Summary: 42% of cancer patients over 50 years of age in the USA have completely depleted their life’s financial assets within 2 years of diagnosis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29906429

Death or Debt? National Estimates of Financial Toxicity in Persons with Newly-Diagnosed Cancer.

PURPOSE:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of cancer upon a patient’s net worth and debt in the US.

METHODS:
This longitudinal study used the Health and Retirement Study from 1998-2014. Persons ≥50years with newly-diagnosed malignancies were included, excluding minor skin cancers. Multivariable generalized linear models assessed changes in net worth and debt (consumer, mortgage, home equity) at 2 and 4 years after diagnosis (year+2, year+4), controlling for demographic and clinically-related variables, cancer-specific attributes, economic factors, and mortality. A 2-year period before cancer diagnosis served as a historical control.

RESULTS:
Across 9.5 million estimated new diagnoses of cancer from 2000-2012, individuals averaged 68.6±9.4 years with slight majorities being married (54.7%), not retired (51.1%), and Medicare beneficiaries (56.6%). At year+2, 42.4% depleted their entire life’s assets, with higher adjusted odds associated with worsening cancer, requirement of continued treatment, demographic and socioeconomic factors (ie, female, Medicaid, uninsured, retired, increasing age, income, and household size), and clinical characteristics (ie, current smoker, worse self-reported health, hypertension, diabetes, lung disease) (P<.05); average losses were $92,098. At year+4, financial insolvency extended to 38.2%, with several consistent socioeconomic, cancer-related, and clinical characteristics remaining significant predictors of complete asset depletion.

CONCLUSIONS:
This nationally-representative investigation of an initially-estimated 9.5 million newly-diagnosed persons with cancer who were ≥50 years of age found a substantial proportion incurring financial toxicity. As large financial burdens have been found to adversely affect access to care and outcomes among cancer patients, the active development of approaches to mitigate these effects among already vulnerable groups remains of key importance.

dv said:

Summary: 42% of cancer patients over 50 years of age in the USA have completely depleted their life’s financial assets within 2 years of diagnosis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29906429

Death or Debt? National Estimates of Financial Toxicity in Persons with Newly-Diagnosed Cancer.

PURPOSE:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of cancer upon a patient’s net worth and debt in the US.

METHODS:
This longitudinal study used the Health and Retirement Study from 1998-2014. Persons ≥50years with newly-diagnosed malignancies were included, excluding minor skin cancers. Multivariable generalized linear models assessed changes in net worth and debt (consumer, mortgage, home equity) at 2 and 4 years after diagnosis (year+2, year+4), controlling for demographic and clinically-related variables, cancer-specific attributes, economic factors, and mortality. A 2-year period before cancer diagnosis served as a historical control.

RESULTS:
Across 9.5 million estimated new diagnoses of cancer from 2000-2012, individuals averaged 68.6±9.4 years with slight majorities being married (54.7%), not retired (51.1%), and Medicare beneficiaries (56.6%). At year+2, 42.4% depleted their entire life’s assets, with higher adjusted odds associated with worsening cancer, requirement of continued treatment, demographic and socioeconomic factors (ie, female, Medicaid, uninsured, retired, increasing age, income, and household size), and clinical characteristics (ie, current smoker, worse self-reported health, hypertension, diabetes, lung disease) (P<.05); average losses were $92,098. At year+4, financial insolvency extended to 38.2%, with several consistent socioeconomic, cancer-related, and clinical characteristics remaining significant predictors of complete asset depletion.

CONCLUSIONS:
This nationally-representative investigation of an initially-estimated 9.5 million newly-diagnosed persons with cancer who were ≥50 years of age found a substantial proportion incurring financial toxicity. As large financial burdens have been found to adversely affect access to care and outcomes among cancer patients, the active development of approaches to mitigate these effects among already vulnerable groups remains of key importance.

What a fantastic system to move money from the less wealthy to the more wealthy, whilst the less wealthy thank them for doing that.

> Summary: 42% of cancer patients over 50 years of age in the USA have completely depleted their life’s financial assets within 2 years of diagnosis.

Yeah. Another failure of the redacted Obamacare.

How much does anti-cancer treatment cost? And more to the point why is it so friggin expensive?

I can’t see any fundamental reason why it needs to be expensive, the drugs it requires are just cheap poisons together with mass-produced antibodies.

mollwollfumble said:

> Summary: 42% of cancer patients over 50 years of age in the USA have completely depleted their life’s financial assets within 2 years of diagnosis.

Yeah. Another failure of the redacted Obamacare.

How much does anti-cancer treatment cost? And more to the point why is it so friggin expensive?

I can’t see any fundamental reason why it needs to be expensive, the drugs it requires are just cheap poisons together with mass-produced antibodies.

Big Pharma. I read somewhere that one of the big costs of American healthcare was bureaucratic, they use much more admin than other countries in verifying govt and state expenditure and insurance and litigation costs .

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Summary: 42% of cancer patients over 50 years of age in the USA have completely depleted their life’s financial assets within 2 years of diagnosis.

Yeah. Another failure of the redacted Obamacare.

How much does anti-cancer treatment cost? And more to the point why is it so friggin expensive?

I can’t see any fundamental reason why it needs to be expensive, the drugs it requires are just cheap poisons together with mass-produced antibodies.

Big Pharma. I read somewhere that one of the big costs of American healthcare was bureaucratic, they use much more admin than other countries in verifying govt and state expenditure and insurance and litigation costs .

So if USAns travelled overseas then their cancer treatment would be affordable?

Similar to how it’s cheaper to get liposuction done in Latin America than Australia?

I think the thrust of the thread is that in the US if you’ve got cancer you die when you run out of money not when you run out of treatment options.

mollwollfumble said:

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Summary: 42% of cancer patients over 50 years of age in the USA have completely depleted their life’s financial assets within 2 years of diagnosis.

Yeah. Another failure of the redacted Obamacare.

How much does anti-cancer treatment cost? And more to the point why is it so friggin expensive?

I can’t see any fundamental reason why it needs to be expensive, the drugs it requires are just cheap poisons together with mass-produced antibodies.

Big Pharma. I read somewhere that one of the big costs of American healthcare was bureaucratic, they use much more admin than other countries in verifying govt and state expenditure and insurance and litigation costs .

So if USAns travelled overseas then their cancer treatment would be affordable?

Similar to how it’s cheaper to get liposuction done in Latin America than Australia?

Well quite a lot of them do.

“The drug industry’s 1993 commitment to voluntarily price restraint had no lasting effect on what Americans pay for drugs, but it may have contributed to the demise of the Clinton reform plan. The push for government-enforced drug price controls began to fizzle in 1994 as the economy improved and more Americans gained insurance coverage. The industry’s voluntary efforts also may have reduced the effectiveness of the administration’s criticisms with voters. As the year wore on, Democrats in Congress began to abandon the sinking Clinton reform plan, which failed to pass in either the House or the Senate. Republicans then took control of Congress in the mid-term election.”

This is probably why costs are so inflated for at least one aspect of treatment.

I have an American friend who went bankrupt when her 16yr old son had leukaemia. (He died.)

Her husband was diagnosed with tonsil cancer a few years ago. He was from Ireland, so moved back there for treatment under their Medicare-type system. He didn’t have to pay anything. (He died too.)

Divine Angel said:

I have an American friend who went bankrupt when her 16yr old son had leukaemia. (He died.)

Her husband was diagnosed with tonsil cancer a few years ago. He was from Ireland, so moved back there for treatment under their Medicare-type system. He didn’t have to pay anything. (He died too.)

:-(

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

I have an American friend who went bankrupt when her 16yr old son had leukaemia. (He died.)

Her husband was diagnosed with tonsil cancer a few years ago. He was from Ireland, so moved back there for treatment under their Medicare-type system. He didn’t have to pay anything. (He died too.)

:-(

Through Spocky, I know a couple in the south of the US, they have made an agreement with each other that is one gets very sick, they will not go to the hospital as it will drain all their money so the survivor will have nothing left. They plan to die at home. :(

They are pro-life you know.

sarahs mum said:

They are pro-life you know.

they are pro-life pre-birth… after that it’s every person for themselves.

Spiny Norman said:

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

I have an American friend who went bankrupt when her 16yr old son had leukaemia. (He died.)

Her husband was diagnosed with tonsil cancer a few years ago. He was from Ireland, so moved back there for treatment under their Medicare-type system. He didn’t have to pay anything. (He died too.)

:-(

Through Spocky, I know a couple in the south of the US, they have made an agreement with each other that is one gets very sick, they will not go to the hospital as it will drain all their money so the survivor will have nothing left. They plan to die at home. :(

You can see why teh average person hates Bernie Sanders and his proposal for a COMMUNIST medical system.

Someone suggested the Americvan and the Canadian versions of ‘Breaking Bad’”

American: your doctor tells you that you have cancer. You have to turn criminal activity, involving yourself with violent people and gangs to fund your treatment and to provide for your family. A long series of escapades ensues.

Canadian: your doctor tells you that you have cancer. You begin treatment next week, under the Canadian national health scheme. End of series.

captain_spalding said:

Someone suggested the Americvan and the Canadian versions of ‘Breaking Bad’”

American: your doctor tells you that you have cancer. You have to turn criminal activity, involving yourself with violent people and gangs to fund your treatment and to provide for your family. A long series of escapades ensues.

Canadian: your doctor tells you that you have cancer. You begin treatment next week, under the Canadian national health scheme. End of series.

PMSL

For all health matters, preferable to be Australian. Australian health system the envy of many countries and their citizens.

Peak Warming Man said:

I think the thrust of the thread is that in the US if you’ve got cancer you die when you run out of money not when you run out of treatment options.

How fucked is that and then like mentioned you convince most people a universal health care system is a communist idea
Is debt passed onto family, “Sorry for your loss, here’s the bill for treatment”