Indian Journal of Urology Users online:621  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents 
EDITORIAL
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 237-238
 

Health-care expenses – A need to be cautious


Department of Urology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication1-Oct-2018

Correspondence Address:
Santosh Kumar
Department of Urology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/iju.IJU_297_18

Rights and Permissions

 

How to cite this article:
Kumar S. Health-care expenses – A need to be cautious. Indian J Urol 2018;34:237-8

How to cite this URL:
Kumar S. Health-care expenses – A need to be cautious. Indian J Urol [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Dec 10];34:237-8. Available from: http://www.indianjurol.com/text.asp?2018/34/4/237/242482


By the time this editorial is published, the Ayushman Bharat scheme, the largest government-funded health-care scheme in the world, would have been launched. It promises to insure 100 million families for half a million Indian rupees per family per year from secondary and tertiary hospital care expenses. The scheme proposes to amalgamate the present Central and State Government Health Schemes and cater to the poorest of the poor. It promises to be portable across the country in government and impaneled private hospitals. Many states are already running similar health schemes with success. It is a welcome change in a country often rated as one among the worst in per capita expenses (Rs. 1112) and percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) (1.06%) spent on public health.

The aim of these health-care schemes is to reduce the out-of-pocket expenses of the poor and vulnerable on health care, thus indirectly preventing from them being pushed to poverty due to a sudden illness. A study by Shahrawat and Rao[1] showed that 3.5% of the population in India falls below the poverty line and 5% of the households suffer from the ill effects of health expenditures. Cost of medicines constitutes the main share (72%) of out-of-pocket expenses (82% of outpatient and 42% of inpatient bills). If outpatient and medicines could be provided free, only 0.5% people fall into poverty due to health expenses. The study concluded that insurance schemes covering only inpatient or hospital expenses are unlikely to protect the poor from catastrophic health-care expenses. Correct identification of the vulnerable population and how to spend resources continues to be a challenge.

Both the life expectancy and per capita GDP of our country are increasing. With increasing life expectancy and changing lifestyle, the incidence of cancer in India is increasing though still less than the West. As urologists, we are witnessing a very rapid change in the drugs available to treat advanced and metastatic cancer. This gives a new hope where none existed for patients. Public health is unlikely to fund the use of these medications except for the fortunate few. The drugs are as a rule costly, toxic, and most of the time adds a few months to overall survival. New end-points such as biochemical recurrence-free survival and progression-free survival have been popularized to show the efficacy of these medications. The cost of the additional scans/investigations to measure these surrogate end-points also is never questioned. For a given patient, the ultimate goal is disability-free survival or survival with a good quality of life which unfortunately has never been used as an end-point.

Recently, the CARMENA trial[2] on patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with good performance status and a resectable primary tumor was published. The results of the trial show that sunitinib treatment was stopped in 86% (67.1% due to disease progression, 13% due to toxic effects, and 6.2% because of death). In addition, the mean duration of drug treatment was 6.7 and 8.5 months in the two groups (4 weeks on and 2 weeks off the drug so only during 66% of the time the patient was on the medication). Thirty percent patients required a dose reduction. About 38% had Grade 3 and 4 complications. It is obvious that the treatment was toxic and usually not continued for long. These data though provided are easily overlooked as they are not the primary end-points or part of the aims and conclusion of the articles. In making decisions on treatment of terminal malignancies, apart from the costs involved which are mostly to be paid by the patient off the pocket, the risks and the benefits have to be weighed before these options are prescribed to our patients. It is time to tread cautiously with use of newer evidence in view of the health economics.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Shahrawat R, Rao KD. Insured yet vulnerable: Out-of-pocket payments and India's poor. Health Policy Plan 2012;27:213-21.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Méjean A, Ravaud A, Thezenas S, Colas S, Beauval JB, Bensalah K, et al. Sunitinib alone or after nephrectomy in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2018;379:417-27.  Back to cited text no. 2
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (329 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed577    
    Printed65    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded50    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

HEALTHWARE INDIA