Nishant Uppal , Jordan M. Broekhuis , Jorge L. Gomez-Mayorga , Hao Wei Chen , Natalia Chaves , Benjamin C. James
{"title":"癌症幸存者中患者报告的经济负担与灾难性医疗支出之间的关系","authors":"Nishant Uppal , Jordan M. Broekhuis , Jorge L. Gomez-Mayorga , Hao Wei Chen , Natalia Chaves , Benjamin C. James","doi":"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2024.100752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To measure rates of patient-reported financial burden, compare them across cancer types, and determine whether they are predictive of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We extracted data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey from 2011 to 2017 to conduct a retrospective population-based cohort study and multivariable logistic regression to assess the financial burden of cancer across 16 cancer types and compare patient-reported metrics to CHE rates.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Patients with ovarian cancer were most likely to report inability paying bills (34.5 %) and filing for bankruptcy (9.4 %), while patients with thyroid cancer were most likely to incur debt (22.4 %). Patients with kidney cancer had the highest mean debt ($46,915). CHEs were independently predicted by inability to pay medical bills (OR [95 % CI], 1.96 [1.14–3.35]) and bankruptcy filing (OR [95 % CI], 3.90 [1.21–12.60].</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and implications</h3><div>We report important variations in the financial burden across cancer types and underscore the importance of assessing how patient-reported measures are related to CHEs. Policy implications. The financial burden of cancer care could explain the lack of improved outcomes with increased national health spending.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association between patient-reported financial burden and catastrophic health expenditures in cancer survivors\",\"authors\":\"Nishant Uppal , Jordan M. Broekhuis , Jorge L. Gomez-Mayorga , Hao Wei Chen , Natalia Chaves , Benjamin C. James\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2024.100752\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To measure rates of patient-reported financial burden, compare them across cancer types, and determine whether they are predictive of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We extracted data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey from 2011 to 2017 to conduct a retrospective population-based cohort study and multivariable logistic regression to assess the financial burden of cancer across 16 cancer types and compare patient-reported metrics to CHE rates.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Patients with ovarian cancer were most likely to report inability paying bills (34.5 %) and filing for bankruptcy (9.4 %), while patients with thyroid cancer were most likely to incur debt (22.4 %). Patients with kidney cancer had the highest mean debt ($46,915). CHEs were independently predicted by inability to pay medical bills (OR [95 % CI], 1.96 [1.14–3.35]) and bankruptcy filing (OR [95 % CI], 3.90 [1.21–12.60].</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and implications</h3><div>We report important variations in the financial burden across cancer types and underscore the importance of assessing how patient-reported measures are related to CHEs. Policy implications. The financial burden of cancer care could explain the lack of improved outcomes with increased national health spending.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076424000198\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076424000198","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Association between patient-reported financial burden and catastrophic health expenditures in cancer survivors
Purpose
To measure rates of patient-reported financial burden, compare them across cancer types, and determine whether they are predictive of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE).
Methods
We extracted data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey from 2011 to 2017 to conduct a retrospective population-based cohort study and multivariable logistic regression to assess the financial burden of cancer across 16 cancer types and compare patient-reported metrics to CHE rates.
Results
Patients with ovarian cancer were most likely to report inability paying bills (34.5 %) and filing for bankruptcy (9.4 %), while patients with thyroid cancer were most likely to incur debt (22.4 %). Patients with kidney cancer had the highest mean debt ($46,915). CHEs were independently predicted by inability to pay medical bills (OR [95 % CI], 1.96 [1.14–3.35]) and bankruptcy filing (OR [95 % CI], 3.90 [1.21–12.60].
Conclusions and implications
We report important variations in the financial burden across cancer types and underscore the importance of assessing how patient-reported measures are related to CHEs. Policy implications. The financial burden of cancer care could explain the lack of improved outcomes with increased national health spending.