Further, when presented with the hypothetical situation that insurance would not cover screenings, a few patients remarked they would relocate to obtain them:
“I would find a place where the screenings were done. I’d move.” (DM patient 4)
“If it was just sky high and [insurance companies] weren’t willing to negotiate, I would consider moving.” (DM patient 3).
Sentiments such as these emphasize the importance and value that DM patients place on being screened for cancer and also may explain why only 25% of patients felt a CSP was burdensome and only 13% reported missing appointments, all of whom planned on making them up at a later time.
When presented with the choice of a CSP or annual whole-body PET/CT for a 3-year period following the diagnosis of DM, all patients expressed that whole-body PET/CT would be less burdensome. Most preferred annual whole-body PET/CT despite the slightly increased radiation exposure associated and thought that it would limit missed appointments. Accordingly, more patients responded that they would pay more money out-of-pocket for annual whole-body PET/CT. Given that WTP can function as a numerical measure of value, our results showed that patients placed a higher value on whole-body PET/CT compared with a CSP. The indirect costs associated with a CSP also were substantial, particularly regarding missed work, use of vacation and/or sick days, and travel expenses, which is particularly important because most patients reported an annual income less than $50,000.
The direct costs of a CSP and whole-body PET/CT have been studied. Specifically, Kundrick et al18 found that whole-body PET/CT was less expensive for patients (by approximately $111) out-of-pocket compared with a CSP, though cost to insurance companies was slightly greater. The present study adds to these findings by better illustrating the burden and indirect costs that patients experience while undergoing a CSP and by characterizing the patient’s perception and preference of these 2 screening methods.
Limitations of our study include a small sample size willing to complete the survey. There also was a predominance of White and female participants, partially attributed to the greater number of female patients who develop DM compared to male patients. However, this still may limit applicability of this study to males and patients of other races. Another limitation includes recall bias on survey responses, particularly regarding indirect costs incurred with a CSP. A final limitation was that only patients with a recent diagnosis of DM who were actively undergoing screening or had recently completed malignancy screening were included in the study. Given that these patients were receiving (or had completed) exclusively a CSP, patients were comparing their personal experience with a described experience. In addition, only 2 patients were diagnosed with cancer—both with basal cell carcinoma diagnosed on physical examination—which may have influenced their perception of a CSP, given that nothing was found on an extensive number of tests. However, these patients still greatly valued their screening, as evidenced in the survey.
Conclusion
Our study contributes to a better understanding of the costs patients face while undergoing malignancy screening for DM and highlights the great value patients assign to undergoing screening regardless of impact on outcome. Our study also shows a preference for streamlined testing, which whole-body PET/CT may represent. Patients incurred substantial indirect costs with a CSP and perceived that a single test, such as whole-body PET/CT, would be less burdensome and result in better compliance with screening. As groups work to establish consensus guidelines for cancer screening in DM, it is important to include the patient’s perspective. Ultimately, prospective trials comparing these modalities are needed, at which time the efficacy, direct and indirect costs, and burden of each modality can be compared.
