[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT:
To determine health system expenditure on cancers by time since diagnosis using data for an entire country.
New Zealand cancer registry data was linked to hospitalization, pharmaceutical, outpatient, general practice, laboratory, and other datasets, with costs ascribed to each event occurring in 2006-2011. "Excess" cancer costs were estimated by subtracting "expected costs" for citizens without cancer from the "total cost" for cancer patients ($2011 inflation-adjusted). Gamma regressions were used to estimate costs per person-month.
For first adult cancer diagnosed that the excess cost per person was between US$3400 and US$4300 in the first month postdiagnosis (varied by sex and age), fell to US$50-US$150 per month at 2 or more years postdiagnosis (excluding those within a year of death), but increased again if dying from their cancer (US$3800-US$8300 in the last month of life). Such patterns varied by cancer, for example, in the first month postdiagnosis for 65 year olds it varied 20-fold from US$800 for prostate to US$15,900 for brain cancer.Per diagnosed case, total excess costs varied from US$8000 (melanoma) to US$98,000 (bone and connective tissue).Excess cancer costs made up 6.5% of total Vote:Health expenditure in 2010-2011, with colorectal (14.7%), breast (14.4%) being the top 2 contributors, and prostate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia, and lung each contributing about 6%.
Costs vary substantially by time since diagnosis and cancer type. The results and regression equations reported in this paper can be used in modeling requiring cancer costs by time since diagnosis and proximity to death.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0.
Medical Care 03/2015; 53(4). DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000330 · 2.94 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT:
Estimates of the costs associated with cancer care are essential both for assessing burden of disease at the population level and for conducting economic evaluations of interventions to prevent, detect, or treat cancer. Comparisons of cancer costs between health systems and across countries can improve understanding of the economic consequences of different health-care policies and programs. We conducted a structured review of the published literature on colorectal cancer (CRC) costs, including direct medical, direct nonmedical (ie, patient and caregiver time, travel), and productivity losses. We used MEDLINE to identify English language articles published between 2000 and 2010 and found 55 studies. The majority were conducted in the United States (52.7%), followed by France (12.7%), Canada (10.9%), the United Kingdom (9.1%), and other countries (9.1%). Almost 90% of studies estimated direct medical costs, but few studies estimated patient or caregiver time costs or productivity losses associated with CRC. Within a country, we found significant heterogeneity across the studies in populations examined, health-care delivery settings, methods for identifying incident and prevalent patients, types of medical services included, and analyses. Consequently, findings from studies with seemingly the same objective (eg, costs of chemotherapy in year following CRC diagnosis) are difficult to compare. Across countries, aggregate and patient-level estimates vary in so many respects that they are almost impossible to compare. Our findings suggest that valid cost comparisons should be based on studies with explicit standardization of populations, services, measures of costs, and methods with the goal of comparability within or between health systems or countries. Expected increases in CRC prevalence and costs in the future highlight the importance of such studies for informing health-care policy and program planning.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual
current impact factor.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.