Loading
In Germany rehabilitation is an entitlement with the outpatient version free to the patient. In most of the world there is no survivorship service to be charged for, and the household pays for whatever follow-up happens. Reliable comparative figures do not exist.
Outside the two systems with the best data, the picture is sketched rather than measured, and this record says which parts are which.
Germany. Oncological rehabilitation is a pension insurance entitlement, normally three weeks, inpatient or full-day outpatient, extending to people already drawing a pension and to some non-insured family members. For the outpatient form the insurer states that "anders, als bei einer stationären Reha, fallen bei einer ambulanten Rehabilitation grundsätzlich keine Kosten für die Patienten an", that is, unlike inpatient rehabilitation, outpatient rehabilitation generally costs the patient nothing. We could not verify the inpatient daily co-payment, its annual limit or its exemptions from the pages reachable in this round, and no figure is supplied in their place.
The Nordic countries. Tax-funded and free at the point of use, with rehabilitation inside the pathway and much delivery devolved to municipalities. The Danish literature records that social inequality in uptake persists regardless, which is the point worth carrying: removing the price does not remove the gradient.
Australia. A published national model of survivorship care and a national position that exercise should be part of standard cancer care. We did not source what a person pays out of pocket for the components, and do not estimate it.
Low and middle income settings. The published synthesis describes financial barriers and limited access to follow-up care as defining features, with specialised survivorship centres rare and resources for late effects constrained. In practice the household pays for transport, for medicines, for scans and for lost earnings, and the absence of a service means there is often nothing to be charged for in the first place. This is the largest cost gap on this front and the least quantified.
The comparative figure that does exist. The one direct comparison found in this round is the COST-instrument survey of 600 people in the UK and the United States, 34 per cent against 55 per cent reporting financial toxicity. Its authors' conclusion applies to both and to everywhere with less data: the prevalence "underscores the need to provide an additional level of protection to the most vulnerable groups than is currently offered in either country".
What would make this record better. A standardised measure of out-of-pocket cost after cancer treatment, applied in more than two countries, covering the specific items on this front: rehabilitation, psychological therapy, lymphoedema garments, fertility storage, wigs, travel and lost earnings. The instrument exists. The comparative study does not.
The cost of recovery after cancer is borne by whoever the system has left holding it: a pension insurer in Germany, a municipality in Denmark, an insurance plan in the United States, and the household almost everywhere else. Comparisons between systems require a common instrument applied in each, which is why only one such comparison exists.
Query for this technology: (TITLE:"What recovery costs in the rest of the world" OR ABSTRACT:"What recovery costs in the rest of the world") AND (cancer OR tumor OR tumour OR oncology OR carcinoma OR lymphoma OR leukemia OR leukaemia OR myeloma OR sarcoma OR melanoma OR glioma). Results are unfiltered search hits about What recovery costs in the rest of the world, not a curated reading list.
Shares After treatment in the Nordic countries: rehabilitation written into the pathway, After treatment in low and middle income countries: mostly nothing, What recovery costs in the UK, and what it does not, Financial toxicity and financial navigation and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, measurement, access.
Shares What recovery costs in the UK, and what it does not, Financial toxicity and financial navigation, Financial toxicity, Quality of life and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, measurement.
Shares After treatment in the Nordic countries: rehabilitation written into the pathway, After treatment in Germany: a rehabilitation entitlement, not a leaflet, What recovery costs in the UK, and what it does not, Quality of life and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, measurement, access.
Shares After treatment in the Nordic countries: rehabilitation written into the pathway, After treatment in Germany: a rehabilitation entitlement, not a leaflet, Quality of life, Survivorship and late effects are neglected and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, measurement, access.
Shares What recovery costs in the United States, What recovery costs in the UK, and what it does not, Survivorship and late effects are neglected, Cervical cancer and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, measurement, access.
Shares What recovery costs in the United States, Financial toxicity and financial navigation, Quality of life, Survivorship and late effects are neglected and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, access.
Shares Quality of life, Survivorship and late effects are neglected, HR-positive / HER2-negative breast cancer, Colorectal cancer and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship, measurement, access.
Shares Money after treatment: what the cost of cancer does once the treatment has finished, Financial toxicity and financial navigation, Financial toxicity, Quality of life and the tags rejuvenation, survivorship.