4.4 Article

Drivers of cost differences between US breast cancer survivors with or without lymphedema

Journal

JOURNAL OF CANCER SURVIVORSHIP
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages 804-814

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11764-019-00799-1

Keywords

Breast cancer; Lymphedema; Financial toxicity; Economic burden

Funding

  1. National Center for Research Resources of the National Institutes of Health [1UL1TR001079]
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health [1UL1TR001079]
  3. National Cancer Institute [R01CA106851, 1U54CA155850-01, K01CA184288]
  4. National Institute of Mental Health [R25MH083620]
  5. Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center [P30CA006973]
  6. National Institute on Drug Abuse [T32DA031099]
  7. National Institutes of Mental Health [K01MH111374]
  8. Johns Hopkins University Center for AIDS Research grant [P30AI094189]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Breast 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. Methods This 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. Results Compared 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. Conclusions Elevated 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available