METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in three Malaysian public hospitals namely Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz and the National Cancer Institute using a multi-level sampling technique to recruit 630 respondents from February 2020 to February 2021. CHE was defined as incurring a monthly health expenditure of more than 10% of the total monthly household expenditure. A validated questionnaire was used to collect the relevant data.
RESULTS: The CHE level was 54.4%. CHE was higher among patients of Indian ethnicity (P = 0.015), lower level education (P = 0.001), those unemployed (P < 0.001), lower income (P < 0.001), those in poverty (P < 0.001), those staying far from the hospital (P < 0.001), living in rural areas (P = 0.003), small household size (P = 0.029), moderate cancer duration (P = 0.030), received radiotherapy treatment (P < 0.001), had very frequent treatment (P < 0.001), and without a Guarantee Letter (GL) (P < 0.001). The regression analysis identified significant predictors of CHE as lower income aOR 18.63 (CI 5.71-60.78), middle income aOR 4.67 (CI 1.52-14.41), poverty income aOR 4.66 (CI 2.60-8.33), staying far from hospital aOR 2.62 (CI 1.58-4.34), chemotherapy aOR 3.70 (CI 2.01-6.82), radiotherapy aOR 2.99 (CI 1.37-6.57), combination chemo-radiotherapy aOR 4.99 (CI 1.48-16.87), health insurance aOR 3.99 (CI 2.31-6.90), without GL aOR 3.38 (CI 2.06-5.40), and without health financial aids aOR 2.94 (CI 1.24-6.96).
CONCLUSIONS: CHE is related to various sociodemographic, economic, disease, treatment and presence of health insurance, GL and health financial aids variables in Malaysia.
METHODS: We identified articles published Jan 1, 2005, to March 7, 2019, describing financial burden/toxicity experienced by cancer patients and/or informal caregivers using OVID Medline Embase and PsychInfo, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, and EconLit databases. Only English language peer-reviewed full papers describing studies conducted in very high development index countries with predominantly publicly funded healthcare were eligible (excluded the USA). All stages of the review were evaluated in teams of two researchers excepting the final data extraction (CJL only).
RESULTS: The searches identified 7117 unique articles, 32 of which were eligible. Studies were undertaken in Canada, Australia, Ireland, UK, Germany, Denmark, Malaysia, Finland, France, South Korea, and the Netherlands. Eighteen studies reported patient/caregiver out-of-pocket costs (range US$17-US$506/month), 18 studies reported patient/caregiver lost income (range 17.6-67.3%), 14 studies reported patient/caregiver travel and accommodation costs (range US$8-US$393/month), and 6 studies reported financial stress (range 41-48%), strain (range 7-39%), or financial burden/distress/toxicity among patients/caregivers (range 22-27%). The majority of studies focused on patients, with some including caregivers. Financial toxicity was greater in those with early disease and/or more severe cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite government-funded universal public healthcare, financial toxicity is an issue for cancer patients and their families. Although levels of toxicity vary between countries, the findings suggest financial protection appears to be inadequate in many countries.
METHODS: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched to find studies that examined FT. There was no limit on the design or setting of the study. Random-effects meta-analysis was utilized to obtain the pooled prevalence of objective FT.
RESULTS: Out of 244 identified studies during the initial screening, only 64 studies were included in this review. The catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) method was often used in the included studies to determine the objective FT. The pooled prevalence of CHE was 47% (95% CI: 24.0-70.0) in middle- and high-income countries, and the highest percentage was noted in low-income countries (74.4%). A total of 30 studies focused on subjective FT, of which 9 used the Comprehensive Score for FT (COST) tool and reported median scores ranging between 17.0 and 31.9.
CONCLUSION: This study shows that cancer patients from various income-group countries experienced a significant financial burden during their treatment. It is imperative to conduct further studies on interventions and policies that can lower FT caused by cancer treatment.
METHODS: This study employs a quantitative method by way of a cross-sectional approach. The 2018 JKN claims data, drawn from a 1% sample that JKN annually produces, were analyzed. Nine hundred forty-five HIV patients out of 1,971,744 members were identified in the data sample and their claims record data at primary care and hospital levels were analyzed. Using ICD (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems), 10 codes (i.e., B20, B21, B22, B23, and B24) that fall within the categories of HIV-related disease. For each level, patterns of service utilization by patient-health status, discharge status, severity level, and total cost per claim were analyzed.
RESULTS: Most HIV patients (81%) who first seek care at the primary-care level are referred to hospitals. 72.5% of the HIV patients receive antiretroviral treatment (ART) through JKN; 22% at the primary care level; and 78% at hospitals. The referral rate from public primary-care facilities was almost double (45%) that of private providers (24%). The most common referral destination was higher-level hospitals: Class B 48%, and Class C 25%, followed by the lowest Class A at 3%. Because JKN pays hospitals for each inpatient admission, it was possible to estimate the cost of hospital care. Extrapolating the sample of hospital cases to the national level using the available weight score, it was estimated that JKN paid IDR 444 billion a year for HIV hospital services and a portion of capitation payment.
CONCLUSION: There was an underrepresentation of PLHIV (People Living with HIV) who had been covered by JKN as 25% of the total PLHIV on ART were able to attain access through other schemes. This study finding is principally aligned with other local research findings regarding a portion of PLHIV access and the preferred delivery channel. Moreover, the issue behind the underutilization of National Health Insurance services in Indonesia among PLHIV is similar to what was experienced in Vietnam in 2015. The 2015 Vietnam study showed that negative perception, the experience of using social health insurance as well as inaccurate information, may lead to the underutilization problem (Vietnam-Administration-HIV/AIDSControl, Social health insurance and people living with HIV in Vietnam: an assessment of enrollment in and use of social health insurance for the care and treatment of people living with HIV, 2015). Furthermore, the current research finding shows that 99% of the total estimated HIV expenditure occurred at the hospital. This indicates a potential inefficiency in the service delivery scheme that needs to be decentralized to a primary-care facility.