Background: Healthcare in Malaysia is largely publicly funded, however, cancer could still result in out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses, which may burden the affected patients. This is especially relevant to those in the lower-income group. This pilot study was conducted to estimate the direct and indirect costs of cancer and evaluate the feasibility of obtaining these costs information from the lower-income cancer patients undergoing treatment. Methods: A cross-sectional study of patients with cancer was conducted in Hospital Kuala Lumpur between September and October 2020. Self-reported data from the patients were collected using face-to-face interviews. Detailed information about cancer-related OOP expenses including direct medical, direct non-medical, and productivity loss in addition to financial coping strategies were collected. Costs data were estimated and reported as average annual total costs per patient. Results: The mean total cost of cancer was estimated at MYR 7955.39 (US$ 1893.46) per patient per year. The direct non-medical cost was the largest contributor to the annual cost, accounting for 46.1% of the total cost. This was followed by indirect costs and direct medical costs at 36.0% and 17.9% of the total annual costs, respectively. Supplemental food and transportation costs were the major contributors to the total non-medical costs. The most frequently used financial coping strategies were savings and financial support received from relatives and friends. Conclusion: This study showed that estimation of the total cost of cancer from the patient’s perspective is feasible. Considering the significant impact of direct non-medical and indirect costs on the total costs, it is vital to conduct further exploration of its cost drivers and variations using a larger sample size.

Background: Out-of-pocket (OOP) payments for healthcare services potentially have severe consequences on households, especially among the poor. Under certain circumstances, healthcare payments are financed through selling household assets, or borrowings. This certainly could influence households’ decision, which likely resorts to forgoing healthcare services. Thus, the focal point of this study is aimed to identify the inequalities and determinants of distress financing among households in Malaysia. Methods: This study used secondary data from the National Health and Morbidity Survey (NHMS) 2019, a national cross-sectional household survey that used a two-stage stratified random sampling design involving 5,146 households. The concentration curve and concentration index were used to determine the economic inequalities in distress financing. Whereas, the determinants of distress financing were identified using the modified Poisson regression model. Results: The prevalence of borrowing without interest was the highest (13.86%), followed by borrowing with interest (1.03%) while selling off assets was the lowest (0.87%). Borrowing without interest was highest among rural (16.21%) and poor economic status (23.34%). The distribution of distress financing was higher among the poor, with a concentration index of -0.245. The modified Poisson regression analysis revealed that the poor, middle, rich, and richest had 0.57, 0.58, 0.40 and 0.36 times the risk to develop distress financing than the poorest socio-economic group. Whereas, the presence of one and two or more elderly were associated with a 1.94 and 1.59 times risk of experiencing distress financing than households with no elderly members. The risk of developing distress financing was also 1.28 and 1.58 times higher among households with one and two members receiving inpatient care in the past 12 months compared to none. Conclusions: The findings implied that the improvement of health coverage should be emphasized to curtail the prevalence of distress financing, especially among those caring for the elderly, requiring admission to hospitals, and poor socio-economic groups. This study could be of interest to policymakers to help achieve and sustain health coverage for all.

Cancer patients often grapple with substantial out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses and productivity loss, with the ramifications being particularly crucial for lower-income households. This study aims to estimate OOP costs incurred by cancer patients, assess their productivity loss, and analyse the financial coping mechanisms employed by individuals within the lower-income bracket. The study employed face-to-face interviews among cancer patients aged 40 years and above, currently undergoing treatment, and belonging to the lower-income group. Participants were recruited from six public cancer referral hospitals. OOP expenses, encompassing medical and non-medical costs, along with productivity loss, were measured. A generalized linear model was applied to identify potential OOP determinants. Additionally, the coping mechanisms employed by individuals to finance their cancer OOP expenses were also determined. Among the 430 participants recruited, predominantly female (63.5%), and aged 60 or older (53.9%). The annual mean total cancer costs per patient were US$ 2,398.28 (±2,168.74), including 15% for medical costs US$ 350.95 (±560.24), 34% for non-medical costs US$820.24 (±818.24), and 51% for productivity loss costs US$1,227.09 (±1,809.09). Transportation, nutritional supplements, outpatient treatment, and medical supplies were notable cost contributors to total OOP expenditures. Ethnicity (β = 1.44; 95%CI = 1.15–1.79), household income (β = 1.40; 95%CI = 1.10–1.78), annual outpatient visits (β = 1.00; 95%CI = 1.00–1.01), age (β = 0.74; 95%CI = 0.56–0.98), and employment status (β = 0.54; 95%CI = 0.72–1.34) were identified as significant predictors of OOP costs among cancer patients. Notably, 91% of participants relied on household salaries and savings, while 15% resorted to interest-free borrowing, 11% sold possessions, and 0.5% borrowed with interest to finance their expenses. This study offers crucial insights into the economic impact of cancer on individuals and their families, providing policymakers with valuable information to tackle challenges faced in their journey. Despite substantial public healthcare subsidies, the study revealed that cancer costs can remain a potential barrier to accessing essential treatment. Therefore, there is a need for reinforced system-level infrastructure to facilitate targeted financial navigation services.

Cancer imposes a significant economic burden on patients and their families, often leading to catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) and impoverishment. This study assesses the financial strain faced by cancer patient households, particularly among lower-income populations, focusing on the catastrophic and impoverishing effects of cancer-related spending. A cross-sectional study involving 430 cancer patients was conducted at six referral cancer centres across Malaysia from June to October 2022. Data on sociodemographic, out-of-pocket (OOP) cancer expenses, and household expenditure data were collected through face-to-face interviews. A three threshold levels were used to examine the CHE, with spending exceeding 10% of total household expenditure, or 25%, and 40% of non-food expenditure. The poverty headcount and gap were assessed by comparing pre- and post-OOP household income against the poverty line income (PLI). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify determinants associated with CHE. The average total OOP costs were MYR4,388.65 (USD983.45) for early-stage cancers (Stages I-II) and MYR5,691.70 (USD1,275.45) for late-stage cancers (Stages III-IV). On average, OOP expenses constituted 17.4% of total household resources. The incidences of CHE at thresholds of 10%, 25%, and 40% were 67.2%, 48.8%, and 32.8%, respectively. Determinants significantly associated with CHE included age, ethnicity, cancer type, cancer stage, distance to cancer centre, household size, and household income. Pre-OOP, 52.6% of households were below the PLI, rising to 63.7% post-OOP, reflecting an 11.1% increase in the poverty headcount. The poverty gap widened, with a mean increase of MYR242.71 (USD54.39) between early- and late-stage cancers. Although the public healthcare in Malaysia is highly subsidised, the lower-income households still face substantial CHE and poverty due to cancer-related OOP costs. Therefore, designing targeted policies and establishing comprehensive safety nets are essential to safeguard vulnerable households.

One of the crucial areas of eliminating TB is the early detection of cases through the screening programme. This study's focal point is to measure the relative cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the symptomatic approach compared to the existing approach of TB screening (consisted of both symptomatic and asymptomatic screening) among high-risk groups in Malaysia. The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) was measured using a decision tree model and the outcome is presented in terms of cost per TB case detected and the ICER. Analysis was conducted using secondary data collected from the Disease Control Division, Sabah and Sarawak State Health Departments. The robustness of the model is determined by Deterministic and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis. Subsequently, Budget impact over 5 years period, from 2018 to 2022 was estimated for both approaches. The symptomatic approach was more cost-effective than the existing approach with ICER of MYR 424.71. The cost of conducting Sputum for Acid Fast Bacilli (SAFB) was found as the key driver for ICER. Budget Impact Analysis showed that switching from the existing approach towards the symptomatic approach would result in a cost-saving of MYR 65.5 million over 5 years. However, this would lead to 4473 TB cases being undetected over the same duration. This study suggests that the policymakers have to weigh the trade-off between cost-saving and TB case detection. This cost-saving can be channelled to new TB intervention programme with a higher chance of TB case detection. Nevertheless, any decision made must be in concordance to the objectives of the country’s TB programme.

Background: Postnatal care (PNC) in Malaysia is believed to have played a role in reducing maternal and child mortality. A pilot study was thereby conducted to estimate the cost of PNC in public primary care facilities in Negeri Sembilan from the perspective of healthcare providers.Methods: This study employed a cross-sectional design that involved six public primary care facilities in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. The PNC-related costs data were collected between May and July 2017, utilising cost data for the year 2016 and involving 287 eligible mothers. The PNC costs were calculated using mixed top-down and activity-based costing (ABC) approaches.Results: The mean cost of PNC per patient was RM165.65 (median, RM167.12). Personnel cost was the main cost driver for PNC, which accounted for the most significant proportion of the total cost at 94.2%. Education level, type of health facilities and postnatal visits were positively associated with the total PNC cost.Conclusion: This study highlighted the average cost of PNC in the public primary care facilities in Negeri Sembilan. The cost of PNC was revealed to be primarily driven by personnel cost. The findings of this pilot study could add to the evidence base of PNC and serve as a vital reference for improving future estimates to better allocate scarce resources.