Cancer treatment cost in the United States: has the burden shifted over time?

Concerns of stem cell transplant patients during routine ambulatory assessment

BACKGROUND

Stem cell transplant (SCT) is a treatment choice for many hematological malignancies. There is currently a lack of evidence regarding the self-reported concerns of SCT patients before and after SCT.

AIM AND DESIGN

This exploratory study performed a secondary analysis of self-reported, written concerns of SCT patients before and after transplant to determine patients' concerns.

METHODS

Content analysis of text box entries of SCT patients collected between 2005 and 2007 at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Text box entries were collected as part of symptom assessment using the Electronic Self-Report Assessment - Cancer instrument. The assessment was presented to 137 patients undergoing SCT at two time points: prior to ambulatory visits before any therapy had begun (T1) and at the first visit after hospital discharge following SCT (T2).

RESULTS

Text box entries were made before (n = 52) and after (n = 87) the transplant, resulting in 139 text box entries made by 137 patients representing 133 concerns. Using content analysis, the entries were categorized and ranked according to frequency. After symptom concerns, patients ranked work and financial issues the most frequent concerns prior to SCT. After SCT, symptoms remained the most frequently entered area of concern, followed by survival.

CONCLUSION

Oncology providers need to assess SCT patients for work and financial concerns before and after transplant. Appropriate and timely referrals may ease the burden of these concerns for patients. Thus, assessment of financial and work concerns by the oncology team should be an integral part of quality health care for patients undergoing SCT.

Melanoma treatment costs: a systematic review of the literature, 1990-2011

CONTEXT

Melanoma is the most deadly form of skin cancer and an important public health concern. Given the substantial health burden associated with melanoma, it is important to examine the economic costs associated with its treatment. The purpose of the current study was to systematically review the literature on the direct medical care costs of melanoma.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed using multiple databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Econlit. Nineteen articles on the direct medical costs of melanoma were identified.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Detailed information on the study population, study country/setting, study perspective, costing approach, disease severity (stage), and key study results were abstracted. The overall costs of melanoma were examined as well as per-patient costs, costs by phase of care, stage of diagnosis, and setting/type of care. Among studies examining all stages of melanoma, annual treatment costs ranged from $44.9 million among Medicare patients with existing cases to $932.5 million among newly diagnosed cases across all age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Melanoma leads to substantial direct medical care costs, with estimates varying widely because of the heterogeneity across studies in terms of the study setting, populations studied, costing approach, and study methods. Melanoma treatment costs varied by phase of care and stage at diagnoses; costs were highest among patients diagnosed with late-stage disease and in the initial and terminal phases of care. Aggregate treatment costs were generally highest in the outpatient/office-based setting; per-patient/per-case treatment costs were highest in the hospital inpatient setting. Given the substantial costs of treating melanoma, public health strategies should include efforts to enhance both primary prevention (reduction of ultraviolet light exposure) and secondary prevention (earlier detection) of melanoma.

Valuing end-of-life care in the United States: the case of new cancer drugs

New cancer therapies offer the hope of improved diagnosis to patients with life-threatening disease. Over the past 5–10 years, a number of specialty drugs have entered clinical practice to provide better systemic therapy for advanced cancers that respond to few therapeutic alternatives. To date, however, such advances have been only modestly effective in extending life and come with a high price tag, raising questions about their value for money, patient access and implications for health care costs. This article explores some of the key issues present in valuing end-of-life care in the United States in the case of advanced cancer drugs, from the difficult trade-offs between their limited health benefits and high costs to the technical, political and social challenges in assessing their value and applying such evidence to inform policy and practice. A number of initial steps are discussed that could be pursued to improve the value of advanced cancer care.

Racial variation in the cancer caregiving experience: a multisite study of colorectal and lung cancer caregivers

BACKGROUND

As cancer care shifts from hospital to outpatient settings, the number of cancer caregivers continues to grow. However, little is known about the cancer caregiving experience. This gap in knowledge is especially evident for racially diverse caregivers.

OBJECTIVE

This study, part of a multisite study of care recipients with either lung or colorectal cancer and their caregivers, examined the caregiving experiences of African American (AA) and white caregivers.

METHODS

Caregivers were identified by cancer patients in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance consortium. Caregivers completed a self-administered, mailed questionnaire that assessed their characteristics and experiences. Analysis of covariance was used to compare racial groups by objective burden and caregiving resources while controlling for covariates.

RESULTS

Despite greater preparedness for the caregiving role (P = .006), AA caregivers reported more weekly hours caregiving than whites did (26.5 ± 3.1 vs 18.0 ± 1.7; P = .01). In later phases of caregiving, AAs reported having more social support (P = .02), spending more hours caregiving (31.9 ± 3.5 vs 16.9 ± 1.9; P < .001), and performing more instrumental activities of daily living on behalf of their care recipient (P = .021).

CONCLUSION

Racial differences in the caregiving experience exist.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses play a key role in educating cancer patients and their caregivers on how to effectively cope with and manage cancer. Because AA caregivers seem to spend more time in the caregiving role and perform more caregiving tasks, AA caregivers may benefit from interventions tailored to their specific caregiving experience.

The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) experiences with cancer survivorship supplement

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of cancer survivorship in the USA is expected to increase in the future because the US population is increasing in size and is aging and because survival following diagnosis is improving for many types of cancer. Medical care costs associated with cancer are also projected to increase dramatically. However, currently available data for estimating medical care costs and other important aspects of the burden of cancer, including time spent receiving medical care, productivity loss due to morbidity for patients and their families, and financial hardship, are limited, particularly in the population under the age of 65.

METHODS

We describe selected publicly available data sources for estimating the burden of cancer in the USA and a new collaborative effort to improve the quality of these data: the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this effort can be used to address key gaps in cancer survivorship research related to medical care costs, employment patterns, financial hardship, and other aspects of the burden of illness for cancer survivors and their families.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Research using the MEPS Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement can inform efforts by health care policy makers, healthcare systems, providers, and employers to improve the cancer survivorship experience in the USA.

Projections of cancer mortality risks using spatio-temporal P-spline models

Cancer mortality risk estimates are essential for planning resource allocation and designing and evaluating cancer prevention and management strategies. However, mortality figures generally become available after a few years, making necessary to develop reliable procedures to provide current and near future mortality risks. In this work, a spatio-temporal P-spline model is used to provide predictions of mortality/incidence counts. The model is appropriate to capture smooth temporal trends and to predict cancer mortality/incidence counts in different regions for future years. The prediction mean squared error of the forecast values as well as an appropriate estimator are derived. Spanish prostate cancer mortality data in the period 1975-2008 will be used to illustrate results with a focus on cancer mortality forecasting in 2009-2011.

The cost burden of oral, oral pharyngeal, and salivary gland cancers in three groups: commercial insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid

Background

Head and neck cancers are of particular interest to health care providers, their patients, and those paying for health care services, because they have a high morbidity, they are extremely expensive to treat, and of the survivors only 48% return to work. Consequently the economic burden of oral cavity, oral pharyngeal, and salivary gland cancer (OC/OP/SG) must be understood. The cost of these cancers in the U.S. has not been investigated.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data for 6,812 OC/OP/SG cancer patients was undertaken. Total annual health care spending for OC/OP/SG cancer patients was compared to similar patients without OC/OP/SG cancer using propensity score matching for enrollees in commercial insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. Indirect costs, as measured by short term disability days were compared for employed patients.

Results

Total annual health care spending for OC/OP/SG patients during the year after the index diagnosis was $79,151 for the Commercial population. Health care costs were higher for OC/OP/SG cancer patients with Commercial Insurance ($71,732, n = 3,918), Medicare ($35,890, n = 2,303) and Medicaid ($44,541, n = 585) than the comparison group (all p < 0.01). Commercially-insured employees with cancer (n = 281) had 44.9 more short-term disability days than comparison employees (p < 0.01). Multimodality treatment was twice the cost of single modality therapy. Those patients receiving all three treatments (surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy) had the highest costs of cost of care, from $96,520 in the Medicare population to $153,892 in the Commercial population.

Conclusions

In the U.S., the cost of OC/OP/SG cancer is significant and may be the most costly cancer to treat in the U.S. The results of this analysis provide useful information to health care providers and decision makers in understanding the economic burden of head and neck cancer. Additionally, this cost information will greatly assist in determining the cost-effectiveness of new technologies and early detection systems. Earlier identification of cancers by patients and providers may potentially decrease health care costs, morbidity and mortality.

Estimating medical expenditures spent on rule-out diagnoses in Japan

BACKGROUND

According to the regulations concerning reimbursement rules for the uniform coverage scheme in Japan's health insurance system, rule-out diagnoses must be included in a health insurance claim (HIC) to ensure reimbursement for clinical procedures whose results show that a suspected disease is not present. However, estimations of disease-specific medical expenditure by conventional methods have not considered the information on rule-out diagnoses.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate disease-specific medical expenditure for rule-out diagnoses.

METHODS

Data were obtained from 169,622 outpatient HICs in May 2006 from corporate health insurance societies. We used the proportional distribution method to estimate medical expenditure for each of the major disease categories defined by the Classification of Diseases for the use of Social Insurance, which is based on the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision.

RESULTS

There were 442,010 diagnoses on the HICs, of which 20,330 (4.60%) were rule-out diagnoses. Rule-out diagnoses accounted for 8.5% of total medical expenditure. The proportion of medical expenditure spent on rule-out diagnoses varied across the major diseases categories, and it was estimated that more than one-third (36.9%) of the medical expenditure on neoplasm is spent on rule-out diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

The existence of rule-out diagnoses affects the estimation of disease-specific medical expenditure. Therefore, the estimation of disease-specific medical expenditure and evaluation of prevention and treatment programmes should be improved by utilizing information on rule-out diagnoses.

Costs and trends in pancreatic cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer poses a substantial morbidity and mortality burden in the United States, and predominantly affects older adults. The objective of this study was to estimate the direct medical costs of pancreatic cancer treatment in a population-based cohort of Medicare beneficiaries, and the contribution of different treatment modalities and health care services to the total cost of care and trends in costs over time.

METHODS

In the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, pancreatic cancer patients were identified who were aged 66 years or older and who were diagnosed from 2000 to 2007. Total direct medical costs were estimated from Medicare payments overall and within categories of care. Costs attributable to pancreatic cancer were estimated by subtracting the costs of medical care in a matched cohort of cancer-free beneficiaries.

RESULTS

A total of 15,037 patients were identified, of whom 97% were observed from diagnosis until death. Mean total direct medical costs were $65,500. Mean total costs were greater for patients with resectable locoregional disease ($134,700) than for those with unresectable locoregional or distant disease ($65,300 and $49,000, respectively). Hospitalizations and cancer-directed procedures collectively accounted for the largest fraction of health care costs. The total cost of care appeared to increase slightly over the study period (P = .05). The mean costs attributable to pancreatic cancer were $61,700.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite poor prognosis and short survival, the economic burden of pancreatic cancer in the elderly is substantial. Demographic trends, greater use of targeted therapies, and possible implementation of screening strategies are likely to impact treatment patterns and costs in the future.

Improving quality and addressing the rising costs of cancer care: two birds, one stone

The authors discuss the current state of Medicare reimbursement policy and outline their recently published model to link improvements in the quality of cancer care to reductions in overall cost.

The medicalization of chronic disease and costs

U.S. health care spending has increased dramatically in the past several decades, consuming 17.6% percent ($2.6 trillion) of GDP in 2010. Although historical spending drivers do not account for this recent increase, two major changes in population health--the rise in obesity and obesity-related chronic disease--provide a likely explanation. This article reviews the contribution that rising treated obesity-related chronic disease prevalence and its associated treatment (spending per treated case) has made to the growth in health care spending. We discuss trends in the clinical incidence of obesity and chronic disease as well as timely advancements in disease detection, treatment, and management. Evidence shows that rising obesity rates are influencing spending largely by increasing the treated prevalence of obesity-related chronic disease. Therefore, preventing individuals from becoming treated cases in the first place is one key way that our country can cut health care spending moving forward.

Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.

Comparative and cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based regimens compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone among US elderly stage IV colon cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have shown a statistically significant disease-free survival benefit of oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination regimens for stage IV colon cancer. Less is known regarding the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these agents among elderly patients. Whether the benefits of these agents justify the additional costs for elderly Medicare recipients is particularly policy relevant after US health care reform.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis of oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination therapy versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone in elderly stage IV colon cancer patients was performed from a US Medicare perspective. Survival and direct medical costs were estimated using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data sets for patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2005 with follow-up through 2007. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as costs per life-year gained, with sensitivity analysis estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

Median improved overall survival with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone, or irinotecan-based or oxaliplatin-based combination therapy was 0.99, 1.07, and 1.47 life-years, respectively. Costs per life-year gained for oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination regimens compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone were $78,181 and $267,938, respectively. ICERs comparing oxaliplatin-based to irinotecan-based regimens were $40,230 per life-year gained or $160,920 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination therapy improves overall survival but also substantially increases direct medical costs compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin alone when used in elderly US patients with stage IV colon cancer. Oxaliplatin-based regimens are more cost-effective than irinotecan-based regimens for treatment of elderly stage IV colon cancer patients in terms of cost per life-year gained, but not in terms of cost per QALY.

Raman Spectroscopy for Clinical Oncology

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death throughout the world. Advancements in early and improved diagnosis could help prevent a significant number of these deaths. Raman spectroscopy is a vibrational spectroscopic technique which has received considerable attention recently with regards to applications in clinical oncology. Raman spectroscopy has the potential not only to improve diagnosis of cancer but also to advance the treatment of cancer. A number of studies have investigated Raman spectroscopy for its potential to improve diagnosis and treatment of a wide variety of cancers. In this paper the most recent advances in dispersive Raman spectroscopy, which have demonstrated promising leads to real world application for clinical oncology are reviewed. The application of Raman spectroscopy to breast, brain, skin, cervical, gastrointestinal, oral, and lung cancers is reviewed as well as a special focus on the data analysis techniques, which have been employed in the studies.

Economic burden of cancer in the United States: estimates, projections, and future research

The economic burden of cancer in the United States is substantial and expected to increase significantly in the future because of expected growth and aging of the population and improvements in survival as well as trends in treatment patterns and costs of care following cancer diagnosis. In this article, we describe measures of the economic burden of cancer and present current estimates and projections of the national burden of cancer in the United States. We discuss ongoing efforts to characterize the economic burden of cancer in the United States and identify key areas for future work including developing and enhancing research resources, improving estimates and projections of economic burden, evaluating targeted therapies, and assessing the financial burden for patients and their families. This work will inform efforts by health care policy makers, health care systems, providers, and employers to improve the cancer survivorship experience in the United States.

National estimates of out-of-pocket health care expenditure burdens among nonelderly adults with cancer: 2001 to 2008

PURPOSE

To compare the prevalence of high out-of-pocket burdens among patients with cancer with other chronically ill and well patients, and to examine the sociodemographic characteristics associated with high burdens among patients with cancer.

METHODS

The sample included persons 18 to 64 years of age who received treatment for cancer, taken from a nationally representative sample of the US population from the 2001 to 2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We examined the proportion of persons living in families with high out-of-pocket burdens associated with medical spending, including insurance premiums, relative to income, defining high health care (total) burden as spending more than 20% of income on health care (and premiums).

RESULTS

The risk of high burdens is significantly greater for patients with cancer compared with other chronically ill and well patients. We find that 13.4% of patients with cancer had high total burdens, in contrast to 9.7% among those with other chronic conditions and 4.4% among those without chronic conditions. Among nonelderly persons with cancer, the following were associated with higher out-of-pocket burdens: private nongroup insurance, age 55 to 64 years, non-Hispanic black, never married or widowed, one child or no children, unemployed, lower income, lower education level, living in nonmetropolitan statistical areas, and having other chronic conditions.

CONCLUSION

High burdens may affect treatment choice and deter patients from getting care. Thus, although a detailed patient-physician discussion of costs of care may not be feasible, we believe that an awareness of out-of-pocket burdens among patients with cancer is useful for clinical oncologists.

Value and cancer care: toward an equitable future

Health care expenses in the United States are increasing inexorably. At the current rate of growth, it is anticipated that 20% of the gross national product will consist of health-related expenditures within the next decade. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, and it is increasing in prevalence because of the aging of the population and the limited number of successful prevention strategies. As the biological characteristics of cancer come into sharper focus, targeted therapies are being developed that offer the promise of increased clinical benefit with fewer toxicities than are associated with conventional treatment. Although spectacular successes are infrequent with this approach, to date, the majority of targeted therapies are modestly effective at best, and extremely costly. This observation suggests that a broadly acceptable definition of value in a cancer therapeutic agent is not at hand, but is sorely needed from the vantage points of the patient and society. A corollary issue of enormous import is how to equitably distribute the health care dollar in the service of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. Although cancer is responsible for only 5% of the health care budget, its cost is increasing and it can be viewed as paradigmatic when contemplating the problem of equity in health care. Here, a number of concepts are discussed that focus on this goal and its implications for the cancer patient and society at large.

Stool DNA screening for colorectal cancer: opportunities to improve value with next generation tests

General adoption of the screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) by patients, health care professionals, medical centers, and third party payers rests on a favorable assessment of value. Reported cost-effectiveness estimates of stool DNA testing for CRC screening incorporated performance assumptions based on data from the first generation tests. Given the substantial technical advances in stool DNA testing that have occurred subsequently, estimates of value will need to be revisited. This review briefly examines the early cost-effectiveness estimates for stool DNA screening and looks ahead at how the next generation tests might improve such value estimates for CRC screening.

Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020

BACKGROUND

Current estimates of the costs of cancer care in the United States are based on data from 2003 and earlier. However, incidence, survival, and practice patterns have been changing for the majority of cancers.

METHODS

Cancer prevalence was estimated and projected by phase of care (initial year following diagnosis, continuing, and last year of life) and tumor site for 13 cancers in men and 16 cancers in women through 2020. Cancer prevalence was calculated from cancer incidence and survival models estimated from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data. Annualized net costs were estimated from recent SEER-Medicare linkage data, which included claims through 2006 among beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with a cancer diagnosis. Control subjects without cancer were identified from a 5% random sample of all Medicare beneficiaries residing in the SEER areas to adjust for expenditures not related to cancer. All cost estimates were adjusted to 2010 dollars. Different scenarios for assumptions about future trends in incidence, survival, and cost were assessed with sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Assuming constant incidence, survival, and cost, we projected 13.8 and 18.1 million cancer survivors in 2010 and 2020, respectively, with associated costs of cancer care of 124.57 and 157.77 billion 2010 US dollars. This 27% increase in medical costs reflects US population changes only. The largest increases were in the continuing phase of care for prostate cancer (42%) and female breast cancer (32%). Projections of current trends in incidence (declining) and survival (increasing) had small effects on 2020 estimates. However, if costs of care increase annually by 2% in the initial and last year of life phases of care, the total cost in 2020 is projected to be $173 billion, which represents a 39% increase from 2010.

CONCLUSIONS

The national cost of cancer care is substantial and expected to increase because of population changes alone. Our findings have implications for policy makers in planning and allocation of resources.

Medical expenditures of adult cancer survivors aged <65 years in the United States

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to provide national estimates of medical expenditures for all adult cancer survivors aged <65 years. Most studies of expenditures for cancer survivors in this age group have been based on the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and were limited to "affected survivors."

METHODS

MEPS expenditure data for 2001 to 2007 were linked to data identifying all survivors from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which is the MEPS sampling frame. The sample was comprised of adults ages 25 to 64 years. Propensity-score matching was used to estimate the effects of cancer on average total and out-of-pocket expenditures for all services and separately for prescriptions. Probit models were used to estimate effects on the probability of exceeding different expenditure thresholds.

RESULTS

Mean annual expenditures on all services in 2007 were $16,910 ± $3911 for survivors who were newly diagnosed with cancer, $7992 ± $972 for survivors who had been diagnosed in previous years, and $3303 ± $103 for other adults. Fifty-three percent of survivors were not identified in MEPS but only by linking to NHIS. Expenditures for all survivors averaged approximately $9300 compared with $13,600 for "affected survivors." For previously diagnosed survivors, the increase in mean expenditures attributable to cancer was approximately $4000 to $5000 annually. On average, relatively little of the increase was paid out of pocket, but cancer nearly doubled the risk of high out-of-pocket expenditures.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous MEPS analyses overstated average expenditures for all survivors. Nevertheless, the current results indicated that the increase in expenditures attributable to cancer is substantial, even for longer term survivors, and that cancer increases the relative risk of high out-of-pocket expenditures.