Breast, Cervical, and Lung Cancer: A comparison of Real Healthcare Costs and INA-CBGs Rates in the Era of National Health Insurance

Main Article Content

Fitriana Yuliastuti https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9020-8152
Tri Murti Andayani https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0075-8260
Dwi Endarti https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7841-4164
Susi Ari Kristina https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4248-6830

Keywords

Real cost, INA-CBGs rates, Breast cancer, Cervical cancer, Lung cancer

Abstract

Background: In Indonesia, the cost of cancer treatment has been determined by the Indonesian Case Base Groups (INA-CBGs) based on a code called the INA-CBG’s rates. However, a fair claim should be based on the severity of the disease and the class of treatment in the hospital, not on the rates of code. In fact, the real cost of therapy for cancer is influenced by several factors including stage, comorbidity, and severity (INA-CBGs coding, type of hospital, hospital class, treatment grade, side effects, and length of stay), so in many cases, there are reported differences between the real costs and the INA-CBGs rates charged to patients. Objective: This study aims to investigate the difference between real treatment costs and INA-CBG’s rates for cases of lung cancer, cervical cancer, and breast cancer at a cancer center hospital in Indonesia. Methods: This work uses an observational study, and the data were taken retrospectively from hospital financial data and patient medical records. The data were then analyzed using a one-sample t-test to determine the difference between real costs and INA-CBGs costs. Results: The results showed that there was no significant difference between real costs and INA-CBG’s cost on stage II lung cancer treatment in grade 2 with a sig. value of 0.683; code C-4-13-II in grade 3 with a sig. value of 0.151; and code C-4-13-III in grade 3 with a sig. value of 0.650; where the significance level (t alpha) is more than 0.05. Furthermore, the treatment costs for cervical cancer with codes C-4- 13-I and C-4-13-II in grade 1 had sig. values of 0.155 and 0.720 respectively. Lastly, the treatment cost for breast cancer patients with codes C-4-12-II in grade 3 had a sig. value of 0.145 and code C-4-13-II in grade 3 showed a sig. value of 0.091. Conclusion: Although statistical evaluation showed a significant difference for some cases and not significant for other cases, in real conditions, there is a difference between the INA-CBGs and the real costs that must be evaluated by the government and stakeholders to provide justice for cancer patients.

Abstract 591 | PDF Downloads 602

References

1. Yuliastuti F, Kristina SARI, Endarti DWI, et al. A Systematic Review of Cost Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Versus Standard Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small
Cell Lung Cancer. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2021;13(02). https://doi.org/10.31838/ijpr/2021.13.02.090
2. Barta JA, Powell CA, Wisnivesky JP. Global Epidemiology of Lung Cancer. Annals of global health. 2019;85(1):1-18.
3. Zappa C, Mousa SA. Non-small cell lung cancer: current treatment and future advances. Translational lung cancer research. 2016;5(3):288-300. https://doi. org/10.21037/tlcr.2016.06.07
4. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2018;68(6):394-424.
5. Cao M, Li H, Sun D, et al. Cancer burden of major cancers in China: a need for sustainable actions. Cancer Communications. 2020;40(5):205-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.12025
6. IARC. Indonesia - Global Cancer Observatory. Globocan. 2020;858:1-2.
7. Arrospide Elgarresta A, Soto-Gordoa M, Acaiturri T, et al. Coste del tratamiento del cáncer de mama por estadío clínico en el País Vasco. Revista Espanola de Salud Publica. 2015;89(1):93-7. https://doi.org/10.4321/s1135-57272015000100010
8. Andrade P, Sacristan JA, Dilla T. Health Economics & Outcome Research : The Economic Burden of Cancer in Spain : A Literature Review. Health Economics & Outcome Research: Open Access. 2017;3(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.4172/2471-268x.1000125
9. Ibarrondo O, Lizeaga G, Martínez-Llorente JM, et al. Health care costs of breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer care by clinical stage and cost component. Gaceta Sanitaria. 2022;36(3):246-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.12.035
10. Luengo-Fernandez R, Leal J, Gray A, et al. Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: A population-based cost analysis. The Lancet Oncology. 2013;14(12):1165-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70442-x
11. Arrospide A, Idigoras I, Mar J, et al. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of a colorectal cancer screening programme in a high adenoma prevalence scenario using MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4362-1
12. Arias-Gilart R, Falcón-Hernández J, Campos-Sofía M, et al. Efecto del tratamiento magnético en el comportamiento reológico del diésel. Tecnología Química. 2018;38(2):412-27.
13. Rajpal S, Kumar A, Joe W. Economic burden of cancer in India: Evidence from cross-sectional nationally representative household survey, 2014. PloS one. 2018;13(2):e0193320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193320
14. Yang Y, Han Z, Li X, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of colorectal cancer in China. Chinese Journal of Cancer Research. 2020;32(6):729. https://doi. org/10.1016/b978-1-4160-4686-8.50006-3
15. Setiawan D, Hadinegoro SR, Meyta H, et al. Cervical cancer prevention in Indonesia: An updated clinical impact, cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0230359. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230359
16. Mboi N, Murty Surbakti I, Trihandini I, et al. On the road to universal health care in Indonesia, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet. 2018;392(10147):581-91.
17. Hofmarcher T, Lindgren P, Wilking N, et al. The cost of cancer in Europe 2018. European Journal of Cancer. 2020;129:41-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2020.01.011
18. Satibi S, Andayani TM, Endarti D, et al. Comparison of real cost versus the Indonesian case base groups (INA-CBGs) tariff rates among patients of highincidence cancers under the National health insurance scheme. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP. 2019;20(1):117. https://doi.org/10.31557/
apjcp.2019.20.1.117
19. Alteri R, Kalidas M, Gadd L, et al. Breast Cancer. American Cancer Society. 2016;1-127.
20. Permenkes. Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 76 Tahun 2016 Tentang Pedoman Indonesian Case Base Groups (INA-CBG) Dalam Pelaksanaan Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional. 2016;1-275.
21. Santoso A, Sulistyaningrum IH, Rosyid A, et al. Comparative of Real Cost Against the Price of INA- CBGs Breast Cancer and Its Affecting Factors in JKN. 2020;6(1):60-6.
22. Dipiro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC, et al. PHARMACOTHERAPY A Pathophysiologic Approach. 10th ed. Mc Graw Hill Education. New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Athens, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, New Delhi, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto. 2017;1-2509.

Most read articles by the same author(s)