Financial toxicity in the background of free health care: A cross-sectional survey in a tertiary care hospital in India.

e13685 Background: The financial toxicity of cancer treatment is a known fact in low to middle-income countries due to poverty, lack of health insurance and illiteracy. We tried to estimate the financial strain and its contributing factors in an Indian population with access to free cancer treatment. Methods: All government employees and their dependents are eligible to receive free treatment including inpatient management, investigations and medicines at our institute. All cancer patients ≥18 years were invited to participate in a survey. The survey included their demographic, cancer and therapy details, the COST-FACIT questionnaire, and information about increase in expenses since cancer diagnosis and source of additional finances. Results: 300 cancer patients completed the survey. 61.3% of the respondents were females and the mean patient age was 43.14 years. Breast cancer was the most common malignancy and stage IV was the most common stage. 44% were residents of a rural area. The average duration of treatment was 8.03 months. Prior to cancer diagnosis, 37.2% of the patients had average monthly expenses between INR 10-25,000 (USD 120 to 300). The approximate increase in monthly expenditures after cancer diagnosis was between INR 5-10,000 (USD 60 to 120) for 33.4% and between INR 10-25,000 (USD 120 to 300) for 31.4% of the population. The primary income source for 65.7% respondents was the salary of the government employee while 48% had two or more earning members in the family. Cancer treatment negatively affected the earning capacity of the patient alone in 40% of the population, while in 28% it affected the earning capacity of the patient and caregiver. 51% had to utilise their savings, 39% sold fixed assets, and 31% borrowed or took a loan to cope with the additional financial strain. Commonest expenses were travel, accommodation, and food (75.7%). 34.5% spent money on other therapy-related costs (second opinion or alternative therapy). The mean COST-FACIT score was 21.38,(20-24) demonstrating mild financial toxicity. Predictors of high financial toxicity were a single-earning member, familial discord and long duration of treatment (> 6 months). Conclusions: Though all participants had access to free cancer treatment, all experienced mild financial toxicity due to non-therapeutic expenses. Despite desperate financial measures to complete treatment, most participants did not express severe financial toxicity. This may be attributed to the stigma of expected high expenditure associated with cancer treatment in India. COST-FACIT scoring may not have suitably assessed the financial strain experienced by patients with free healthcare. Additional financial information collected by the survey, (monthly expenses, earning members, source of additional funds), helped us to better understand financial impact of cancer treatment and identify gaps in our healthcare.