Comparison of approaches for estimating incidence costs of care for colorectal cancer patients.

Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 2.94). 07/2009; 47(7 Suppl 1):S56-63. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a4f482
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Estimates of the costs of medical care vary across patient populations, data sources, and methods. The objective of this study was to compare 3 approaches for estimating the incidence costs of colorectal cancer (CRC) care using similar patient populations, but different data sources and methods.
We used 2 data sources, linked SEER-Medicare and Medicare claims alone, to identify newly diagnosed CRC patients aged 65 and older and estimated their healthcare costs during the observation period, 1998 to 2002. Controls were matched by sex, age-group, and geographic location. We compared mean net costs, measured as the difference in total cost between cases and controls, for: (1) a SEER-Medicare cohort, (2) a Medicare claims alone cohort, and (3) a modeled phase of care approach using linked SEER-Medicare data. The SEER-Medicare cohort approach was considered the reference.
We found considerable variability across approaches for estimating net costs of care in CRC patients. In the first year after diagnosis, mean net costs were $32,648 (95% CI: $31,826 and $33,470) in the SEER-Medicare cohort. The other approaches understated mean net costs in year 1 by about 16%. Mean net 5-year costs of care were $37,227 (95% CI: $35,711 and $38,744) in the SEER-Medicare cohort, and $30,310 (95% CI: $25,894 and $34,726) in the claims only approach, with the largest difference in the 65 to 69 age group. Mean net 5-year costs of care were more similar to the reference in the modeled phase of care approach ($37,701 [range: $36,972 and $38,446]). Differences from the SEER-Medicare cohort estimates reflect misclassification of prevalent cancer patients as newly diagnosed patients in the Medicare claims only approach, and differences in years of data and assumptions about comparison groups in the modeled phase of care approach.
CRC incidence cost estimates vary substantially depending on the strategy and data source for identifying newly diagnosed cancer patients and methods for estimating longitudinal costs. Our findings may inform estimation of costs for other cancers as well as other diseases.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The impact of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in populations extends beyond ill-health and mortality with large financial consequences. To systematically review and meta-analyze studies evaluating the impact of NCDs (including coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cancer (lung, colon, cervical and breast), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic kidney disease) at the macro-economic level: healthcare spending and national income. Medical databases (Medline, Embase and Google Scholar) up to November 6th 2014. For further identification of suitable studies, we searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. We included randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, cohorts, case-control, cross-sectional, modeling and ecological studies carried out in adults assessing the economic consequences of NCDs on healthcare spending and national income without language restrictions. All abstracts and full text selection was done by two independent reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved through consensus or consultation of a third reviewer. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers using a pre-designed data collection form. Studies evaluating the impact of at least one of the selected NCDs on at least one of the following outcome measures: healthcare expenditure, national income, hospital spending, gross domestic product (GDP), gross national product, net national income, adjusted national income, total costs, direct costs, indirect costs, inpatient costs, outpatient costs, per capita healthcare spending, aggregate economic outcome, capital loss in production levels in a country, economic growth, GDP per capita (per capita income), percentage change in GDP, intensive growth, extensive growth, employment, direct governmental expenditure and non-governmental expenditure. From 4,364 references, 153 studies met our inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were focused on healthcare related costs of NCDs. 30 studies reported the economic impact of NCDs on healthcare budgets and 13 on national income. Healthcare expenditure for cardiovascular disease (12-16.5 %) was the highest; other NCDs ranged between 0.7 and 7.4 %. NCD-related health costs vary across the countries, regions, and according to type of NCD. Additionally, there is an increase in costs with increased severity and years lived with the disease. Low- and middle-income (LMI) countries were the focus of just 16 papers, which suggests an information shortage concerning the true economic burden of NCDs in these countries. NCDs pose a significant financial burden on healthcare budgets and nations' welfare, which is likely to increase over time. However further work is required to standardize more consistently the methods available to assess the economic impact of NCDs and to involve (hitherto under-addressed) LMI populations across the globe.
    European Journal of Epidemiology 01/2015; 30(4). DOI:10.1007/s10654-014-9984-2 · 5.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While the evidence-base concerning the economic impact of cancer for patients and their families/carers has grown in recent years, there is little known about how emotional responses to cancer influence this economic impact. We investigated the economic costs of cancer in the context of patients' emotions and how these both shaped the patient and family burden. Health professionals from six hospitals invited patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (ICD10 C18-C20) within the previous year to take part in the study. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with patients and, where available, a family member. Interviews covered medical and non-medical costs incurred as a result of cancer and the impact of these on the lives of the patient and their family. Interviews were audio-recorded. Recordings were transcribed verbatim and these data were analysed qualitatively using thematic content analysis. Twenty-two patients with colorectal cancer (17 colon and 5 rectal; 14 women and 8 men) were interviewed; 6 were accompanied by a family member. Important cancer-related financial outlays included: travel and parking associated with hospital appointments; costs of procedures; increased household bills; and new clothing. Cancer impacted on employed individuals' ability to work and depressed their income. The opportunity cost of informal care for carers/family members, especially immediately post-diagnosis, was a strong theme. All patients spoke of the emotional burden of colorectal cancer and described how this burden could lead to further costs for themselves and their families by limiting work and hindering their ability to efficiently manage their expenses. Some patients also spoke of how economic and emotional burdens could interact with each other. Support from employers, family/carers and the state/health services and patients' own attitudes influenced this inter-relationship. The economic impact of colorectal cancer on patients and their families is complex. This study suggests that the economic costs and the emotional impact of cancer are often related and can exacerbate each other, but that various factors can meditate this inter-relationship.
    BMC Gastroenterology 06/2012; 12:62. DOI:10.1186/1471-230X-12-62 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited autosomal dominant disorder characterised by an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and other cancers, and caused by mutations in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair genes.
    Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 09/2014; 18(58):1-406. DOI:10.3310/hta18580 · 5.12 Impact Factor


Available from