Abstract

PurposeBreast cancer–related lymphedema is an adverse effect of breast cancer surgery affecting nearly 30% of US breast cancer survivors (BCS). Our previous analysis showed that, even 12 years after cancer treatment, out-of-pocket healthcare costs for BCS with lymphedema remained higher than for BCS without lymphedema; however, only half of the cost difference was lymphedema-related. This follow-up analysis examines what, above and beyond lymphedema, contributes to cost differences.MethodsThis mixed methods study included 129 BCS who completed 12 monthly cost diaries in 2015. Using Cohen’s d and multivariable analysis, we compared self-reported costs across 13 cost categories by lymphedema status. We elicited quotes about specific cost categories from in-person interviews with 40 survey participants.ResultsCompared with BCS without lymphedema, BCS with lymphedema faced 122% higher mean overall monthly direct costs ($355 vs $160); had significantly higher co-pay, medication, and other out-of-pocket costs, lower lotion costs; and reported inadequate insurance coverage and higher costs that persisted over time. Lotion and medication expenditure differences were driven by BCS’ socioeconomic differences in ability to pay.ConclusionsElevated patient costs for BCS with lymphedema are for more than lymphedema itself, suggesting that financial coverage for lymphedema treatment alone may not eliminate cost disparities.Implications for Cancer SurvivorsThe economic challenges examined in this paper have long been a concern of BCS and advocates, with only recent attention by policy makers, researchers, and providers. BCS identified potential policy and programmatic solutions, including expanding insurance coverage and financial assistance for BCS across socioeconomic levels.

Highlights

  • The economic burden of cancer treatment and its consequences, termed financial toxicity [1], remains high for breast cancer survivors (BCS) in the United States (US) [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]

  • Since our previous analysis estimated that only half of cost differences were due to Breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL) costs, the step of the current analysis sought to understand what drove cost differences between BCS with and without BCRL. We explored this in two steps, focusing only on cost categories that were significantly different by BCRL status

  • Just under half (46.5%) of the participants were diagnosed with BCRL

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The economic burden of cancer treatment and its consequences, termed financial toxicity [1], remains high for breast cancer survivors (BCS) in the United States (US) [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Healthcare costs are even higher for survivors who have long-term adverse effects of cancer treatments [12,13,14,15,16,17,18], such as breast cancer–related lymphedema [19,20,21,22]. Breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL) is a chronic condition that affects up to 35% [23, 24] of the 3.5 million BCS in the US (2016) [25]. It may have sustained effects on finances long after treatment [30] and may even influence consumer credit [21]. Costs for BCRL are largely understudied in the US context [19, 30]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.