 2, and 3. For RYGB, adjusted OOP costs were $1228, $1377, and $1369. In our primary analysis, SG OOP costs were $122 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -$155 to -$90) less than RYGB year 1. This difference remained consistent at -$119 (95%CI: -$158 to -$79) year 2 and -$80 (95%CI: -$127 to -$35) year 3. These amounts were equivalent to relative differences of -7%, -7%, and -5% years 1, 2, and 3. Plan features contributing the most to differences were co-insurance years 1, 2, and 3.The largest clinical contributors to differences were endoscopy and outpatient care year 1, outpatient care year 2, and emergency department use year 3.ConclusionsOur study is the first to examine the association between bariatric surgery procedure and OOP costs. Differences between procedures were approximately $100 per year which may be an important factor for some patients deciding whether to pursue SG or gastric bypass.
| S-EPMC9091055 | biostudies-literature