Cost of cancer care: The impact of disclosure on willingness to pay and treatment preferences.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 15-15
Author(s):  
Rebecca Howe ◽  
Michael J. Hassett ◽  
Alyse Wheelock ◽  
Cristina M. Thorsen ◽  
Celia Kaplan ◽  
...  

15 Background: Little is known about patients’ views regarding the costs of cancer care and its effect on treatment selection. Even less is known about how patients view information about conflicts of interest, such as disclosure of a clinic’s profit from cancer therapy. In the setting of health care reform and rising costs, we sought to understand how out-of-pocket costs and disclosure of profit impact patient treatment preferences. Methods: Previous breast cancer patients were invited to complete a web-based survey that presented four scenarios outlining cancer care treatment benefits and risks (MRI, pegfilgrastim, cold cap, and chemotherapy drugs). Initially, respondents were asked their preference for each treatment over a standard of care alternative and their out-of-pocket willingness to pay. After providing information about first, the total cost per treatment and second, the profit to the clinic, respondents were asked if their preference changed. Results: 40 women responded, all whom had previous diagnoses of breast cancer. In each of the four scenarios, respondents were less interested in the treatment option after being informed about cost or disclosure of a clinic profit. While 45.5% of respondents said they consider costs all or most of the time, only 9.1% considered clinic profit. However, 66.7% of respondents said they would be less interested in a treatment if they knew their provider received a profit from the treatment. Conclusions: Patients are less likely to prefer treatments after disclosure of total cost and clinic profit data. Communication about the costs and profits associated with cancer care may be an essential component of informed decision making in an era of growing patient involvement and escalating health care costs. [Table: see text]

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas N. Chirikos ◽  
Josefina. López-Garcia ◽  
Cristóbal. Cintrón Vargas ◽  
Omayra L. Gonzalez ◽  
Maria P. Pérez-Grau ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 20s-20s
Author(s):  
Estefania Santamaria ◽  
Jean Ronald Cornely ◽  
Georges Dubuche ◽  
Vincent DeGennaro

Abstract 19 Background: Project Medishare launched a breast cancer program in Port-au-Prince in 2013 at the request of local partners. In 2015, the program was expanded as part of a national breast cancer treatment program with Equal Health International. With the mission of strengthening Haiti’s Ministry of Health (MSPP) cancer care infrastructure, the program seeks to decentralize cancer care for women living up to eight hours driving distance from Port-au-Prince by building hospital capacity for cancer screening, diagnosis, chemotherapy and hormone therapy provision at outlying hospitals. Methods: In 2013, two physicians and three nurses were trained to handle, mix and administer chemotherapy by American nurses and doctors. To expand the national program in January 2015, 20 additional physicians and 32 nurses from all ten geographic regions underwent a three-day training in Port-au-Prince on treatment algorithms and practical training for breast cancer. As patients came in for treatment at the local institutions, Project Medishare nurses were on site to supervise mixing and administration of chemotherapy. Physicians continued their practical training via telemedicine to confirm treatment plans and dosage calculations. Results: By September 2015, onsite practical training and chemotherapy had occurred at the primary public hospitals in Gonaives, Jacmel, and Les Cayes. One physician and three nurses were fully trained at each site and seven patients with breast cancer have been treated thus far at the new sites. Future efforts will focus on quality improvement and continuing onsite training at the other hospitals as well as encouraging more doctors and patients to utilize regional programs instead of coming to the capital for treatment. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first regularly-operating multi-site chemotherapy program in a low-income country. Our experiences may inform others to expand already established protocol-based cancer programs in low-resource settings. Next steps include working with MSPP to expand chemotherapy access to Cap-Haitien and to launch breast reconstruction programs through similar trainings in Port-au-Prince. AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No COIs from the authors.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6s-6s ◽  
Author(s):  
Maheswari Jaganathan ◽  
Dhiauddin Hai ◽  
Nur Hidayati Zainal ◽  
Nadia Rajaram ◽  
Mohamed Yusof ◽  
...  

Abstract 23 Background: Breast cancer incidence is rapidly increasing in Asia as a result of changes in life expectancy and lifestyle factors. In Malaysia, incidence is expected to double in the next decade and survival is poor (50% to 75%) because of late presentation and poor adherence to treatment. This burden is greater for women in underserved communities, but few studies have examined systematic approaches to reduce late presentation and poor treatment adherence. We sought to determine whether a patient navigation program (PNP) could be a community-based solution to improve outcomes of patients with breast cancer, particularly in a resource-constrained setting. Methods: PNP was implemented in a secondary hospital that serves a suburban area near Kuala Lumpur. A decision aid, which incorporated local key messages, was developed. Nurses and community workers in the program received skills training in navigation, communications, patient management, and resource identification and utilization. Data were retrieved from baseline questionnaires and a patient tracking system and was analyzed by using descriptive statistics. Results: In the first year of the program, 225 women were served, of whom 137 were patients with breast cancer. Compared with the prior year, more patients in the PNP received diagnoses within 14 days of their first visit (67.7% v 62.4%; P = .516) and had surgery within 28 days from diagnosis (68.4% v 61.3%; P = .487). There were also fewer reported patients who experienced default in the PNP (4.4% v 6.6%; P = .797). Conclusion: This 1-year evaluation showed that patient navigation is feasible in a resource-constrained setting, but longer follow-up is required to determine the impact on outcomes. Moving forward, we seek to increase the efficiency of patient navigation by increasing access to palliative care and improving interdepartment coordination and patient tracking systems. AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Maheswari Jaganathan No relationship to disclose Dhiauddin Hai No relationship to disclose Nur Hidayati Zainal No relationship to disclose Nadia Rajaram No relationship to disclose Mohamed Yusof No relationship to disclose Soo-Hwang Teo Honoraria: AstraZeneca Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca Research Funding: AstraZeneca Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e1304-e1314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Poggio ◽  
Marco Tagliamento ◽  
Massimo Di Maio ◽  
Valentino Martelli ◽  
Andrea De Maria ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the attitudes and practice of Italian oncologists toward breast cancer care and related research activities. METHODS: A 29-question anonymous online survey was sent by e-mail to members of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology and the Italian Breast Cancer Study Group on April 3, 2020. Only medical oncologists (both those in training and specialists) were invited to complete the questionnaire. RESULTS: Out of 165 responding oncologists, 121 (73.3.%) worked in breast units. In the (neo)adjuvant setting, compared with before the emergency, fewer oncologists adopted weekly paclitaxel (68.5% v 93.9%) and a dose-dense schedule for anthracycline-based chemotherapy (43% v 58.8%) during the COVID-19 outbreak. In the metastatic setting, compared with before the emergency, fewer oncologists adopted first-line weekly paclitaxel for HER2-positive disease (41.8% v 53.9%) or CDK4/6 inhibitors for luminal tumors with less-aggressive characteristics (55.8% v 80.0%) during the COVID-19 outbreak. A significant change was also observed in delaying the timing for monitoring therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors, assessing treatment response with imaging tests, and flushing central venous devices. Clinical research and scientific activities were reduced in 80.3% and 80.1% of respondents previously implicated in these activities, respectively. CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists face many challenges in providing cancer care during the COVID-19 outbreak. Although most of the changes in their attitudes and practice were reasonable responses to the current health care emergency without expected major negative impact on patient outcomes, some potentially alarming signals of undertreatment were observed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 92 ◽  
pp. S49
Author(s):  
E. Heeg ◽  
K. Schreuder ◽  
P.E.R. Spronk ◽  
J.C. Oosterwijk ◽  
S. Siesling ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 1008-1016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenchi Liang ◽  
Caroline B. Burnett ◽  
Julia H. Rowland ◽  
Neal J. Meropol ◽  
Lynne Eggert ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with patient-physician communication and to examine the impact of communication on patients’ perception of having a treatment choice, actual treatment received, and satisfaction with care among older breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from 613 pairs of surgeons and their older (≥ 67 years) patients diagnosed with localized breast cancer. Measures of patients’ self-reported communication included physician- and patient-initiated communication and the number of treatment options discussed. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between communication and outcomes. RESULTS: Patients who reported that their surgeons mentioned more treatment options were 2.21 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62 to 3.01) more likely to report being given a treatment choice, and 1.33 times (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.73) more likely to get breast-conserving surgery with radiation than other types of treatment. Surgeons who were trained in surgical oncology, or who treated a high volume of breast cancer patients (≥ 75% of practice), were more likely to initiate communication with patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.56; and OR = 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.76, respectively). A high degree of physician-initiated communication, in turn, was associated with patients’ perception of having a treatment choice (OR = 2.46; 95% CI, 1.29 to 4.70), and satisfaction with breast cancer care (OR = 2.13; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.85) in the 3 to 6 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: Greater patient-physician communication was associated with a sense of choice, actual treatment, and satisfaction with care. Technical information and caring components of communication impacted outcomes differently. Thus, the quality of cancer care for older breast cancer patients may be improved through interventions that improve communication within the physician-patient dyad.


2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex C. Cheng ◽  
Mia A. Levy

PURPOSE Patients with breast cancer spend a large amount of time and effort receiving treatment. When the number of health care tasks exceeds a patient’s ability to manage that workload, they could become overburdened, leading to decreased plan adherence. We used electronic health record data to retrospectively assess dimensions of treatment workload related to outpatient encounters, commuting, and admissions. METHODS Using tumor registry and scheduling data, we evaluated the sensitivity of treatment workload measures to detect expected differences in breast cancer treatment burden by stage. We evaluated the impact of the on-body pegfilgrastim injector on the treatment workload of patients undergoing a specific chemotherapy protocol. RESULTS As hypothesized, patients with higher stage cancer experienced higher treatment workload. Over the first 18 months after diagnosis, patients with stage III disease spent a median of 81 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 39 to 113 hours) in outpatient clinics, commuted 61 hours (IQR, 32 to 86 hours), and spent $1,432 (IQR, $690 to $2,552) in commuting costs. In contrast, patients with stage I disease spent a median of 29 hours (IQR, 18 to 46 hours in clinic), commuted for 34 hours (IQR, 19 to 55 hours), and spent $834 (IQR, $389 to $1,649) in commuting costs. In addition, we substantiated claims that the pegfilgrastim on-body injector was effective in reducing some dimensions of workload such as unique appointment days. CONCLUSION Treatment workload measures capture an important dimension in the experience of patients with cancer. Patients and health care organizations can use workload measures to plan and allocate resources, leading to higher quality and better coordinated care.


1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 2614-2614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne S. Mandelblatt ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Katherine L. Kahn

ABSTRACT: Cancer is an important disease, and health care services have the potential to improve the quality and quantity of life for cancer patients. The delivery of these services also has recently been well codified. Given this framework, cancer care presents a unique opportunity for clinicians to develop and test outcome measures across diverse practice settings. Recently, the Institute of Medicine released a report reviewing the quality of cancer care in the United States and called for further development and monitoring of quality indicators. Thus, as we move into the 21st century, professional and regulatory agencies will be seeking to expand process measures and develop and validate outcomes-oriented measures for cancer and other diseases. For such measures to be clinically relevant and feasible, it is key that the oncology community take an active leadership role in this process. To set the stage for such activities, this article first reviews broad methodologic concerns involved in selecting measures of the quality of care, using breast cancer to exemplify key issues. We then use the case of breast cancer to review the different phases of cancer care and provide examples of phase-specific measures that, after careful operationalization, testing, and validation, could be used as the basis of an agenda for measuring the quality of breast cancer care in oncology practice. The diffusion of process and outcome measures into practice; the practicality, reliability, and validity of these measures; and the impact that these indicators have on practice patterns and the health of populations will be key to evaluating the success of such quality-of-care paradigms. Ultimately, improved quality of care should translate into morbidity and mortality reductions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document