ANALYSING THE FINANCIAL BURDEN AND ITS DETERMINANTS ON CANCER PATIENTS: A CROSS SECTIONAL STUDY FROM NORTH INDIA
Author(s)
Naveen Kumar, MD;
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Assistant Professor, New Delhi, India
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Assistant Professor, New Delhi, India
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to measure the severe financial toxicity among cancer patients receiving treatment at a major cancer center in India. It also evaluated sociodemographic and clinical factors that predicted financial toxicity, its affects treatment adherence, and documented the coping strategies used by patients affected.
METHODS: A total of 100 cancer patients were included in this study. A structured questionnaire and the validated COST-FACIT tool were used to capture the data. The financial toxicity was categorised as high, moderate, and low, with scores defined as high (<15), moderate (15-25), and low (>25). The descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and multivariable logistic regression were used
RESULTS: The average COST-FACIT score among the study participants was 19.4 ± 7.2, which shows a significant burden. A total of 24% of patients reported high financial toxicity, while 38% experienced moderate and low toxicity each. Catastrophic health spending, defined as out-of-pocket costs exceeding 40% of household income, was noted by 68% of participants. To handle treatment-related costs, 44% of patients borrowed money, 18% sold personal items, and 56% cut essential household expenses. However, only 12% were able to get help from any government financial aid programs. Financial toxicity was linked to lower monthly income (p < 0.01), lack of insurance (p = 0.002), advanced-stage disease (p = 0.01), and high treatment costs over ₹50,000 (p < 0.001). Treatment adherence suffered in 28%, with 18% delaying treatment, 12% missing appointments, 6% temporarily stopping therapy, and 4% quitting treatment entirely. Multivariable logistic regression found low income (OR 3.4), no insurance (OR 2.1), and advanced cancer stage (OR 1.8) as important independent factors
CONCLUSIONS: Financial toxicity is common and greatly impacts how well cancer patients follow their treatment plans. Strengthening insurance coverage, access to government support, and adding financial counselling to regular cancer care are essential steps to reduce this burden.
METHODS: A total of 100 cancer patients were included in this study. A structured questionnaire and the validated COST-FACIT tool were used to capture the data. The financial toxicity was categorised as high, moderate, and low, with scores defined as high (<15), moderate (15-25), and low (>25). The descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and multivariable logistic regression were used
RESULTS: The average COST-FACIT score among the study participants was 19.4 ± 7.2, which shows a significant burden. A total of 24% of patients reported high financial toxicity, while 38% experienced moderate and low toxicity each. Catastrophic health spending, defined as out-of-pocket costs exceeding 40% of household income, was noted by 68% of participants. To handle treatment-related costs, 44% of patients borrowed money, 18% sold personal items, and 56% cut essential household expenses. However, only 12% were able to get help from any government financial aid programs. Financial toxicity was linked to lower monthly income (p < 0.01), lack of insurance (p = 0.002), advanced-stage disease (p = 0.01), and high treatment costs over ₹50,000 (p < 0.001). Treatment adherence suffered in 28%, with 18% delaying treatment, 12% missing appointments, 6% temporarily stopping therapy, and 4% quitting treatment entirely. Multivariable logistic regression found low income (OR 3.4), no insurance (OR 2.1), and advanced cancer stage (OR 1.8) as important independent factors
CONCLUSIONS: Financial toxicity is common and greatly impacts how well cancer patients follow their treatment plans. Strengthening insurance coverage, access to government support, and adding financial counselling to regular cancer care are essential steps to reduce this burden.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EE370
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
SDC: Oncology