Cargando…

How are patients managing with the costs of care for chronic kidney disease in Australia? A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) poses a financial burden on patients and their households. This descriptive study measures the prevalence of economic hardship and out-of-pocket costs in an Australian CKD population. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of patients receiving care for CKD (stage...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Essue, Beverley M, Wong, Germaine, Chapman, Jeremy, Li, Qiang, Jan, Stephen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698195/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23305212
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-14-5
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) poses a financial burden on patients and their households. This descriptive study measures the prevalence of economic hardship and out-of-pocket costs in an Australian CKD population. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of patients receiving care for CKD (stage III-V) in Western Sydney, Australia using a structured questionnaire. Data collection occurred between November 2010 and April 2011. Multivariate analyses assessed the relationships between economic hardship and individual, household and health system characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 247 prevalent CKD patients. A mean of AUD$907 per three months was paid out-of-pocket resulting in 71% (n=153) of participants experiencing financial catastrophe (out-of-pocket costs exceeding 10% of household income). Fifty-seven percent (n=140) of households reported economic hardship. The adjusted risk factors that decreased the likelihood of hardship included: home ownership (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71), access to financial resources (OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.11-0.50) and quality of life (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02-0.56). The factors that increased the likelihood of hardship included if income was negatively impacted by CKD (OR: 4.80, 95% CI: 2.17-10.62) and concessional status (i.e. receiving government support) (OR: 3.09, 95% CI: 1.38-6.91). Out-of-pocket costs and financial catastrophe were not found to be significantly associated with hardship in this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the poorer economic circumstances of households affected by CKD and reinforces the inter-relationships between chronic illness, economic well-being and quality of life for this patient population.