Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,130

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Financial Toxicity of Cancer Treatment: A Pilot Study Assessing Out-of-Pocket Expenses and the Insured Cancer Patient's Experience

Open access
Zafar, S. Yousuf, Peppercorn, Jeffrey M., Schrag, Deborah, Taylor, Donald H., Goetzinger, Amy M., Zhong, Xiaoyin, Abernethy, Amy P.·2013·The Oncologist

Abstract

Learning Objectives: Describe the experiences of insured cancer patients requesting copayment assistance in order to better understand the challenges of underinsurance. Describe the impact of costs on the well being of insured cancer patients. Evaluate the impact of costs on the treatment received by insured cancer patients. Purpose.: Cancer patients carry rising burdens of health care-related out-of-pocket expenses, and a growing number of patients are considered “underinsured.” Our objective was to describe experiences of insured cancer patients requesting copayment assistance and to describe the impact of health care expenses on well-being and treatment. Methods.: We conducted baseline and follow-up surveys regarding the impact of health care costs on well-being and treatment among cancer patients who contacted a national copayment assistance foundation along with a comparison sample of patients treated at an academic medical center. Results.: Among 254 participants, 75% applied for drug copayment assistance. Forty-two percent of participants reported a significant or catastrophic subjective financial burden; 68% cut back on leisure activities, 46% reduced spending on food and clothing, and 46% used savings to defray out-of-pocket expenses. To save money, 20% took less than the prescribed amount of medication, 19% partially filled prescriptions, and 24% avoided filling prescriptions altogether. Copayment assistance applicants were more likely than nonapplicants to employ at least one of these strategies to defray costs (98% vs. 78%). In an adjusted analysis, younger age, larger household size, applying for copayment assistance, and communicating with physicians about costs were associated with greater subjective financial burden. Conclusion.: Insured patients undergoing cancer treatment and seeking copayment assistance experience considerable subjective financial burden, and they may alter their care to defray out-of-pocket expenses. Health insurance does not eliminate financial distress or health disparities among cancer patients. Future research should investigate coverage thresholds that minimize adverse financial outcomes and identify cancer patients at greatest risk for financial toxicity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0279

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,130

Metadata

Authors
Zafar, S. Y., Peppercorn, J. M., Schrag, D., Taylor, D. H., Goetzinger, A. M., Zhong, X., & Abernethy, A. P.
Venue
The Oncologist
Published
2013-02-26
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
381-390
ISSN
  • 1083-7159 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-490X
OpenAlex
W2099354636
Cited by
1,130
References
0
FWCI
127.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Financial Toxicity of Cancer Treatment: A Pilot Study Assessing Out-of-Pocket Expenses and the Insured Cancer Patient's Experience. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0279
The paper
Zafar, S. Y., Peppercorn, J. M., Schrag, D., Taylor, D. H., Goetzinger, A. M., Zhong, X., & Abernethy, A. P. (2013). The Financial Toxicity of Cancer Treatment: A Pilot Study Assessing Out-of-Pocket Expenses and the Insured Cancer Patient's Experience. The Oncologist. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0279

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.