Washington State cancer patients found to be at greater risk for bankruptcy than people without a cancer diagnosis
TL;DR: Findings suggest that employers and governments may have a policy role to play in creating programs and incentives that could help people cover expenses in the first year following a cancer diagnosis and that Medicare and Social Security may mitigate bankruptcy risk for the older group.
Abstract: Much has been written about the relationship between high medical expenses and the likelihood of filing for bankruptcy, but the relationship between receiving a cancer diagnosis and filing for bankruptcy is less well understood. We estimated the incidence and relative risk of bankruptcy for people age twenty-one or older diagnosed with cancer compared to people the same age without cancer by conducting a retrospective cohort analysis that used a variety of medical, personal, legal, and bankruptcy sources covering the Western District of Washington State in US Bankruptcy Court for the period 1995–2009. We found that cancer patients were 2.65 times more likely to go bankrupt than people without cancer. Younger cancer patients had 2–5 times higher rates of bankruptcy than cancer patients age sixty-five or older, which indicates that Medicare and Social Security may mitigate bankruptcy risk for the older group. The findings suggest that employers and governments may have a policy role to play in creating prog...
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Progress in reducing death rates and improving survival is limited for several cancer types, underscoring the need for intensified efforts to discover new strategies for prevention, early detection, and treatment and to apply proven preventive measures broadly and equitably.
Abstract: Background: The American Cancer Society (ACS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) collaborate to provide annual updates on cancer occurrence and trends in the United States. This Annual Report highlights survival rates. Methods: Data were from the CDC- and NCI-funded population-based cancer registry programs and compiled by NAACCR. Trends in age-standardized incidence and death rates for all cancers combined and for the leading cancer types by sex were estimated by joinpoint analysis and expressed as annual percent change. We used relative survival ratios and adjusted relative risk of death after a diagnosis of cancer (hazard ratios [HRs]) using Cox regression model to examine changes or differences in survival over time and by sociodemographic factors.
Results: Overall cancer death rates from 2010 to 2014 decreased by 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = –1.8 to –1.8) per year in men, by 1.4% (95% CI = –1.4 to –1.3) per year in women, and by 1.6% (95% CI = –2.0 to –1.3) per year in children. Death rates decreased for 11 of the 16 most common cancer types in men and for 13 of the 18 most common cancer types in women, including lung, colorectal, female breast, and prostate, whereas death rates increased for liver (men and women), pancreas (men), brain (men), and uterine cancers. In contrast, overall incidence rates from 2009 to 2013 decreased by 2.3% (95% CI = –3.1 to –1.4) per year in men but stabilized in women. For several but not all cancer types, survival statistically significantly improved over time for both early and late-stage diseases. Between 1975 and 1977, and 2006 and 2012, for example, five-year relative survival for distant-stage disease statistically significantly increased from 18.7% (95% CI = 16.9% to 20.6%) to 33.6% (95% CI = 32.2% to 35.0%) for female breast cancer but not for liver cancer (from 1.1%, 95% CI = 0.3% to 2.9%, to 2.3%, 95% CI = 1.6% to 3.2%). Survival varied by race/ethnicity and state. For example, the adjusted relative risk of death for all cancers combined was 33% (HR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.32 to 1.34) higher in non-Hispanic blacks and 51% (HR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.46 to 1.56) higher in non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native compared with non-Hispanic whites.
Conclusions: Cancer death rates continue to decrease in the United States. However, progress in reducing death rates and improving survival is limited for several cancer types, underscoring the need for intensified efforts to discover new strategies for prevention, early detection, and treatment and to apply proven preventive measures broadly and equitably.
1,103 citations
Cites background from "Washington State cancer patients fo..."
...The high cost of cancer treatment dubbed “financial toxicity”(110) has been associated with reduced spending on groceries and clothing, skipped medications and physician appointments to save money, bankruptcy, and mortality (111,112)....
[...]
Book•
03 Feb 2014
TL;DR: A committee of experts to examine the quality of cancer care in the United States and formulate recommendations for improvement presents the committee’s findings and recommendations.
Abstract: In the United States, approximately 14 million people have had cancer and more than 1.6 million new cases are diagnosed each year. However, more than a decade after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) first studied the quality of cancer care, the barriers to achieving excellent care for all cancer patients remain daunting. Care often is not patient-centered, many patients do not receive palliative care to manage their symptoms and side effects from treatment, and decisions about care often are not based on the latest scientific evidence. The cost of cancer care also is rising faster than many sectors of medicine--having increased to $125 billion in 2010 from $72 billion in 2004--and is projected to reach $173 billion by 2020. Rising costs are making cancer care less affordable for patients and their families and are creating disparities in patients' access to high-quality cancer care. There also are growing shortages of health professionals skilled in providing cancer care, and the number of adults age 65 and older--the group most susceptible to cancer--is expected to double by 2030, contributing to a 45 percent increase in the number of people developing cancer. The current care delivery system is poorly prepared to address the care needs of this population, which are complex due to altered physiology, functional and cognitive impairment, multiple coexisting diseases, increased side effects from treatment, and greater need for social support. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis presents a conceptual framework for improving the quality of cancer care. This study proposes improvements to six interconnected components of care: (1) engaged patients; (2) an adequately staffed, trained, and coordinated workforce; (3) evidence-based care; (4) learning health care information technology (IT); (5) translation of evidence into clinical practice, quality measurement and performance improvement; and (6) accessible and affordable care. This report recommends changes across the board in these areas to improve the quality of care. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis provides information for cancer care teams, patients and their families, researchers, quality metrics developers, and payers, as well as HHS, other federal agencies, and industry to reevaluate their current roles and responsibilities in cancer care and work together to develop a higher quality care delivery system. By working toward this shared goal, the cancer care community can improve the quality of life and outcomes for people facing a cancer diagnosis.
997 citations
Cites background from "Washington State cancer patients fo..."
...Cancer patients, especially those under 65 years, have a higher bankruptcy rate compared to people who do not have cancer (Ramsey et al., 2013)....
[...]
Harvard University1, University of Pittsburgh2, American Society of Clinical Oncology3, Stanford University4, Thomas Jefferson University5, University of California, Los Angeles6, Texas Oncology7, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center8, Case Western Reserve University9, UnitedHealth Group10, University of Chicago11, AstraZeneca12, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center13, Johns Hopkins University14, Palo Alto Medical Foundation15
TL;DR: The high costs associated with cancer care have created a difficult situation for patients and the oncologists who care for them and will require greater understanding of all the risks and benefits of various treatment options as well as the consequences of specific choices.
Abstract: Health care costs in the United States present a major challenge to the national economic well being. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has projected that US health care spending will reach $4.3 trillion and account for 19.3% of the national gross domestic product by 2019.1 This growth in spending—both in absolute terms and as a proportion of our gross domestic product—has not been accompanied by commensurate improvements in health outcomes, despite expenditures far exceeding those of other countries.2–4 One of the fastest growing components of US health care costs is cancer care, the cost of which is now estimated to increase from $125 billion in 2010 to $158 billion in 2020.1 Although cancer care represents a small fraction of overall health care costs, its contribution to health care cost escalation is increasing faster than those of most other areas because of several factors: the increasing prevalence of cancer due to the overall aging of the population and better control of some causes of competing mortality; the introduction of costly new drugs and techniques in radiation therapy and surgery; and the adoption of more expensive diagnostic tests. In some cases, the adoption of newer, more expensive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions may not be well supported by medical evidence, thereby raising costs without improving outcomes.5 Coupled with, or even driving, some of these rising costs are sometimes unrealistic patient and family expectations that lead clinicians to offer or recommend some of these services, despite the lack of supporting evidence of utility or benefit.6
Historically, most individuals in the United States were shielded from the acute economic impact of expensive care because they had health insurance. However, current trends suggest that patients will find themselves increasingly responsible for a greater proportion of the cost of their health care. Cost shifting or sharing can occur through the increased use of high-deductible policies and larger copayments. These increased costs are already commonplace and may not be affordable for many families. Indeed, health care expenditures are cited as a major cause of personal bankruptcy,7 and the term financial toxicity has entered the vernacular as a means of describing the financial distress that now often accompanies cancer treatment.8 Like other toxicities of cancer treatment, financial toxicity resulting from out-of-pocket treatment expenses can reduce quality of life and impede delivery of high-quality care.9,10 Patients experiencing high out-of-pocket costs have reported reducing their spending on food and clothing, reducing the frequency with which they take prescribed medications, avoiding recommended procedures, and skipping physician appointments to save money.10,11 These unintended consequences risk an increase in health disparities, which runs counter to some of the key goals of health care reform.
In many communities, the high costs associated with cancer care have created a difficult situation for patients and the oncologists who care for them. Addressing this situation will require greater understanding of all the risks and benefits of various treatment options as well as the consequences of specific choices. In this regard, studies have shown that patients specifically want financial information about treatment alternatives along with information about medical effectiveness and treatment toxicity. However, they often do not receive it. Closing this knowledge gap will require educated providers who are able to sensitively initiate a dialogue about the cost of care with their patients when appropriate.12,13 Patients with cancer are often surprised by and unprepared for the high out-of-pocket costs of treatments. They also overestimate the benefits of treatments that sometimes extend life by only weeks or months or not at all. Oncologists are generally aware of this conundrum but uncertain about whether and how the cost of care should affect their recommendations.14 Although raising awareness of costs and providing tools to assess value may help to manage costs while maintaining high-quality care, some oncologists see this as being in conflict with their duty to individual patients.15
Recent American Society of Clinical Oncology Efforts
Motivated by our responsibility to help oncologists deliver the highest-quality care to patients everywhere, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) formed the Task Force on the Cost of Cancer Care in 2007. Its mission includes educating oncologists about the importance of discussing costs associated with recommended treatments, empowering patients to ask questions pertaining to the anticipated costs of their treatment options, identifying the drivers of the rising costs of cancer care, and ultimately developing policy positions that will help Americans move toward more equal access to the highest-quality care at the lowest cost.16
In 2012, through the work of the Task Force, ASCO responded to the Choosing Wisely Campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and identified specific instances of overuse in the delivery of cancer care. ASCO used a deliberative consensus process to identify five common clinical practices that are not supported by high-level evidence. A second list of five was developed using the same process and submitted to the Choosing Wisely Campaign in 2013. ASCO amplified the evidence basis for both top-five lists in two publications17,18 and is now developing measures to evaluate the use of these practices as part of its Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. These exercises have provided opportunities to develop a rigorous but flexible approach to assessing efficacy across diagnostic and treatment domains.
746 citations
TL;DR: Severe financial distress requiring bankruptcy protection after cancer diagnosis appears to be a risk factor for mortality, according to Cox proportional hazards models.
Abstract: PurposePatients with cancer are more likely to file for bankruptcy than the general population, but the impact of severe financial distress on health outcomes among patients with cancer is not known.MethodsWe linked Western Washington SEER Cancer Registry records with federal bankruptcy records for the region. By using propensity score matching to account for differences in several demographic and clinical factors between patients who did and did not file for bankruptcy, we then fit Cox proportional hazards models to examine the relationship between bankruptcy filing and survival.ResultsBetween 1995 and 2009, 231,596 persons were diagnosed with cancer. Patients who filed for bankruptcy (n = 4,728) were more likely to be younger, female, and nonwhite, to have local- or regional- (v distant-) stage disease at diagnosis, and have received treatment. After propensity score matching, 3,841 patients remained in each group (bankruptcy v no bankruptcy). In the matched sample, mean age was 53.0 years, 54% were men...
601 citations
Cites background or methods from "Washington State cancer patients fo..."
...Details of our approach to determining bankruptcy incidence among patients with cancer are available in Ramsey et al.1 To assess the association between bankruptcy filing and mortality, we used Cox regression models on a propensity score matched sample....
[...]
...5 times more common in patients with cancer compared with those without cancer.(1) In addition, because bankruptcy represents the extreme end of a spectrum of financial hardship, it is possible that levels of financial difficulty short of bankruptcy could also influence survival....
[...]
...5 times more likely to file for bankruptcy after a cancer diagnosis compared with individuals who have not been diagnosed with cancer.(1) The term financial toxicity has been coined in reference to the growing recognition that high out-of-pocket expenditures during cancer treatment are putting many families into severe financial distress and, in some cases, leading to refusal of treatment or nonadherence to recommended treatments....
[...]
...Details of our approach to determining bankruptcy incidence among patients with cancer are available in Ramsey et al.(1) To assess the association between bankruptcy filing and mortality, we used Cox regression models on a propensity score matched sample....
[...]
TL;DR: Overuse of unneeded services can harm patients physically and psychologically, and can harm health systems by wasting resources and deflecting investments in both public health and social spending, which is known to contribute to health.
596 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies, and the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6% between 2001 and 2007.
747 citations
TL;DR: Cancer survivorship is associated with unemployment, and the unemployment risk for survivors in the United States was 1.5 times higher compared with survivors in Europe.
Abstract: Context Nearly half of adult cancer survivors are younger than 65 years, but the association of cancer survivorship with employment status is unknown. Objective To assess the association of cancer survivorship with unemployment compared with healthy controls. Data Sources A systematic search of studies published between 1966 and June 2008 was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and OSH-ROM databases. Study Selection Eligible studies included adult cancer survivors and a control group, and employment as an outcome. Data Extraction Pooled relative risks were calculated over all studies and according to cancer type. A Bayesian meta-regression analysis was performed to assess associations of unemployment with cancer type, country of origin, average age at diagnosis, and background unemployment rate. Results Twenty-six articles describing 36 studies met the inclusion criteria. The analyses included 20 366 cancer survivors and 157 603 healthy control participants. Studies included 16 from the United States, 15 from Europe, and 5 from other countries. Overall, cancer survivors were more likely to be unemployed than healthy control participants (33.8% vs 15.2%; pooled relative risk [RR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.55). Unemployment was higher in breast cancer survivors compared with control participants (35.6% vs 31.7%; pooled RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.49), as well as in survivors of gastrointestinal cancers (48.8% vs 33.4%; pooled RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.02-2.05), and cancers of the female reproductive organs (49.1% vs 38.3%; pooled RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.17-1.40). Unemployment rates were not higher for survivors of blood cancers compared with controls (30.6% vs 23.7%; pooled RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.95-2.09), prostate cancers (39.4% vs 27.1%; pooled RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.00-1.25), or testicular cancer (18.5% vs 18.1%; pooled RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.74-1.20). For survivors in the United States, the unemployment risk was 1.5 times higher compared with survivors in Europe (meta-RR, 1.48; 95% credibility interval, 1.15-1.95). After adjustment for diagnosis, age, and background unemployment rate, this risk disappeared (meta-RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.85-1.83). Conclusion Cancer survivorship is associated with unemployment.
690 citations
TL;DR: In this article, employment and work-related disability were investigated in a cohort of adult cancer survivors who were working when they were diagnosed from 1997 to 1999 with a variety of cancers.
Abstract: BACKGROUND
Employment and work-related disability were investigated in a cohort of adult cancer survivors who were working when they were diagnosed from 1997 to 1999 with a variety of cancers. Employment from the time of diagnosis through the early years of survivorship was studied, self-reported effects of cancer survival on disability and employment were quantified, and risk factors associated with cancer-related disability and withdrawal from employment were identified.
METHODS
One thousand four hundred thirty-three cancer survivors were interviewed by telephone from 1 year to nearly 5 years after diagnosis. They were asked retrospectively about employment from the time of diagnosis to follow-up and about work-related disability at follow-up. They also were asked whether disabilities or reasons for quitting work were cancer-related. Return to work and quitting work were projected over time in a life-table analysis. Risk factors were identified from logit analyses.
RESULTS
One of five survivors reported cancer-related disabilities at follow-up. Half of those with disabilities were working. A projected 13% of all survivors had quit working for cancer-related reasons within 4 years of diagnosis. More than half of survivors quit working after the first year, when three-quarters of those who stopped for treatment returned to work. Survivors of central nervous system, head and neck, and Stage IV blood and lymph malignancies had the highest adjusted risk of disability or quitting work.
CONCLUSIONS
Cancer survival sometimes has long-term effects on employment and the ability to work. Employment outcomes can be improved with innovations in treatment and with clinical and supportive services aimed at better management of symptoms, rehabilitation, and accommodation of disabilities. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.
410 citations
TL;DR: This article examined differences between breast cancer survivors and a non-cancer control group in employment, hours worked, wages, and earnings, and showed that breast cancer does not appear to be debilitating for women who remain in the work force.
179 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Estimates of the costs incurred by a cohort of breast cancer patients who were covered by private, Medicare, or Medicaid health insurance indicate that even among women with comprehensive health insurance policies, the financial burden of Breast cancer can be substantial.
Abstract: The financial impact of cancer can be large, even among persons with comprehensive health insurance policies. Prior studies have found that women with cancer are especially likely to suffer financial hardship. Although controversial, cancer insurance policies are designed to reduce the financial burden of cancer. In this study, we provide estimates of the costs incurred by a cohort of breast cancer patients who were covered by private, Medicare, or Medicaid health insurance. In all, 156 women were interviewed about cancer-related out-of-pocket costs and their knowledge and use of cancer insurance policies. Out-of-pocket expenditures and lost income costs averaged $1,455 per month and varied widely. The majority of out-of-pocket costs were for co-payments for hospitalizations and physician visits. The financial burden of breast cancer accounted for a mean of 98%, 41%, and 26% of monthly income among female breast cancer patients with annual household income levels of $60,000, respectively. Cancer insurance policies provided reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenditures for 3% of the women in our study. Our data indicate that even among women with comprehensive health insurance policies, the financial burden of breast cancer can be substantial. Affordable programs that provide reimbursement for medical and nonmedical costs incurred following a diagnosis of breast cancer should be developed, especially for lower income women.
177 citations