Estimation of Cost of Management of Tobacco Related Cancers
Item
- Title
-
Estimation of Cost of Management of
Tobacco Related Cancers
- extracted text
-
r
Estimation of Cost of Management of
Tobacco Related Cancers
Report of an ICMR Task Force Study (1990-1996)
V
Prepared by
G.K. Rath
Kishore Chaudhry
Department of Radiation Oncology
Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
New Delhi I 10029
1997
I
I
i
I
I
1CMR Project Advisory Committee
Investigating Team
Institute Rotai-
1.
y c.nos,,,,,,! (A„ . .....
or
u Sdfiimh x u Dt||i.
Dr. G.K. Rath
. .
Professor
Head. Department of Radiation Oncoltlgy1"'”1 'nVeS,iga,Or
■)
Rajender Kumar, Sr. Physicist
Staff on the Project
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mr-5
Data Entry Operator
5 9() i<i Xi 7 Qn\
M ’
K;Tna' Dubc* Fiekl '^estioaiorC'5 90 to ii f95) ’
Ms' ph-'V h?ini.ar’ F,ekl Investigator (2.5.90 to )0 p’Jij
Is. Priyadarsham, Medico-Social Worker (11 4 9() 1O U) < ont
M ' S
^>cial Worker (18.5 90 i;T?^ '°-5 yt))
s. Stidha Saxena, Social Worker (18.6.90 to 1| 7 90)
Ms S kb p’,,y\Suc:,al Worker (20.9.90 to 31.<95)
Is. Shnkla Roy, Statistical Assistant (21.9 9 o |5 ■> 94)
Ms Sn7
Kll™r. Field Worker (10.7.91 to 31..! 95)
10.
10.
M - nj y‘’Vt ori Devit Flcl<-1 Investigator (30 r 93 to 31 I Ora
M>. NannH S„v;,>t,va. Sm,is,iral As».!™ (ISJ 94 i., 31 , 96|
ICMR Secretariat
*)
1.
Dr"' fftr ?lt1llra-1Ex A(kllti‘>nal Director General
3.
Dr"' a'k
'mEne!?dCC,t,''
4.
5.
ii
'i
|
1
1
i
J
Contents
i
i
r
i
I
■
I
r'.v
>-‘5- -
i
Highlights
Introduction and Review of Literature
Objectives
• Materials and methods
Study design
Expenditure by patients & relatives
Expenditure by the institution
Loss due to premature death
Analysis
Observations
^Expenditure by patients & relatives
Expenditure according to age
Expenditure according to sex
Expenditure according to religion
Expenditure according to occupation
Expenditure according to education
Expenditure according to tobacco use
Expenditure according to residence
Expenditure according to distance
Expenditure according to mode of
transport
Expenditure according to survival
Expenditure according to disease site 14
Expenditure according to disease stage
Expenditure according to intent of
treatment
Expenditure by the institution
Loss due to premature death
iv
I
4
5
5
5
6
8
9
10
10
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
Discussion
Acknowledgement
References
Tables (Al, Bl to BI4, Cl to CI4, DI to DI4, El)
16
20
21
24
3
13
14
14
14
15
I
1
iii
i
I
I
I-
i
Cost of Management of Tobacco Related Cancers
Highlights
i
i
!
i
i
i
i
J
i
I
i
l
i
A cohort of 195 patients of cancers of tobacco related sites, was followed up for
a period of three years with no evidence of disease or till death, to determine their
expenditure (direct or indirect) on treatment of their disease; expenditure by the
institution on their management; and loss of income due to their absenteeism or
premature death. The study was a part of ICMR's task force project on cost of
management of tobacco related diseases. The item wise expenditure made by the
patients, their relatives/ friends, was recorded, under various headings, namely,
consultation, investigations, treatment with different modalities, transport for the
purpose, and any additional cost incurred for lodging and boarding. The information
was also collected on actual loss of wages for treatment of the disease. Discounting at
the rate of 10% per annum was used to convert all the expenditure by patients to 1990
level. The loss due to premature death was estimated based on the last income level and
expected remaining age of the patient estimated from the standard life tables available
for different areas of the country. The institutional cost was assessed from the records
of the institution and the information on services used by the patient.
The patients in the cohort, spent an average of Rs. 17,965. with another Rs.
4,009 being contributed by the institution in the form of various services. The loss of
income due to premature deaths amounted to Rs. 112.475. Thus, the total loss due to
management of a patient of tobacco related disease diagnosed in 1990. was Rs. 134.449
(discounted at 1990 level).
Loss due to expenditure related to treatment of a cancer case (by the patient,
their relatives/ friends, and treating institution) amounted to Rs. 17.774 (Rs. 13,765 by
the patient or their relatives, and Rs. 4009 by the treating institution). This category
included expenditure on consultations, investigations, treatment, travel & lodging for
treatment, and extra money spent lor food during treatment time. Secondary losses due
to the disease amounted to Rs. 116.675 (Rs. 4.120 due to absenteeism for treatment,
and Rs. 1 12, 475 due to loss of income due to premature death).
There was very little difference in exjxmditure on items related to direct medical
treatment, according to different demographic attributes of the patients. The few
exceptions where such differences were noted included a lower expenditure on
chemotherapy among old patients; a higher expenditure by residents of Delhi on
consultation and surgery; and higher expenses on radiotherapy on patients where the
inteift of treatment was curative. The indirect expenditure (on travel, lodging, etc.) on
treatment was influenced by personal characteristics of the patients', suggesting a
variation in expenditure due to their paying capacities. Better occupation, higher
distance of the hospital from their place of residence, younger age of the patient, and
curative intent of treatment (probably influenced by longevity and higher degree of
follow up), resulted in higher expenditure.
l
I
iv
£
*
Introduction and Review of Literature
Tobacco is responsible tor an estimated 3 million annual deaths in
the world during early 1990s, and with the current consumption trends
it is expected to rise to 10 million annual deaths during the 2020s1.
About 70% of these deaths are expected to occur in developing
countries. Epidemiological studies and animal experiments have proved
beyond doubt that tobacco is a major health hazard. Well conducted
studies since 1950s on health hazards of tobacco, forced various
governments to consider tobacco control activities. The most popular
corrective action by the governments have been anti-tobacco
community education. Other steps taken by some governments for
tobacco control have been, ban on advertisements of tobacco products,
tobacco free places for protection of non-smokers, increase in price of
tobacco, etc. However, serious action to reduce the availability of
tobacco has been avoided by all governments2. Not only does the
production of tobacco continues unabated, but steps are also being
taken for increase in production and productivity of tobacco. The most
important reason for these contradictory actions are economic, i.e.
tobacco’s contribution to revenue and dependence of a large number f
persons on its production, processing and sale.
■ The fear of loss of revenue is so deep rooted that even a country
like USA is using tax payers' money to subsidize the tobacco industry\
The annual subsidy for tobacco production by European Community
was to the tune of 1,300 million ecu (equivalent to US $ 1,500
million). This amounts to 2,500 ecu (US $ 3,100) per minute, the
annual amount being more than the total amount spent on tobacco
subsidies by the US in the last 50 years4. The situation in developing
countries is also not different. In India, the objectives of health
departments for control of tobacco are in absolute contrast with the
goals of agriculture agencies, which aim at promotion of tobacco
production and promotion of tobacco marketing5. The revenue
generated by tobacco and dependence of 5 to 7 million persons on
tobacco is often considered a sufficient reason by the government to
defer serious thought about tobacco’s eradication.
I
____ Most health advocates believe that tobacco, instead of adding to
GNP, is a draina on its resources. The indications about tobacco being a
i
r
.1
loss to a country's economy emerged due to the facts that tobacco
induces more deaths before retirement age among users, compared to
non-users; non-fatal tobacco illnesses create disability; tobacco users
have increased absenteeism; and tobacco generates extra demand for
medical care6. The production of tobacco in a country is at the expense
of reduced food production, and results in adverse economic and
ecological effects, due to use of fuel for curing of tobacco.
Many developed countries have worked on the losses caused by
smoking, because smoking is the predominant habit of tobacco use in
these countries. Most studies have compared direct costs of tobacco
use, which relate to payments (by patients, their relatives/ friends,
government) for diagnosis and treatment of tobacco related diseases. A
few studies have considered the indirect costs (loss of productivity,
absenteeism, premature deaths, ecological effects, fires due to smok
ing, etc.) of tobacco while undertaking an elaborate exercise. A
comparison of average life time medical costs in USA showed that
costs among smokers exceed those of non-smokers by more than US $
60,0007. The claims from a large insurance company in USA showed
more admissions, longer average length of stay, higher average outpa
tient payment ($122 vs $75) and higher average insured payment
($1 145 vs $762) . The total financial cost of smoking for USA during
the year 1990 was estimated at US $2.59 per pack of cigarette9.
One of the earliest comparisons on economics costs and benefits
of tobacco, in U.K., showed that an anticipated 20% reduction in
smoking from 1973 to 1981 may result in an estimated £42 million
increment to GNP, at 1973 values10. Many other studies have also
concluded that tobacco causes more losses than benefits to the
society11"18. An analysis of the economic consequences of smoking in
Egypt in 1981/82, showed that the losses due to tobacco to the society
amounted to 91% of the taxes raised during the same year19. Substan
tial losses have also been reported from other studies on costs due to
tobacco20’21.
i
i
No study on economics of tobacco in India has been carried out.
However, many health activists felt that even in India, tobacco's costs
outweigh its contribution to the nation. In order to generate the data on
health care costs of the patients of tobacco related diseases, the Indian
Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, initiated a project on estima
tion of cost of management of certain major tobacco related diseases.
I
2
1
I
i
namely, cancers, coronary artery diseases and chronic obstructive
lung diseases. The present study was ;.a part of this broad project. The
data from this study is expected to help• in computation of economics of
tobacco in India.
*
I
Objectives
To estimate the average cost of diagnosis and treatment of tobac
co related cancers by the patients and their relatives/friends.
2.
To estimate the average cost of diagnosis and treatment of tobac
co related cancers by the institution.
3.
To estimate the loss ot productivity due to absenteeism as a result'
ot the illness, for the patients and their relatives/ friends.
4.
To estimate the loss ot productivity due to death and disability
due to tobacco related cancers.
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
L
I
4
1
!
Materials and Methods
Study Design
The study was a part of ICMR's task force project on cost of
management of tobacco related diseases. The diseases considered under
the project included tobacco related cancers, coronary heart disease
and chronic obstructive lung diseases. The estimation of cost of
management of on tobacco related cancers was carried out at the Insti
tute Rotary Cancer Hospital (All India Institute of Medical Sciences),
New Delhi. The project component related to cost of management of
coronary heart disease and chronic obstructive lung diseases was car
ried out at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Re
search, Chandigarh.
4
A cohort approach was adopted for assessment of the cost in
curred in management of tobacco related cancers. The patients were
followed up for three years or till death, whichever occurred earlier.
The data collected from patients included direct as well as indirect
costs incurred by patients and their relatives. The institutional cost was
assessed from the records of the institution.
Expenditure by patients and their relatives/ friends on treatment of
tobacco related cancers
A cohort of 319 patients with cancers of tobacco related sites was
established from the new patients reporting from October 1990 to
September 1991, at Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital (IRCH), which is
a specialized cancer hospital of All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
New Delhi. The cohort included cases of cancers of the oral cavity,
pharynx (excluding nasopharynx), larynx, lungs and oesophagus. At
the time of first contact, the patients were enquired about demographic
details, the duration of the illness, the health agencies contacted by
them for diagnosis and treatment of their illness (specific or non-specif
ic). The itemwise expenditure made by the patients, their relatives/
friends, was recorded, under various headings, namely, consultation,
investigations, treatment with different modalities, transport for the
purpose, and any additional cost incurred lor lodging and boarding.
The information was also collected on any loss of wages tor treatment
of the disease, or if the disease resulted in loss of job. The information
was collected on a pre-tested proforma, by specially trained
5
t
1
1
medico-social workers.
The patients were followed up till death or till a period of three
vears whh no evidence of disease ifter treatment. The information on
expenditure since the last contact, related to their illness was reto,5^.t
bvPmedico-social workers, at each of the follow up visit to the hospital,
which was generally expected every 3 months
^^"^uer
not report at the time of his expected visa to he hosP,tal’
’
(accompanied by a pre-paid postcard) was sent to h.m with a request to
visit thS hospital for follow up. If
reply was received from the
patients' relatives indicating the patient's death or d
report, a visit to the patient's house was planned For fog'stK reasom
house visits were limited to 257 patients living m Delhi and
neighbouring areas (approximately 250 to 30C' K’"
pj^o^garh
areas covered for this purpose included Almoia, fitnoragani,
Dehradun Aura, Kamal, etc. The information on expenditure on he
cost of treatment of tobacco related cancers, was elicited during the
home visits The information was collected trom the patient, except
ease of bad condition of the patient or the last enquiry after the
padent's death. In the later circumstances, the mlormatmn was
collected from the patient's relatives. The information generally g
collected after every three to six months. Leave used by the patient^
treatment was not considered as loss ot income, and this cost was
collected only if the patient had actually lost his wages or income.
The initial information on expenditure by most patients was for
the year 1990 or 1991. The procedure ot discounting was adopted tor
he expe diture incurred by* the patients (or them relatives/ tr.ends)
during later years. The rate of dtscountmg used was 10£ The
expenditure given tn the report pertain to the year m The totd
expenditure for the patients is trom starting Irom the illness (ill death
or till three years without evidence ot disease.
Expenditure by the Institution
various investigations and other services needed by patients ot tobacct
!
6
I
1
-
related cancers; the charges paid by the patients for undertaking the
investigations, etc.; and calculation of the excess expenses incurred by
the institution in treating these patients. The details of investigations &
other hospital services, and charges paid by them, were collected from
the patients during interview.
Data was collected from various concerned departments of
hospital, on the staff and the equipment available with them to perform
the functions needed for treatment and investigations of tobacco related
cancer cases. The reference institution being a teaching institution, the
needed equipment (for example the number of microscopes in the
department of pathology) and sometimes staff was in excess of the
requirements for the specific work. Based on the quantum of
investigations carried out, this number was reduced to an optimum
level. For example the number of microscopes required was
determined by assuming that one pathologist would be able to examine
about 16 histo-pathology slides per day. The staff working on their
postgraduate studies was not considered in the calculations. Thus, the
quantum of expenditure is likely to be applicable for any set up in the
country. The cost of the equipments was expected to increase every
y, ar according to inflation. Thus, the annual cost of the equipment was
calculated by dividing the purchase value by the expected life span of
the equipment.
The data was collected regarding the salaries of the staff, the
proportion of time spent for carrying out that investigation/ service, the
purchase value & annual maintenance of equipments, and cost of
re-agents/ consumables used for undertaking the investigation/
services. Cost of the general maintenance of the hospital was available
for the entire institution. The unit cost for general maintenance was
obtained by dividing it by the total number of patients served by the
institution. The cost of building was not included in the calculation, as
the services are expected to have remained even in the absence of
tobacco related cancers (Even though one may argue that the size of
the building could have been smaller, this aspect was not included in
the calculations). The expenditure on OPD consultation was calculated
by the amount of time (and thus propotionate salary) spent by the staff
in OPD, and dividing this salary by the total number of OPD
consultations. The time spent on consultation by patients of tQbacco
related cancers was assumed to be equal to any other patient. It was
assumed that the time spent on consultation by the patients of tobacco
I
t
7
1
4-
related sites was similar to the time spent on consultation by other
cancers or non-cancer patients. In case of any estimation, the lower
expected value was used for calculation, thus, sticking to the principle
of underestimation (in case of doubt) followed through out the study.
As some of the services in the hospital are paid, the amount collected
from the patients was subtracted from the institutional expenditure.
The data collected on institutional expenses for the year 1990-91
was destroyed by a virus in the hard disk of the computer. The data
was subsequently collected for the year 1994-95. However comparison
of the institutional expenses for radiotherapy for the years 1990-91 and
1994-95, showed that the expenses varied due to variations in the
number of patients treated even with almost similar facilities. The
comparison of expenses for radiotherapy (Rs. 7,111 for 1990-91, and
Rs. 6,296 for 1994-95) indicated that the principle of discounting may
not be applicable for this aspect. Thus, the exact estimated cost was
used in the final calculation.
Loss due to Premature Death
The age of the patients of tobacco related cancers was compared
with the life expectancy of individuals in India (prepared by the
Registrar General of India). The difference between the actual age at
death and expectation of life at that age was used to compute the salary
loss, savings of pension to the government or the organization (in case
the patient was entitled to pension), loss of family pension. The
following formula was used to estimate the cost to the society due to
premature death of a case of tobacco related cancer.
Cost =
(Salary from age at death till productive age) +
(family pension till the age of life expectancy) (pension from age of 58 years till the age of life
expectancy)
The retirement age in India is generally 58 years, and this was
considered as the productive age for those in job, whereas for those
engaged in business the remaining expected age was considered as the
productive age. As the age of the spouse of the deceased person was
not collected, the age of the deceased was used for calculation of the
family pension. In India, the incidence of tobacco related cancers is
i
I
I
I f
8
I
I
1
higher among men than women; a higher proportion of men are
working; and husbands are generally older than thier wives. These
facts suggest that there may be an underestimation of the cost of
tobacco due to premature death of cases of tobacco related cancers.
As the salary and pensions are expected to increase proportionate
to inflation over the years, the last salary or pension level was taken
into consideration, and discounting of the figures was not considered to
be necessary.
Analysis
The data was analyzed using the computer package EPI INFO.
The mean expenditure (or loss) and standard deviation by patients and
their relatives/ friends was calculated according to various item heads.
Such expenditure (or loss) was measured according to various
demographic or disease characteristics. The differences in expenditures
(or losses) were tested for statis ’al significance by Kruskal Wallis
test, as the distribution of the expenditure was not expected (confirmed
for most of the items) to follow a normal distribution. The Kruskal
Wallis test was performed on raw data by the package EPI INFO.
The utilization of the data may differ depending upon the
requirements. In case the data is used for the purpose of calculation of
total burden for the country or an area, the average expenditure (or
loss) by patients with all the patients in denominator, would be
relevant. This expenditure has been reffered to as ’'mean” expenditure
in the report. However, if the data is used to calculate the notional cost
of treatment considering that all the patients are likely to receive
treatment as per the current management protocols, the cost per patient
with only the patients incurring the expenditure as denominator, would
be required. This expenditure has been referred to as the "unit"
expenditure in the report.
’i
1
■
Observations
Out of the planned 257 cases, follow up could be completed in
195 (76%) cases, i.e. they were followed up till death or three years
without evidence of disease. The information on remaining patients
was not possible due to wrong or incomplete addresses, assessed after
a visit to the address provided as well to the nearest post office. Out of
these 195 cases, 71 (36.4%) cases were surviving at the end of three
years. The sitewise distribution of the 195 cases as compared to the
total patients registered at IRCH during the same year is at Table Al.
The proportion of cases of cancer of floor of mouth, other sites in
mouth (ICD 145), oesophagus and lungs was lower than the proportion
registered at IRCH during the same period.
Expenditure by patients and their relatives/friends
Tables Bl to B14 present the mean expenditure and standard
deviation (with all patients considered in denominator). Tables Cl to
C14 present the unit expenditure and standard deviation in various
expenditure categories (mean expenditure with denominator as the
patients incurring expenditure in that expenditure category). The
expenditure or costs as presented in these tables have been discounted
to 1990 prices, with an annual discounting rate of 10%.
The analysis of data from 195 patients shows that the patients
spent an average of Rs. 17,965 (discounted to 1990 prices) for
management of their illness (Table Bl). The expenses included direct
expenditure on treatment of the illnes (consultation, investigation, and
treatment), indirect expenses for treatment (travel to various health
facilities, additional money spent for lodging & boarding), and tertiary
cost (loss of income) by the patients or their relatives/ friends. The
mean direct expenses for treatment amounted to Rs. 6249.7, the mean
indirect expenses for treatment was Rs. 7515.7, whereas the mean
tertiary cost due to illness was Rs. 4199.5. The details of expenses
incurred by the patients' relatives/friends was not ascertained, and has
been included in indirect expenses for treatment (mean Rs. 746.1).
There was a tremendous variation in the expenditure (the standard
deviation was invariably more than the mean expenditure). This was
due not only to the personal characteristics, but also due to availability
of certain services at no or subsidized cost, and due to the fact that
10
1
treatment was not always carried out at the government hospitals.
As all the patients had incurred some e,xpenditure or other, the
unit expenditure was equal to the mean expenditure (Table Cl).
Consideration of the expenditure according to treatment modality
revealed that the patients had spent the maximum for chemotherapy
(unit expenditure Rs. 9254.6), followed by surgery (unit cost Rs.
5858.4) and radiotherapy (unit cost Rs. 953.2). This is due to
availability of radiotherapy and surgical facilities at no or subsidized
cost. The unit expenditure of radiotherapy was very low due to the fact
that most of the patients underwent radiotherapy at the study institute
(which was not the case for other modalities of treatment), where the
charges were a subsidized Rs. 750 for the entire course. Consultation
and investigations formed 10.3% of the total direct expenses. Most of
the patients were treated on ambulatory basis. Hospitalization was
more often associated with surgical management. Most of the indirect
unit expenditure for the treatment was incurred on extra expenses for
food (37.6%) and transportation (27.7%). The expenses on lodging
were comparatively small. This could be due to the fact that the
patients from the city of Delhi did not spend on this item, and the
patients from outside quite often stayed with some relative or friend.
Expenditure in different
groups: The mean expenditure
according to age was lower in persons aged 60 years or more. The
differnce was more pronounced among persons above 70 years of age.
The difference in expenditure were however, statistically significant for
total expenditure, chemotherapy, loss of income, extra expenditure on
food and travel. The expenditure by relatives/ friends was higher for
older patients, though the differences were not significant statistically
(Table B2).
The statistical significance for chemotherapy and loss of income
was lost if the unit expense for these items was considered (Table C2).
Consideration of unit price showed that only the total expenditure and
the expenses on extra food and transport were signifcantly different
among persons above the age of 70 years. However, the sub-total of
expenses other than food and transport, also showed a significantly
lower expenditure among patients above 60 years of age (p<0.002).
Thus, the data suggests that intensity of treatment (and thus,
expenditure) was lower among older patients.
11
i
1
3
Expendifuro ««vcording to Sex: The mean expenditure among vomen
was significantly differnt only for loss of income due to the disease
(Table B3). However, the statistical significance was lost when unit
cost for this item was considered (Table C3), suggesting that the
differences were due to a higher proportion of women opting to be
house wife. Thus, sex does not influence expenditure for treatment.
Religion: Religion did not seem to influence the expenditure for
treatment, whether considered as mean expenditure (Table B4) or as
unit cost (Table C4).
'
Occupation: The mean as well unit expenditure according to
occupation was significantly different for total expenditure, extra food
and transport (Tables B5 and C5), and was brought about mainly
because of lower expenses among labourers. The differences in mean
loss of income was also observed due to zero loss among house-wives
(Table B5), and comparison of expenses among the other occupation
categories did not show any significant differences (p>0.08).
Education: The expenditure on many :*?ms seemed to be higher
among educated, especially among educated upto college or above
(Table B6 and Table C6). However, the differences were statistically
significant only tor travel expenses, whether considered as mean or
unit expenditure. It was further observed that the occupation of patients
in different educational groups differed significantly, with educated
persons engaged in jobs, and illitrate patients were either labourers or
house wife. A stratified analysis revealed that the mean expenditure on
travel in different occupational categories, did not differ significantly
according to education. Thus, the data suggests that the differences
observed on unvariate analysis of expenditure on travel according to
education, was due to confounding effect of occupation.
Tobacco Use: The difference were observed in mean loss of income
and expenses on lodging for treatment in different tobacco use
categories (table B7). However, unit cost among different tobacco use
categories was not statistically different (Table C7), suggesting that the
differences in mean expenditure were probably due to the confounding
effect of other variables.
Place of Residence: The mean expenditure according to place of
residence revealed that patients from outside Delhi spent more on food
12
■S
and lodging, but less on transport (Table B8). However, consideration
in terms of unit expenditure showed significantly higher expenditure by
residents of Delhi on consultation, surgery and transport (Table C8).
The extra expenses for food was higher for patients from outside
Delhi.
Distance of Residence from Study Institution: The mean as well as
unit expenditure for lodging, transport and total expenses were
significantly higher among patients coming for treatment from more
than 500 Km. away (Tables B9 and C9). The mean expenditure by
relatives increased with increase in distance of patients' residence from
the study hospital both for Delhi as well as outside Delhi patients living
within a distance of 500 Km (Table B9). However, the significance
was lost when unit expenses by relatives were considered (Table C9).
A stratified analysis of the mean expenditure revealed that the
mean expenditure on travel in different modes of transport, differed
according to distance only for patients travelling by train. Thus, the
data suggests that the distance of residence from the place of treatment
has an independent effect on determination of expenditure on travel.
Similar stratified analysis of the mean t penditure on lodging in
different occupational categories, did not reveal any significant
difference in expenditure according to distance from the treating
hospital, suggesting that the difference observed were due to the
confounding effect of occupation.
Mode of Transport: The mean expenditure was high for those who
could afford to travel by car or by air (Table BIO), with significantly
higher expenditure for consultation, food, and transport. Lower
expenses were incurred by those travelling by bus or scooter/rickshaw
as the cosltliest mode of transportation. Unit cost consideration also
showed similar results (Table CIO), with differing expenses for
investigations, relatives' expenses, food, lodging, transportation, and
total expenditure.
Survival Status: The surviving patients incurred a higher mean as well
as unit expenditure on transporation and extra food (Tables Bl I and
Cl I). Consideration of unit cost also revealed a significantly higher
loss of income for the expired patients. However, the loss of income
within different occupational categories was not significantly different
13
1
-4
according to survival status, thus, suggesting it to be a function of
occupation rather than survival status.
Site of the Disease: No significant differences in mean (Table Bl2) or
unit (Table CI2) expenditure were observed for differnt sites of
tobacco related cancers.
Stage of the Disease: The mean as well as unit expenditure was
observed to be higher for the patients whose stage of disease could not
be determined as they were already treated elsewhere (Tables B13 and
Cl3). This was probably because of their contact with a larger number
of hospitals/ doctors for treatment. Although difference were observed
in mean total expenditure, for food and hospitalization, they did not
show any trend with the disease stage, and were likly to be a
confounding due to occupation. The difference in unit cost were
observed for total cost and for food.
Intent of Treatment: Mean expenses were higher for patients
receiving curative treatment, for radiotherapy, extra food, lodging,
transport and total expenditure (Table BI4). The difference in indirect
e; oenses could be due to higher longevity and thus, greater "ollow up.
Consideration of unit expenditure showed higher expenditure for
surviving patients for loss of income, food, transporation, and total
expenditure (Table C14).
Institutional Expenses on Treatment of Tobacco Related Cancers
The unit cost of investigations and other services generally
required by the patients of tobacco related diseases, as well as the loss
incurred by various departments of the institution in carrying out these
functions is summarised in Table DI, while the details are at Tables
D2 to DI3. Radiotherapy services followed by surgery, incurred the
highest unit cost as well as unit institutional loss.
The excess expenses incurred for the patients of tobacco related
cancers in the cohort are presented in the Table DI4. The institution
incurred an average expense of Rs. 4,009 on each of the patient of
tobacco related cancers in the cohort (an average of Rs. 583 on
investigations, and Rs. 3,426 on management). The maximum average
expenditure was on investigations was for biopsy followed by X-rays.
14
The highest expenditure in management of these cases was for
radiotherapy.
Loss due to Premature Death of Patients of Tobacco Related Cane
ers
A total of 63.6% (124 out of I95)of patients expired during the
study period. The loss of salary (and thus reduction in GNP) was
observed for 81 patients (65.3%). The patients with pensionable job
formed 31.5% (39 out of 124) of the expired patients. The average loss
of salary, the savings to the government for pensions due to premature
death, and government’s (or the organization's) liability for family
pension, have been presented as an average for all the expired patients,
as a unit cost (for those incurring the loss or benefit), and as an
average for the whole cohort (n= 195), to facilitate interpretation by
various workers (Table El). The mean loss due to premature death in
the entire cohort was Rs. 112,475.3.
15
I
Discussion
Follow up of 195 patients of tobacco related cancers was carried
out for a period of three years or till death, to determine, (i) the
expenses incurred by them or their relatives/ friends on treatment of
their disease; (ii) loss of income due to time spent on treatmeht; (iii)
loss to GNP due to premature death of certain patients; and (iv)
institutional expenditure on management of these patients. Data was
also collected from the various connected departments of the institution
where the study was carried out, to determine the expenses incurred by
them on management of these patients. The determination of expenses
by the patients as well as the institution was necessary in view of the
current health care services pattern in India, wherein free services are
available to patients from state run hospitals.
The study reveals that there was an average loss of Rs. 134,449
to the society on account of treatment of each patient of tobacco related
cancers in the cohort, which were diagnosed during 1990-91. Most of
this loss was due to their premature death (83.7%), which resulted in
loss to the GNP. C her secondary loss was in the form of loss of
income due to time spent on treatment of their illness (an average of
Rs. 4,199.5 per patient). An average of Rs. 17,774 were spent on
treatment of their illness, by the patients, their relatives/ friends, and
the government institution connected with their management. Of the
primary expenditure on treatment, an average of Rs. 13,765.3 (77.4%)
was spent by the patient or their relatives and an average of Rs. 4008.9
by the government institution. The break-up of primary management
expenditure showed that a mean sum of Rs. 10,258.6 was spent on
items directly related for treatment (Rs. 6249.7 by the patient and Rs.
4008.9 by the institution), whereas Rs. 7,515.4 were spent on items
indirectly related to treatment of the illness, namely expenditure by
relatives, traveling for treatment, money spent on lodging and extra
money spent on food during their visits to health care agencies.
The expenditure on treatment by the patient indicated very little
differences in expenses on items directly related to medical treatment.
The few exceptions where such differences were noted included a
lower expenditure on chemotherapy among old patients; a higher
expenditure by residents of Delhi on consultation and surgery; and
higher expenses on radiotherapy on patients where the intent of
treatment was curative. Since, the role of chemotherapy in
16
4
manaeenient of tobacco related cancer sites is not fully estabhshcd, a
Bi
influenced by the availability of services near the place of [es,den9®p
Excess expenditure on radiotherapy by patients treated with^cu alive
intent is also understandable, as many patients in higher stage of illness
may not opt for radiotherapy. Generally, it seems that the exPend,t^
on direct treatment has been similar was not even influenced by the
personal characteristics indicating patients' paying capabilities.
The indirect expenditure on treatment on the other hand seemed
to be influenced by personal characteristics of the patients , sugges.mg
a variation in expenditure due to the.r paymg capacities A h gher
expenditure was seemed to influenced by the occupatio ,
g
distance of the hospital from their place of residence, younger age of
the patient, and curative intent of treatment. The differences according
to curative intent of treatment seems to be function of higher.lon8e''1 X
and thus, a need for higher follow up. In a mid-term analysis, it was
observed that surviving patients incurred less expenditure than those
expired early. This difference was lost by the end of the s udy,
probably due to higher follow up period of surviving patients; and thus
higher expenditure. Differences observed in expenditure accordin to
sex and education, seemed to be due to confoundmg .effect of
occupation, and were not associated. No association in expenditure was
observed according to different religions, tobacco habit, survival
status, site & stage of the disease.
As a rule the study decided to underestimate any expenditure if
there was a need for estimation of certain expenditure. For example
while assessing the average life of eqmpments used in
institution, higher side of the expected life was used. Cons’dera^on 5**
wife's age as equal to the husband's age (which is generally not
case in India) for calculation of loss due to family pension, the vise of
first, recorded salary as the last salary of the patient before death are
some other examples of underestimation. It was assume
contribution of every patient to GNP was equivalent to the salary
earned by them. However, this may be an underestimation while
calculating the loss to the society due to pre-mature death, since t
value of contribution of a person's work to GNP u generally more han
the salary. The expenditure on the treatment has been considered only
17
<
-=
for a period of three years. However, for all the cases of cancer a
follow up for at least five years is suggested, before a patient can be
considered as cured. Thus, the estimates can safely be considered as
the minimum expenditure (or loss to the society) for treatment ot
tobacco related cancers.
One may consider that every expenditure or activity would add to
the GNP. However, society always considers certain items as desirable
and others as undesirable. Therefore, even though items like
expenditure on travel adds to GNP, this activity for the purpose of
treatment of tobacco related cancers has been considered as an
undesirable expenditure, and thus a wastage or loss to the nation.
*
I
«
»
I
I
1
While calculating the institutional expenses, it was realized that
the concerned institution was a teaching institute and thus incurred
more routine expenses than a general hospital. However, during
calculation only the necessary equipment and staff for the purpose was
considered, and thus, the results are applicable for the entire country.
The study presents the expenditure on a cohort of patients of
tobacco related cancer sites, diagnosed at a specialized cancer hospital
in Delhi during 1990-91. All the costs and expenditure (which were
incurred during 1990 to 1995) were discounted to 1990 prices using
10% rate of discounting. However, it was observed from actual data
that discounting was not practical for institutional expenses. Thus,
discounting was limited only to the expenses incurred by the patients
All other costs and expenses, whether by the institution or the loss of
income, etc., were considered as such, irrespective of the year in
which they were incurred.
The results present the expenditure as per the current
management practices of treatment of these cancers. Thus, the
expenditure is likely to change in future due to changes in paying
capacity of patients, the management practices by the clinicians. The
policy.of the hospitals for treatment influences whether the patient or
government bears the cost. In the present cohort, most of the cost for
chemotherapy was borne by the patients, whereas radiotherapy cost
was mainly borne by the institute. It is of importance that the mean
expenditure may change if all the patients were treated with curative
intent.
I
I
L
!
t
18
i
,75
S’'”6 f°r
ye"r l990’
'0SS t0 the "atiBn
l?.,1 eat_men[ °* these cases would amount to approximately Rs. 14 52
billion for the year 1990.
J
i
I
19
I
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank Indian Council of Medical Research for
sponsoring the study. This project was conceived as a truly
collaborative effort between various departments of IRCH, AIIMS,
New Delhi, concerned with management of cancer patients and we
sincerely acknowlwdge their contribution and for their continued
support for this effort.
f
20
i
References
1.
Peto R. and Lopez A.D. Worldwide mortality from current
smoking pattern. In: The Global \Mtr - Proceedings of the seventh
World Conference on Tobacco and Health. Eds. B. Durston and
K. Jamrozik. Health Department of Western Australia, Perth,
1990; p66.
2.
Chaudhry K. Economics of tobacco. ICMR Bulletin, May 1985;
25 (5): 55-60.
3.
Warner KE. The tobacco subsidy: does it matter? Journal of the
National Cancer Institute, 1988; 80: 81-3.
4.
Joossens L and Raw M. Tobacco and the European common
agriculture policy. Br J Addict, 1991; 86: 1191.
5.
Chaudhry K. Control or promotion - the paradox. Tobacco
Control (SAARC Edition), 1994; I: 41-6.
6.
who.
the smoking epidemic.
Technical report Series no. 636, 1979.
7.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Smoking and
Health in the Americas. A 1992 report of the U.S. Surgeon
General, in collaboration with the Pan American Health
Organization. Atlanta, Ga, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Services, Centre for Disease
Control and prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1992DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 92-8421.
8.
Penner M and Penner S. Excess insured health care costs from
tobacco using employees in a large group plan. Journal of
Occupational Medicine, 1990; 32: 521-3.
9.
Smoking related deaths and financial costs: estimates for 1990.
Rev. ed. Washington D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment,
In: MacKenzie TD, Bartecchi CE, and Schrier RW. The human
costs of tobacco use (part II). The New England Journal of
Medicine, 1994; 330: 975-80.
rControlling
Geneva,
WHO
21
10.
Smoking and Health: A study of the effects of a reduction in
cigarette smoking on mortality and morbidity’ rates, on health
care and social security expenditure and on productive potential.
London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1973, quoted in
Controlling the Smoking Epidemic, WHO Technical Report
Series no 636, WHO Geneva, 1979.
11.
Forbes WM and Thomson ME. Estimating economic benefits and
losses associated with cigarette smoking. Canadian Journal of
Public Health, 1983; 74: 183-90.
12.
Forbes WM and Thomson ME. Estimating the health care costs
of smokers. J Canadian Medical Association, 1982; 127: 831-2.
13.
Atkinson AB and Meade TW. Methods and preliminary findings
in assessing the economic and health services consequences of
smoking, with particular reference to lung cancer. J R Stat Soc,
1974; 137; 297-612.
14.
Atkinson AB and Townsend JL. Economic aspects of reduced
reduced smoking. Lancet, 1977; 2: 492-4.
15.
Garner DW. Cigarette and law reform. Emory Law Journal,
1977; 27: 269-335.
16.
Kristein MM. Economic issues
Medicine, WIT, 6: 252-64.
17.
National Commission on Smoking and Public Policy. A National
Dillemma: Cigarette Smoking or the Health of Americans. New
York, American Cancer Society, 1978.
18.
Jin S, Lu B, Yan D, Fu Z, Jiang Y, and Li W. Smoking related
health costs in China (1988-89). In: tobacco and Health. Ed.
Slama K. Proceedings of the ninth World conference on Tobacco
and Health, 1994, Plenum Press, New York, 1995; 555-7.
19.
Sherif O. Ten years after legislation. In: In: The Global Mbr Proceedings of the. seventh World Conference on Tobacco and
Health. Eds. B. Durston and K. Jamrozik. Health Department of
Western Australia, Perth, 1990; 157- .
in
prevention.
Preventive
22
5
20.
Phillips D, Kawachi I, and Tilyard M. The costs of smoking
revisited. NZ Med J, 1992; 105: 240- .
21.
Silverforesen L, Nygren A, and Bolinder G. The Swedish Society
of Medicine"s and The Folksam Group's action programme
against the use of tobacco. In: The Global War - Proceedings of
the seventh World Conference on Tobacco and Health. Eds. B.
Durston and K. Jamrozik. Health Department of Western
Australia, Perth, 1990; 324- .
22.
Notani P, Jayant K, and Sanghvi LD. Assessment of Morbidity
and Mortality Due to Tobacco Usage in India. In: Tobacco and
Health - The Indian Scene. Eds. Sanghvi LD and Notani P. UICC
Geneva and Tata Memorial Centre, Bombay, 1989; 63-78.
i
i
V
23
*5
Tab kA!
Sitewise Distribution of* Cases of Tobacco Related Cancers in the
Cohort in comparison with All Cases seen during the Year at IRCH
Site
Number and %age of Number and %age seen
Cases in the Cohort during the Year
3(1.5)
Lip
Tongue
42 (21.5)
Gum
8(4.1)
Floor of Mouth 8(4.1)
Other sites in 32 (16.4)
Mouth
Oropharynx
34 (17.4)
Hypopharynx
12 (6.2)
Oesophagus
1 (0.5)
Larynx
45 (23.1)
Lung
10(5.1)
All Sites
195 (100%)
19 (1.7)
215 (19.2)
49 (4.4)
22 (2.0)
91 (8.1)
95 (8.5)
65 (5.8)
246 (21.9)
320 (28.5)
1 122 (100)
I
24
' able Bl
Mean Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment
Txp'endilure in Rupees (Mean + St3 Dev)
Conwllaiiun
Inveaiifahons Radk>theraps
Chemotherapy Surger\
952.0
±2644.4
974.0
±3552.3
1566.2
±5388.3
(Xher Drugs
Hosptlalizaiion Ineome Loss
Relatives' Exp Extra tood
Lodging
Transport
Txal
906 6
±1805.0
516.7
15392.5
746.1
±1956 9
503.2
±1456.0
2766.1
±4509 5
17964 8
±267X4 8
n= I $5
523.0
11010.6
811.2
±7103.3 .
4199.5
±10675 7
3500.3
±5274.6
t
..
a.
Table B2
Mean Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Age
AGEGROUf*
(Yean)
Consultation
19 TO 39
<n«2l)
1740.6
±4118.1
40 TO 49
<n = 4«ii
IMI 9
±4161 8
*0 TO 59
<n - 631
Expenditure in Rupees "(Mean ± Sid Dev)
Invesiigatiom ftadiodierapj
1331.2
♦ 2665.5
Chemotherapy Jurgen"
Other Drugs^
Hoy1 Ui/alion Income Loss
Relatives Exp Extra food
Lodging
Transport
TouT
715.9
±1106 5
3835.1
±10280.3
82.7
±247.2
1325 5
±2357.9
194.1
+ 67J.6
4228 0
±43I4.S
664.5
±1076 9
3364 7
+ 3946 |
439 5
+ 806.8
3076.5
±3721 3
20998 2
±22l<9j
828.6
±1346.1
6672
±1212.2
1366 9
±5476 4
664 3
±2167.2
979 7
±1369 I
32 4 58515
± 138 4
+ 9450 0
846 9
±2113 4
2812 I
±27.5|.7
584.6
±1059 4
390.7
±1287.1
2615 6
±2692 3
1566.5
±5881.7
18587.1
±18015 I
40? 4
±530 I
1631.0
+ 4511 9
1848 9
+ 12339.9
1501.5
+ 9453.2
5265.7
+16092 Q
60 T() 69
<n«U4i
666.4
± 1202 2
4412 2
±6847.6
711.4
±1235.7
732.3
±1737.4
3619 9
+ 6 *’63.0
295 9
±566 0
23264 6
±40101 j
562.7
±1359 4
1253.0
±3912.4
30.2
± 157.7
634.5
± 90V)
7 5
+ 48.0
1948.7
+ 3851.9
Tn*
(n= IMj
651.9
±2164.5
3965.2
±6076.6
378 5
±1477.8
326.6
±433 7
2189.1
±2787.5
12628 6
±I22<8* |
440.7
±515.5
11.5
±33.7
1076 4
±3522 0
All Ages
(n=l95)
TO)—
1439.3
±3353.3
1204 2
+ 1665.5
386.7
± 1386 4
1235.8
±1603.0
7226 8
± 10571 q
p Kruskal
Wallis
±2644.4
0 X44I47
6J
O'
537.1
±798.7
231.1
±336 6
v7<0
±3552.3
TO)—
Dr? <50
±1010.6
0 5.^9577
0.0
337.6
±723.6
1033 3
+ 2472.6
I <66 ?!
±*388.3
■>HT2
±7103.3
9(1676
±1805.0
5I6J
±5392.5
4 199.5
± 10675.7
746J
± 19*6 9
±5274.6
5012
±1456.0
2766 J
±4509.5
1964 8
±26'84.8
0 02628|
■onw
A. 174153
0.072840
0 002719
(176)1.19
0 033859
0.020570
0.013097
0.000739
Tlible B3
Mean Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Sex
SEX
Expenditure m Rupees (Mean + Std Dev)
Conwlution
Investigations Rudiotherapx
Chemolherapv Surgen
"Cither Drugs
Mospitalizilion Income Lo»s
•n— 162)
94| J
±2759.3
I075.J
±3874.0
469 9
±815.1
1623.5
±5587.0
928.3
±7781.2
930.8
±1886.8
613.2
±5914.3
W‘mcn
n=J3)
1004.1
+ 2020.7
476.5
±828.1
783 9
± 1662 9
1284.8
±4343.9
236.2
±923.5
787.7
±1359.0
8 'th Sex.'
n= 195/
052 0
+ 2644.4
TOO
±3552.3
>2 JO
♦ 1010.6
lW2
±5388.3
sm
±7103.3
■ ' ? 7 706 <
0.404552
0.590511
0.759X44
CT417020
Men
Vtjlils
Relatives' £xp Extra FooJ
Lodging
Transport
Total
4869 4
±11550.7
800 7
±2110.2
3490 0
±5192.7
519.6
± 1432.8
2747.4
±4734.5
19009 5
±28623.2
43.2
±165.5
910.6
±2501 4
478.1
± 850 9
3551 I
±5744.6
422.6
±1586 0
2857.7
±3239.8
12836.6
± 13953 3
<6
±1805.0
TTOr~
±53925
4199.5
± 10675 7
746.1
+ 1956.9
±5274.6
5012
±1456.0
2766 I
±4509.5
I 79m.8
±26784.8
01147029
0.7701 xt>
O.OoOcgJ
0 9118
’OTTWy
0 76X977
0.690651
0 0M6206
KJ
i
u
...
j
t
J
TaMe B4
Mean Expenditure by al! Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Religion
RELIGION
TxpenHititre in Rupees cMean + Std bcv)
Consuhalibn
tnvexligalionk Radiotherapy Chemotherapy Surgery
?Wher bmgi
Mospilalization Income Loss
Hindu
(n= 164)
955.1
±2803 I
1060.6
±3849.4
580.2
±1084.2
1670.1
±5726.6
932.4
±7739.6
970.8
±1940.6
573.0
±5872.0
Muslim
(n = 2J)
573.1
±771.2
431.8
±R28.6
243.1
±340.8
789.6
±2291.8
189.0
±627.2
483.7
±550.0
(Rhera
1975.4
±2703 6
756.6
±1147 6
155.0
+ 2R6.9
1667 5
±4716.4
113.6
±321.4
AIL
fn* 195)
TOTO
±2644.4
TOTO
±3552.3
523.0
±1010.6
1566.2
±5388.3
■RTT?
±7103.3
p KruiLaT
Wallis
0.266651
0325606
0.022411
Relatives' Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
Total
4218.1
±10977.1
660.3
±1766.0
3215.R
±4206.1
457.8
±1263 6
2818.5
±4763.3
18112.6
±28381 8
257.3
±882.9
5471.3
± 10226.5
1489.3
±3133.7
6113.2
±10203.9
1001.8
±2548 5
2918.3
±3171.8
19962.1
±17525 I
806.8
±976.5
109.6
±290.2
162.5
±354.3
370.1
±705.3
1821.7
±2077.0
0.0
1254.9
fW R
9193 6
±7672 0
±1805.0
5167
±5392.5
41
±1067<.7
730
±1956.9
3500.3
±5274.6
5037
± 1456.0
2766.1
±4509.5
TTpmI
±26784.8
0 0^4517
0 092024
0.312459
024Q76j
0.<O64S2
0.20’774
M
CO
4- - xM
MMKt; T..U__
Mean Eapendicnre by ,|, Patiems „f Tobacco ReSed’cancen on Trea.ment, according Io EdncaUon
EDUCATION
Consultation
Illiterate
(n-47)
1173 0
±4076.0
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean f Sid Dev)
Investigations Kadiolherapy
569.0
±1025.2
544.4
±1045.9
Chemolherapv Surgery
583.8
Other Drugs
Aospitalizaiion Income Loss
keialives’ txp Exira food
Lodging
Transport
Total
1334.1
±2886.4
2305.8
±2008.8
501.2
±1590.9
1993.1
±2000.6
14310.6
325.8
±715.0
3464 0
±4228.7
243.1
±525.0
2258 !
±2964.8
11335 8
±8906 9
±1765.2
394.9
±1316.3
768.9
±1210.5
176 6
±895.9
3965.8
987.8
±3340.4
161.1
±537.4
349.3
±360.8
149.3
±641 9
2276.1
±6577.8
±12024.3
Just Literate 383.9
(n«35)
±624.2
434 3
Prim. School 570.7
in=-19)
2 10X4.7
453 6
±575.6
94V3
±1996.2
1074.0
±4145.2
172.7
±549.5
87| 7
±1133.4
109.2
±428.4
3526.0
±5512.3
Middle Sch. 868.5
(n»35)
±1499.3
430.5
±600.2
1980 2
±1982.9
327.7
±697.7
1988.4
±7728.7
504.5
±850.4
1306 8
±1233.3
11768 3
±8899 9
1033.2
±3265.3
873.4
± 2603 3
952.1
±1309.3
171.6
±639.6
5291.9
±7936.7
698.9
±1379.3
Seas. Sch^il 1698.2
(n= 31 >
±3610.7
3707.1
±5682.5
1017.2
±2354 I
1195 6
±1750.7
592.0
±1137.7
3797.3
±5149.0
4914.8
±11094.5
20904 1
±24033 3
1.3
±7.4
1295 5
±2212.2
30 X
± 106 5
3X73 2
±7369.6
454.5
±802.3
4767 9
±8631.2
2X0.8
±902.7
2570.5
±2187.6
21675 I
±23140 I
±IK457J
1370.6
±33X5 4
2792.9
±14146.I
6449.0
8X0.7
±28X2.0
49203
554.6
11361.0
4616 3
±8981.2
28808 0
±56367.7
±7103.3
±1X05.0
5T67
±5392 5
1199.5r—
7471
±10675.7
±1956.9
350OJ
±5274.6
Ton
T75n
±1456.0
±4509.5
17964 8
±26784 8
(Fl 91944
07657937
D. 221 <99
U.K 10609
0.721240
0.917713
0.047310
0224X90'
C< ’liege
(n» 2X;
827 7
*1442 |
All
In* 195)
V5T0
p Kruskal
UVlis
*2644.4
0.427562
NJ
\D
±820 2
1168.0
±2627.2
±3552.3
0576? i
302.8
±357.2
422 M
±321 9
1230 8
±345R.3
5130
13671
±1010.6
7F4566)f
±53X8.3
15.1M165
3574 5
^•279142
±3253.0
±23660.2
±6028.9
T" •
Table B6
Mean Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Tobacco Use
TOBACCO
USE
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean ± Sid Dev)
Consultation
Investigations RadtfUheraps
Chemotherapy Surgers
No
(n«43)
1247.6
±2119 9
1954.0
±7068.9
824.3
±1689.2
2222.2
±6166.3
Past
<n = 8l)
918.5
±2297.2
761 0
3479
±404 9
Yes
(••7I)
RII.O
623 5
±3252.4
±1131 I
All
(n» 195)
■95775
±2644.4
p Kruskal
Wallia
0J72<02
”
Other Drugi ” Hospitalization Income Loss
Relatives* Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
441 |
±1591 4
844.8
±1117 7
193.0
±719.8
2793.2
908.0
±2737 |
497.5
•*■6812.0
±1707.5
3352.6
±<074 3
18392 2
±24«7| '
1688 6
±6439.1
1606.3
± 10942.6
1041.8
±2380.7
1067.4
±8342 9
5046 0
±14732.5
598.2
±1218.4
3020 4
±3*138.9
474.0
2649.8
±1519 0
±5361.7
I92IQ 9
±JM74 9
540.4
±916.3
1029.1
±3112 8
128.2
789.7
±1213.7
84.5
±3<7.7
4085.5
±6156 8
816.9
±2091.6
4281.7
±425.5
±6644.8
539.9
±1219.2
2543.6
±2788.6
16274 2
±13078 6
07475
±3552.3
5210
±1010.6
1566.2
±5388.3
Rl 1.2
±7103 3
906 6
±1805.0
516 7
±5392.5
4
± 1956.9
±5274 6
50T2
±1456 0
2766.1
±10675.7
17064 8
±26’84 8
0.770482
' rtj:fti7x
014 JO I
7TW1W
0.0748^8
0 9R7R77
0.262596
OO22KRI
0.492460
±1605 I
0.019698
3114.0
±5425 6
±4509.5
0
U>
O
W-1
f
Table B7
Mean Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Occupation
^OCCUPA
TION
Expenditure in Rupecs (Mean ± Std fkv)
Cvnuihation
Job (Govt.) 764.5± 1300.1
(n-5b
oo
Relatives' txp txtra food
Lodging
Transport
Total
5533J
±18178.2
65T6
±2327.9
4984.8
±7364.7
4151
±1148.5
2779.7
±3239.5
l^2§4 9
±23068 8
801.9
± 1382.4
3735 8
±4939.4
60'9
5171 8
±9583.1
30295 9
±57412 5
3093 2
352.6
3119 3
±5377.3
20339 9
±28005 6
Other Drug>
Hospitalization Inc:ome Loss
83<0
±1145.8
±43^.4
948.6
±1786.0
507.6
±870 3
1570
±5488.1
206J
4730.5
±20796 4
1391.2
3574.3
±15953 8
6021 I
±3832.1
4J5.4
± 1755 .3
1023.6
±1852.1
227.4
±758.0
4872.1
±8093 8
889.9
±1977.2
±2887.2
±789 I
±567.2
990.9
±1914.1
1238 I
363.4
(n-22)
±2267.4
±340.2
1671 0
±5938.8
Business
(n«= 28)
l?31 9
±3519.4
2227 9
±8644 6
505 9
±486.0
2360.7
±8661.7
Agriculture 827.9
± 1137.7
tn«20)
818 6
297.5
1228 6
723 2
±338.1
±3897.0
±2786.2
888 4
± 1448.2
90.5
±248.7
4786 0
±4936.7
923.9
±1292.3
3684 7
±4839.7
456 6
±789.8
2629.7
±1270.5
±2781.0
1735'6
±12747.4
Skilled
1350 3
±5320.8
Labour
(n-26)
Unskilled
008 7
±990.7
Labour
m-22)
House Wife 972 7
«n— 26)
± 1966.8
614 <
±1288 5
486 0
±083.2
1316.5
±3745.6
42.3
± 196.3
682.6
±1224.5
(I 0
2475.9
±3303.3
856.2
±2831.4
1053 4
± 1130.9
517.0
±1929.1
1223 I
±1291.8
10617 8
± 11111.3
344.4
• ±594 5
552.6
±1265.9
2567 0
±5358.2
451.9
11489.2
707 9
±1075.6
370.5
±1296 8
4895.8
±7945 2
960 4
±1904.7
2635 2
±2841.7
800.0
±1952.0
2008.5
±2855.9
1690? 9
±16840.2
461.7
±856.4
892.4
±1857.7
260 6
±1090.6
225.7
±981.7
919.0
±1494.0
54 8
0.0
293.5
±619.1
3864.7
±6346.5
520.8
±1779 8
2612.5
±2406.5
IIV7M.4
±12302.9
All
(n- 195)
9510
12644.4
VTTO
±3552.3
5231)
±1010.6
1566.2
±5388.3
■*811.2
±7103.3
906.6
±1805.0
516.7
±5392.5
47993
±10675.7
*746.1
±1956 9
7500.3
±5274.6
5032
±1456.0
2766.1
±4509.5
17964 x
±267X4.8
p Kruskal
Wall,*
0 6<4460
0.42441?
0.48X329
0 651218
0.94.<« I
0.226.09K
0.000000
0 I06MI1
75 010291
O.J749J2
0 031900
0.022166
Job (Pvt.)
CZ
Investigations ftadiotherap} Chemotherapy Surgery
•
±6995.8
±185.4
±1706.2
LJ
y
w
X
l<3
I
SS'-eC-.r..
■CO
%
'A rd
4?
4
-z
Table B8
Mean Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Distance from fRCH
/
DISTANCE
Km
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean + Sid bev j
Consultation
Investigations Radiotherapy Chemotherapy Surgery
Other brugs
Hospitalization Income Loss
Relatives Exp Extra food
Lodging
Transport
Tow
168°« 4O ,
±2<nA9
Residents of Ddhi
I IX) 9
(n* 10)
280 6
±369 9
1490 6
±1756.6
1655.4
±3232.7
3124.0
±9878.8
0.0
878.3
±1418.I
30.6
±80.6
5293.1
±11361.9
63.8
±201.8
2324 0
±5692.7
330.8
±1046.2
1427.4
±1982 2
10 TO 29
(n = 36)
909 8
±1711 3
2406 8
±7722.8
610 6
±663.4
1042 7
±3321.9
3318.2
±16277.0
1407.0
±3207.6
2216 2
±12477.8
2878.8
829.3
±2581.1
3024.6
±4363.1
37.0
±4751.2
3106 9
±8755.1
30 TO 49
4320.9
±8017.6
1465.6
±2676.8
409 I
±373.4
9090.9
±20327.9
0.0
22R6 R
± 3R36.R
63.6
±142.3
1549 2
±2475.9
103 5 0
±959.0
1113.2
±1936.8
00
4218.2
±4210 3
All
(n*5|)
HTo
2134.^
±6561.9
Ton
±2900.8
±1545.2
2239.9
±8014.4
23 45 3
±13703.7
1389.6
±2979.0
I <767
± 10487.7
1270
±6383.7
±2202.0
2699 0
±4451.4
9L0
±478.3
2065
±7511.3
p Kruskal
Willis
0 362169
<5.714207
O.<I04I<
0.816653
0.146665
d.6J7if(y
0.O767OR
0.9^41< 7
0M33IR
0 072433
0.769695
0.565115
bthcr Drugs
Hospitalization Income Loss
Relatives* Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
o<a
20*56
± 29070..
(n = 5)
DISTANCE
Km
±157.5
7I7R7O
±4915* 5
->4452.5
V4H^ I f68.3
<441 I-’0
Expenditure in Rupee* ?Mcnn ± Sid bev)
Consultation
Investigations Radiotherapy Chemotherapy Surgery
Outskk IMW Residents
<50
(n-22)
274.5
±487.3
417.0
±S69.4
2518.5
±7246.4
264.8
±1063.0
962.4
±1692.2
±35 2
7.5
9178.8
±26449.1
329.6
±735.4
2'14 9
±2413.R
135.3
±472.6
2017.3
±2063.2
740.8
±1315.9
372.7
±341.5
678.4
±2305.1
168.5
±539.6
500.3
±555.7
184.2
±750.6
3280.0
±5940.1
332.1
±934.1
3171.|
±2853.8
98 4
±202.6
2017.2
±1781.2
100 TO 249 660.6
(n-40)
±1107.9
670.5
±1754.8
325.0
±34R.7
841.9
±2891.4
225.4
621.6
±729.2
146.0
±559.5
3237 9
±1092.0
1163.1
±2859.8
5480 4
±9160.4
516.9
±1694.7
2535.9
±4227.0
250 TO 499 455.3
(n«29)
±639.2
514.4
±860.9
352.7
±346.7
939.4
±2899.1
111.7
±393.8
480.9
31.3
±168.8
3319.0
±7870.8
368.1
±744.8
2514 6
±2740.5
490.7
±933.7
2533.1
500 ±
(n«2R)
709.9
±1070.0
526.9
±652.3
703.3
±1402.7
2067.2
±4418.2
586.7
±2369.8
1194.0
±1445.8
315.5
5174.6
±7206.6
1324.0
± 1972.3
4218.5
±3599 0
1898.0
±2635 I
4374.1
±2744.2
All
(n-|44)
R92J
±2555.6
±1188.7
4265
±717.5
1327.6
±4087.8
260
±1287.6
7353
±1097.4
Tm
±670.2
4545.8
±11828.2
76277
±1870.5
3783.8
±5523.2
±1647.4
2723.5
±2802.4
p Kruskal
Wallis
0.960R3I
0.6IR249
0.963472
0.635692
0.93R9R9
0.149051
0.244219
0.126340
0.022971
0.27216R
0.000005
0.000825
50 TO 99
(n«25)
7909
±1458.9
±772.3
±1155.2
±33R|.9
±2712.0
1211 1
±99257
7^75093?^
l^ble B9
Mean Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Mode of Transport
COS LI EST
MODE OF
TRANSP
Consultation
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean ♦ Sid Dev)
Investigations Rjdiolherapx
Other brug>>
Hospitalizalio. .nconte Loss
89 I
±271 6
834 5
±1599.2
±158.7
2643 9
±4895.6
Chemotherapy Surgery
48.1
Relatives’ Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
ToUl
283.5
+ 576.9
2534.7
+ 3537.3
150.3
±438.9
1907.7
±1979.5
12888.3
±17363.3
112 0
±247.7
6866.3
±12971.4
48854 I
Scooter
(n-40)
1190 4
±3249.1
695 3
± 1352.2
389.1
±339 4
2121.8
Car
(n» 16)
1244 7
4585 0
±11489.7
1051.6
±2218.6
1282.2
±2951.4
6734.0
±24374.7
2177.0
+ 4503.0
5130.4
+18643.3
11184.7
+ 30969.6
599 3
+ 1198.7
7880.9
±1770 9
Bu»
tn = 7bj
495 3
±1043 8
731 0
±1239.1
463.0
958.3
±4044.4
292.7
614.3
±1026.9
+ 982.3
68 6
+ 434.5
3102 8
±5558.8
599.5
±1920.2
3181.3
±129 5
± 4859.1
347.7
± 1385.7
1647.1
±I88| 7
12501 5
±13031 7
Train
(n = 611
1243 7
+ 3600.3
543.3
±931.5
552 4
±1019.2
1935 9
±5011.0
403 7
±1735.0
973.5
±1422.7
189 I
±826.3
4789.8
±7593.2
1295 2
±2587.8
3218.4
±3086.7
1045 9
±1962.8
35 76 9
±3039 I
19768 0
+ 15072 8
An
<n»2>
2293.9
±3190 0
27.3
±257
309.9
±438.3
4545 5
0.0
+0 0
1251.3
±1152 4
0.0
±0.0
3100 0
±4384.1
±0.0
8489.6
+ 5960.1
50.0
±70.7
4926.0
±2364.9
24993 4
± 6420.0
All
(n«l95j
9TT0-----±2644.4
Tiro
1566 2
±10675 7
350(5.3
+ 5274.6
2766 I
± 1805.0
7461
+ 1956,9
5032
±5388.3
3167
±5392.5
4199.5
± *010.6
8IT2
±7103 3
W
±3552 3
17964 8
±26784.8
p Kru*kal
Wallu
0 025764
0.351351
■0.7^774^
0 184411
0.83OW
0.341861T
0 042594
0.71J0.^
O.OJ72OO
0.0’0845
7T
±8257.5
±6428 2
0.0
+ 11901.6
±1456.0
52
±4509.5
0.0000 IT
±74004 5
Table B10
Mean Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Place of Residence
PLACE
OF
RESI
Consultation
Investigations Radiotherapy
Chemotherapy Surgery
Other Drugs
Hospitalization Income Loss
Relatives' Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
Total
Delhi
(««5I)
1120.9
+ 2900 X
2134.9
±6561.9
795.7
+ 1545.2
2239.9
2342 3
+ 13703.7
1389.6
1576 6
+ 10487.7
3221.8
±2979.0
699 4
±2202.0
2699.9
±4451.4
91.0
±478.3
28X6.5
±7511.3
2II9X.3
±44113 0
Outside
Delhi
(n= I44t
X92.I
+ 2*55 6
562.X
1IIRX.7
426 5
+ 717.5
1327.6
268 9
±12X7.6
735.5
±1097.4
141 3
_o70.2
4545.X
762.7
±1X70.5
37X3.X
±5523.2
649.2
± 1647.4
2723 5
±2X02 4
16X19 7
±1696* 7
All
TvFTi
4199 5
±10675.7
746 I
3500.3
±5274.6
3012
±1456.0
2766 I
+ 1956.9
±4509.5
|7oA4 r
± 2©7M4 g
0.333X40
O.69Jg29
0.004632
O.CxtoOO?
0.000X90
0.123*17
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean ± Std bev)
+ 8014.4
+ 40X7.X
7m
1560
+ 2644.4
974T5
±3552.3
5210
(n«!95)
±1010.6
±53XX,3
±7103.3
±1805.0
±5392.5
p Kruskal
Wallis
0.302I6S
0.07*561
T).09946 .<
0. *66600
0.522459
0.314267
0 J0.V<97
u>
4*
±6383.7
±11X2* 2
Table BH
Mean Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Survival
Survival
Statuv
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean + Sid Dev)
Consultation
Investigations Radiolheraps
Chemotherapy Surgen
Expired
(n= 124)
11344
±3220.1
1166.0
±4314.8
493.4
±1053.3
1897 8
±6338.3
Living
633 3
±999 4
638.7
±1442.2
574.8
±936.4
986.9
±3055.4
9510
±2544.4
9TT0
±3552.3
5210
<n» 195/
±1010.6
±5388.3
p Kruskal
Wa|hs
0.725665
0.160550
0.215731
W24059
(11-71
All
UJ
ui
Lodging
Transport
Total
2730 4
±4220 6
474 8
±1511 4
2648.7
±5166 2
18829 2
±31909.9
727.1
+ 21118
4844 9
±6551 4
552.8
±1362 7
2971 I
±3064.7
I645V3
±I39RO 5
4199.5
±10675.7
746J
±1956.9
~JW3
±5274 6
5012
±1456 0
"766 .1
±4509.5
779648
±26784.8
0.979062
0.566758
0O0OI93
0.221035
0 013676
0 199976
Other Drugs
Hospitalization Income Loss
Relatives £xp Extra Food
1161.7
±8876.9
970.3
±2101 9
767.4
±6751.3
4627 I
± 12524.5
757.0
± 1871.3
198.9
±881.4
795.3
±1116 4
78 8
±441.1
3452.7
±6272 I
xrn
906.6
±7103 3
±1805.0
“TiTT---±5392.5
0.938736
O.HJKO.M)
ornonv
Site
R
bv a„ Pa,ien|s of
Mean
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean ± Std Dev)
C^wliMion
lnv«,g>„on, It«j;olh<f,rv a,-^o,l,<r.py Surgen'----Other Drugs
140
(n=*3)
141
fn = 42)
58.0
±100.5
788.8
±K75O
72.7
±83.3
4.5
Hospitalization frKomc Loss
Relatives' Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
3836 I
±3310.8
1426.7
+ 1912.6
3466.3
*3180 5
60 6
±105.0
1910.4
±1075.7
16191 -
2771 7
±2837 5
103 8
+ 28< 2
2315.4
±2649.7
14082 5
±11445 2
“ Tela I
393.6
4781.8
±7327.8
0.0
849.1
±1322.9
504.6
j 667.5
1242.9
±3950.0
687.8
±2274.5
604.4
±1057 2
83.8
±329 I
3213 0
±4152 8
016.2
±2654 2
1506 3
±2919.1
13354 4
+ 34246.8
2643.6
+ 610’ S
9X25 I
±26330.7
3465.4
1740X.J
509.3
±911.7
5681.8
± 16070.6
5015 7
±6566.6
258.5
+ 731 2
110.2
±286.9
1754.4
±3041.7
10471 6
±!730< 9
102.3
±195.5
«2in 7
±ln0'62 *
4719 6
±6418.5
1135 6
±1041.X
3294.2
±3431.1
473.4
±787.1
3360 5
±2809.0
2<28A 4
±30696 0
124.S
0.0
±63.6
±5402 6
143
(n*8>
973 9
±1657.3
7079.5
±16033.6
2'5 7
±352 9
144
(n«8)
3229 9
±6399.4
1105 9
±2137.1
17)5
±315.6
145
(n-32)
411 J
+ 859.7
524.3
±M5.6
70<.7
±1771.3
19515
±3878.5
204.8
±653.1
146
fn-34)
1085.9
±1577.9
1320 3
±4726.3
31.7
±131.2
624.1
±1139 0
641.8
±1074.4
4356.7
±8974.9
647.7
± 1212 I
IXJX.O
2X08.6
±3957.5
382 6
±4X2.6
209 3
±998.4
16065.7
±I5<52 3
148
655.7
±856.7
2302.5
±2419.7
±7017.2
51.0
±207.5
1035.0
±2324.5
5 P.6
±313.9
209.3
*724.2
1007.9
±2708.4
4573 0
±8413.6
403 9
±1107 7
550.2
±1038.4
767.6
±1124 6
2089.7
±1615.9
16149 8
680.9
+ I068.R
3296.5
±6875.9
202.6
3197.X
±4634.3
00
1545.5
1916.2
±2289 8
12175.4
5454 5
300< 0
±4146.0
0.0
00
93.<
±220.8
0.0
0.0
32396.7
9090.9
49I7J
59132.2
(n»!2)
K0
(n~|)
JOOO.O
161
(n«45)
AH
45’0
1128.2
±2061.2
±2644.4
"
(n«l95)
r Knisi
Wallis
<97.9
±1703.4
±7353.6
162
(n«IO)
2727.3
±630 3
00
♦ |
ii
j0404 4
±’15.9
357.1
±2020.7
105.9
+ 360.9
849.9
±1170.3
78.7
±4'2.8
1276.2
±124.5.8
4X4.7
±336.5
3545.4
±5630.8
1209 7
±2769 4
2279.2
±6652.4
3267 6
±3633.8
24X4
587.5
±1530.3
979.5
±1759.2
2807.2
±3633.2
371.9
±1176.1
97T0
±3552.3
7^375
15751 4
±3X816 5
1470? |
±13263 '
2838.5
±3X11.8
1HT72
±7103.3
156.1
±313.5
7
±5392.5
2679.4
±2839 9
28505 I
±39313 5
± >010.6
15662
±5388.3
311.7
±659.1
746.1
±1456.0
1766.1
+4509.5
TW4 8
0.01 7414
TOibj----±5274.6
50172
'254109
4190.5
±10675.7
0.859276
0738818 3
U061329
753922
0 753494
±785.4
O.VHK^T
w
±1805.0
THTiW
±1956.9
0.724451
+ 26’84 8
1
Table B13
Mean Expenditure by ah Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Stage of Disease
Expcndiiure in Rupees (Mean f Std Dev)
Stage
Lodging
Transport
Toul
34911
±3687.7
140.2
±231.8
37693
±4305 I
16347 6
±16607.3
+ 4196 3
5419 I
±8963.2
950.5
±1932.5
277? 9
±2374.0
21013 <
±16372.2
4195.5
±6887.3
954.5
±1846.7
3854.4
±3299.1
329.6
±696.0
2143 4
±2008.4
16379 8
± 13825.2
830 9
±7365.7
3098.7
±6062.6
413.5
±815 7
2752 0
+ 4039.7
466.5
±1438.4
2973 5
±5689 7
16692 4
±32015 I
1830.2
±2051 8
1'5.2
±7>.-..<
16065.3
±41154 I
1146 8
±2160.5
4965.3
±10644 6
1010.1
±3030.3
2566.2
±2224.9
33774.2
rm
906.6
±7103 3
±1805.0
<167
+ 4392 5
4T5q"5
±10675.7
746.1
±1956 9
350673
±5274.6
1031
±1456.0
2766.1
±4509.5
T79<54 8
±267*4.8
6.128424
0.097857’
0019941
0 364112
0 348651 ’
O‘OOI4l0
0.1)0969
0.384924
0.0066M
Relatives £xp Extra Food
Other Drugs
Hospitalization Income Loss
3381
±65(..4
692.0
283.1
±813 8
3471.8
+ 4092.4
273.7“
±738.5
1873.3
±5378.3
3.8
119.6
1010.0
±1515.5
0.0
4893.6
±6926.7
1855 7
529 9
±1007.9
1313.7
±5231.4
487.1
±1372.4
764 5
±1341.3
179 6
±649 0
1186.6
±4700.7
353.5
±388.5
1506.7
±5390.1
1277.3
±9680.7
6*7 I
±2t/H.o
1588 8
±1700.8
1121.7
±1182 9
1223.6
±2966.5
1936 I
±3333.3
5.1
±15.2
All
tn- 195)
95T6
±2644 4
97470
±3552.3
5TT6
A 1010.6
15661
±5388.3
P Kruskal
Walks
0 395431
0.567064
0.129942
0.494924
Consultation
Investigations Radiotherap)
I
(n= 14;
85T7
±1385.5
1128.8
±2661.9
■5102
±285.0
ToP’o
±7322 2
2
(n = 26)
890 6
±1566 J
389.2
±657.9
954.7
-r i5l3.l
3
*n-42»
901.4
±1776.0
726.2
±1003.8
4
in-104)
946.1
±3288.5
5
tn-9)
u>
Chemotherapy Su-gery
±731.5
±39818 0
Mean Eepen^r.
Treatment
Intent
Pa,ien|s of T„bac„ Ro|a
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean ± Std Dev)’
Consultation
Investigations Radiotherapy
Curative
In- 134)
II4J 9
±30114.5
743.3
±1525 J
621.6
±1071.3
Palliative
<n-6h
5304
±1121 A
I4R0.7
±59311.1
291.2
Ail
(n= 195,
9<2O
±2644.4
974 0
±3552.3
T?n)
O.R24J5O
p Kruskal
Wall,*
GJ
00
Chemotherapy Surgery
1739.5
± 5592 I
IIR5.3
±4933.5
1063.5
±*525 9
Other Drug,
1033.9
±2064 4
256. R
±1246.7
627.0
±1010.6
1566.2
±53HR.3
*m
w
±7103.3
±1*05.0
OjkmT7
75.1^270
7) 061651
4A23.R
±9*5.7
TTTTWT
HoJp11.|,ZJI,on|ncome L„„
691.9
+ 6490 0
Rc|a,;
lives Exp Extra food
Lodging
Transport
Total
±60|T4
609.5
±1572.6
3131.1
±4701.7
19440 6
±2-7343.9
±1337 |
12*2.3
± 1553 6
269.7
±1136 5
1964.2
±3974 *
14723 |
±25431.2
17964 A
±267*4 A
3337.9
±5326.5
*07 5
131.9
±661.5
6092.2
611 2
M7T7
±5392.5
J199 ^
± 10675.7
746J[—
±1956 9
3500 3
♦ 5274.6
503 2
±1456 0
2766 i
0 577OM
0.52297J
7T
0.0049JO
0 000040
7T547OIT
±173 29 5
±21*3 4
4510.0
'
±4509 5
0.090059
Tabic Cl
Unit Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean ± Sid Dev)
Mean
*.d.
n
Consultation
Investigations Radiotherapy Chemolherapj Surgen
1271.4
•*2991.2
146
1123.8
±3795.1
169
953 2
± 1206.4
107
9254.6
±10131 0
33
SK5K.4
+18595.0
27
Other Drugs
Hospitalization Income Loss
955.6
±1840.7
185
3875.4
±14564.3
26
7'”2.4
± i3444.2
108
Relatives’ Exp txtni Food
2020 8
±2802.1
72
3771.1
±5381.3
181
Lodging
Transport
'luul
1464 6 a
±2191.3
67
2780.4
±4516.7
194
17964 8
±26784.8
195
N.’ic Unit expenditure wa» calculated lot each nl lhe items. i»»i the patients incurring Mime expense on that expenditure item
1
LJ
4
IbWe C2
.Unit Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Age
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean + Sid Dev)
AGEGROUP
(Years)
! 9 TO 39
*1 TO 49
50 TO 59
60 JO 60
70*
All Apes
n
p Kruskal
Wallis
Relatives' Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
Total
1395 4
±1201 6
(n= 10)
3532.9
+ 3970.6
(n«20)
922.9
+ 975.0
(n= 10)
3076 5
±3721.3
(n = 2l)
20998 2
±22159.3
(n-2!)
2964.3
±3110 7
(n« 14)
3062 I
110465 3
(n = 32)
±2734.5
(n = 45)
1595.4
*2265 9
(n» 12)
2615.6
+ 2692.3
(n-49)
I8<87 |
±18015 I
(n » 491
6756.6
±19696.6
(n « 14)
9214 9
±20526 4
(n = 36)
1825.3
+1364 2
(n = 23)
4711 3
+ 6977.8
(n = 59)
1537 9
±2274.2
(n = 30)
3619.9
±6763.9
(n»63)
23264.6
♦ 40193.3
(n = 63)
±926.0
(n = 40)
165.9
+ 215 4
(0 = 2)
5716.2
+ 4743.1
(n= 15)
1509 8
±3134.5
1514 0
+ 2738.6
(n= 11)
2189.1
±2787.5
(n = 44)
12628 6
+ 12209 I
(n= 19)
4255 3
+ 6199.2
(n = 4 I)
(n = 44i
466.6
103.3
3238.5
±17.5
(o«2)
±4544 2
(n = 8)
3229.1
+ 5816.8
(n = 6)
1354.7
± 1710.6
(n» 16)
1740.2
+ 2784.3
(n = 4)
1308 4
±1621.5
(n«IT)
7226 •
*10573 9
(n»IM)
Other Drugs
Hospitalization Income Loss
(n’3)
1391.7
±2399.0
(n = 20)
1358.5
+1462 0
(o = 3)
I339V3
±12589.3
(n = 5)
4650.3
+ 3993 7
(n=»7)
979 7
+1369 1
(n = 49)
310.7
±343.9
(n»5)
8960 I
768.1
6850.3
+ 7200.5
(n« 15)
10589.1
±29022.2
(n= 11)
1103.3
+ <04.7
<n-13)
1031.6
9188 8
±6643 4
(n=6)
665.3
±473.3
(n = 2)
Consultation
Irrveshgatiom RadUtherapy Chemodierapv Surgery
2111 R
*5000.2
(n-13)
1471.3
*2770.6
(n« 19)
1073 9
±1212.2
11505.3
±15790.1
578.8
±424.5
(n=l4)
(n’7)
1924 7
±4593.7
(n«39)
934 2
+1399.7
(n = 43)
I0R9 7
* I39R 5
in»JO)
783.7
+ 1163.4
(n«=47)
1701 5
+ 6115.2
(0 = 58)
Q4R 6
± 1349.1
(n»3J)
361 6
±607 6
<n = 36)
419.9
743 6
+ R5R.7
±1717.6
(n=24)
±451.4
(n= 14)
(n«l3)
693.2
+ 27.8
(n=6)
l?7| 4
±2991.2
146
1123 8
+ 3795.1
169
*1206.4
107
0 §4551
0.326764
0 776240
1519.1
±757.5
±2541.1
(o = 59)
697.9
5222.8
±4212.8
(n= 17)
(n«=0)
(n»4)
±519.1
(o=l7)
9254.6
5858.4
±18595.0
27
±14'10.7
IR5
3875 4
±14664 3
26
75R2T4
+ 10131 0
33
+ 13444.2
108
2020.R
+ 2802.1
72
3771.|
+ 5381.3
181
1464.6
±2191.3
67
2780.4
±4516.7
194
17964 8
+ 26784 8
195
CE631117
O.I5S7I0
O.JR219O
O517TT
0 249036
0.161761
0.015723
0 Al7441
O.O257RI
0 000739
1.
TabteGS
Unit Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Sex
SEX
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean ± Std Dev)
Consultation
Investigations kadioiheraps
1239.8
±3110.5
(n* 123)
±4130.4
(n-141)
865 0
±940.0
(n=88)
9392.9
±10509.5
(n = 28)
1440 7
±2298.2
(n«-23)
561.5
±*73 6
ln»2K)
1361.4
±2021 4
(n- 19)
fcuh Sexes iTTTl
±2991.2
n
146
THTJ -
"gyn
n 6<j741
0 427X49
Mak
Female
p Kruskal
Wallis
±3795.1
169
±•.206.4
107
O.V2I28
Chemotherapy Surgery
Other brugs
Hospitalization Income Loss
6265.9
± 19721.3
(n = 24)
972.9
±1918.6
(n= 155)
4515.1
±15802.4
(n*22)
8480 0
±8642.1
(n = 5)
2598 4
± 2106.6
(n = 3)
866.5
±1393.0
(n = 30)
9254 6
±10131.0
585M
33
‘0.92(X)0<
±18595.0
27
Relatives' Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
TotaT
7810 4
±1384? 3
(n«= 101)
2198 6
±3038.7
(n«59)
3769.2
±5298.8
(n= 150)
1503.2
±2122.2
(n = 56)
2764.5
±4744.2
(n= 161)
I90CW.5
±28623 2
(n= 162)
356.5
137h 4
(n = 4)
4293 0
±4053.3
(n*7)
1213.7
±981.6
(n«!3)
3780 2
±5857 I
(n = 3l)
1267.7
±2621.1
(n* 11)
2857.7
±3239.8
(n = 33)
12836 6
± 13953.3
(n*33)
955.6
±1840.7
185
3875.4
± 14564.3
26
± 13444.2
108
3771.1
±5381.3
181
1464 6
±2191.3
67
I7fD.4
±4516.7
194
17964 A
±2802.1
72
±26784 8
195
0.7<)58<6
OJpJMh
0508517"
0.704405“
0 492996
0.740022
0.086206
4
Table C4
Unh Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Religion
Expenditure m Rupees (Mean + 5td Dev)
Religion
3469 6
±4267.4
(n=l52)
1272.6
±1X52.X
(n-59)
2XIX.5
±4763.3
(n-164)
IXII2 6
±2X3X1 X
(n» 1641
2634 9
±3X3X 4
(n« 13)
6113.2
* 10203 9
(n-23)
2XX0.0
4 1772 3
(n = X)
29IR.3
43171 X
(n«23)
19962 I
±17525 I
(n-2J«
650 0
±495.0
(n = 2)
9X7.0
4909.X
(n = 3)
242X 9
±2066.3
(n «6)
(n®0)
1434.2
±X47.0
(n«7)
9193 6
±7672 0
(n«Xi
75X2 J
±13444.2
I OX
2020 X
±2X02 I
72 -
ITtei
±53X1.3
IMI
1464.6
a±2!9!.3
27X0.4
±4516.7
194
17964 X
±267X4 X
195
W)945d
0.706611
0 *4516*
0 36341*
0J1X606
0.203
664X7
420101.X
(n = 23)
1027.1
±19X1 9
(n= 155)
4271.1
±15X45 6
(n»22)
76X6.2
±I39IX 6
(n = 90)
1933.6
±2595.4
(n»56)
6053 9
±315X1
(n « 3)
1449.1
+ 1260.2
(n« J>
4X3.7
±550.0
(n = 23)
2959.5
±1074 I
(n = 2)
7X65.0
± 1 1545 7
(n= 16)
619.X
±0 0
(n--2)
13340.0
909 I
(n= I)
(n= I)
922.0
±994.2
(n-7)
43X.2
±519.0
(n = 2)
II2J X
43795.1
169
95T2
±1206.4
107
9254.6
410131 0
33
5R<R4
41X595.0
27
955 6
± 1X40.7
1X5
'3*75.4
0.132305
0.1 <7697*
0.R6<26<
0.176403
12X3 X
±31X7 1
(n« 122)
1216.4
44101 I
(n« 143)
9X1.0
4 1264.3
(n = 97)
9444.X
± 10717.1
(n-29)
Muslim
733 2
±XO3.7
(n» IX)
496 5
±1172.4
(n«20)
691 9
±31 6
(n-X)
Others
2633.9
+ 2K55.I
(n«6)
100*.X
4 1240.4
(n=»6)
1271.4
42991 2
146
0.064612
p Kruskal
Wallis
Total
Relatives Exp Extra Food
Hindu
n
Transport
Hospitalization Income Loss
Investigations Radiotherapy Chemoiherap\ Surgery
AIT
Lodginf
Other Drugs
Consubation
414564 3
26
* The leu Tor signilkancc d<»es ix< include values of "other* religions', as the variancethis category was zero.
W
•.
»
Table C5
Unit Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Education
Expenditure in Rupees (Mein ± Sid Dev)
Education
1811.9
±2670.1
(n- 13)
1993 I
±2000.6
(n-47)
143106
±12024.3
(n-47)
607.7
±694 4
(o-l3)
3<6V9
±4248.5
(n = 34)
2258.1
±2964.8
(n-35)
11335 8
±8906 9
(n-35)
8374.2
±5633.2
(n-8)
908 9
±567.0
(o-9)
2351.5
± 1946.0
(n- 16)
1037.6
±931.9
(n-6)
1306 8
±1233.3
(n-19)
11768 3
±8899 9
(n-19)
1201.2
±1389 7
(n=5)
7717.3
±8578.2
(n = 24)
2038 6
±1703.3
(o=l2)
3931 8
+ 5779.1
(o = 33)
2738.5
±3255.0
(o-13)
3797.3
±5149.0
(n-35)
20904 I
±24033.3
(n-35)
1338.7
±2236 7
(n-30)
318 2
±181.8
(n = 3)
8004 5
±8997.1
(n» 15)
1280.8
±875.8
(o=ll)
5096.8
±8836.5
(n*29)
791.5
±1414.2
(n=ll)
2570.5
+2187.6
(n-31)
21675 |
±23140 7
(n*3l)
1535.1
±3553.9
(n-25)
26066.8
±42326.2
(n-3)
15047 6
±35112.9
(n-12)
3082.3
±4927.6
(n»8)
5740.3
+ 6144.7
(n-24)
1553.0
±1951.1
(n- 10)
4787 3
±9105.7
(o-27)
28808 V
±56367 7
(n-2M)
TW' 4‘----+ 14564.3
26
7587/4
+ 13444.2
108
2020 R
+2802.1
72
3771.1
±5381.3
181
1464 6
±2191.3
67
2780.4
±4516.7
194
±26784.8
195
0.409612
0’576732
0.088931
0.575051
0.065217
0.031934
0.224890
2074 7
±2656.2
(n = 4)
5824 7
±7281.8
(n-32)
3300.1
±3800.4
(n« 19)
8643 7
±6182 9
(n*4)
1409.9
±962.0
(n = 4)
359 6
±361.0
(n-34)
746.4
± 1347.3
(n-7)
4686.0
±3238.4
(n*!7)
877.3
(O-I4)
10202 9
± 11091.2
(n*2)
1093.9
±1098 I
(n = 3)
871.7
±1133.4
(n-19)
518.8
±904.4
(n=>4)
2174 8
±8068.2
(n»32)
882.9
±970.8
(n*20)
7232.2
±5881 3
(o = 5)
3821.3
±4477.0
(n = K)
980.1
±1318.3
(n = 34)
2024 8
±3867.4
(n=*26)
1235.5
±1766.3
(n-30)
1079.5
±1366.7
(o=l7)
15235.9
± 15348.3
(n-10)
41.3
1103.6
1486.6
±2894.5
6892.3
±5652.5
(o - 5)
20017.0
+ 43452.6
(n-22)
657 7
±31.1
(n- 18)
95^’2
±1206.4
107
9T5T6
±10131.0
33
SW51C4----±18595.0
27
±1840.7
185
0.O5OH44
U.642MI6
0.421254
0 067956
1112.4
4 1275.3
(n-23)
3920 0
±2938 2
(n«7)
±677.1
(n-26)
542 9
±886.6
(o=28)
706.5
±65.7
(n= 15)
903.6
+ 1263.8
(n- 12)
478.8
±581.4
(n- 18)
1282 9
+ 2247.4
Middle Sch. 1125.9
+ 1624.3
(n- 27)
JjM Literate 516.8
t’oiiege
2408 3
+ 1991 6
(n-45)
840 5
±1242.3
(n-43)
685.8
±1090.9
(n-39)
Se»«*.Sch
TouT
3093.0
±2434.3
(n = 6)
1621 5
±4733 8
(n»J4)
Pnm S.h.
Transport
Hospitalization Income Loss
Investigations Radiotherapy Chemotherapy Surgery
l.'hterate
Lodging
Relatives* Exp Extra food
father brags
Consultation
±1577.3
(n-21)
VT“
n
146
1123.8
±3795.1
169
p Kr/ika!
Wallis
0.5)1*71
0.709381
£1991.2
(n = I)
(n- 5)
±961.5
(O’ 14)
4
,, . _
Table C6
Unit Expenditure by Patientsof Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Tobacco Use
Tobacco
Use
Expenditure n Rupees (Mean + Std bev)
Consultation
Non-use r
Past Users
Users
ait
n
P Kruskal
Ufcllis
Investigations Radiotherapy Chemotherapy Surgery
Jther Dnigs
FTospluliutinn IrKonx Loss
Relatives' Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
Total
1625.7
±2294 4 '
(n-33)
2471.2
±7M9| g
(n-34)
1471.7
±2029.1
(n-25)
10617.2
+ 9967.4
(n-9)
3161.2
±3309 9
(n’6)
9-1.5
± 355.1
(n»'9)
1037.4
♦ I45|.9
(n»*r
7506.7
±9601.5
(n= 16)
2440.2
±4121 *
(n» 16)
3433 4
+ 5604.5
(n-39)
2377.0
♦ 3206.4
(n-9)
3432.4
♦ 510* 4
(n-42)
1*392.2
♦ 2497| 7
(n »4J)
1240 0
±?5Qg |
(•-60)
**0.6
±1697 |
(n-70)
722.5
±?59 5
(n«39)
9769 *
±13043.4
(n- 14)
11*2*.2
±2*721.5
(n»ll)
1096 0
±2430 2
(n-77)
*645.7
±23364.6
(n= 10)
92*9 3
+ l‘*f*»5.0
(n«44)
1615 0
±154*.0
(n = J0)
3306 I
♦ 3573.1
(n « 74)
1535.*
±2447.0
f«-25)
2649 *
±536| ••
(n = * I)
I92P 9
±3<4‘r4 •>
(n = *l)
10*6.5
±3732.9
(n-53)
6*1.0
±1166.0
(n»65)
*92.3
±103*.2
(n«43)
7306.9
±4939.2
(n-10)
909.9
±7*6.0
(n« 10)
812.6
± 1223.7
(n-69)
750 4
1*41.7
(nw*)
6043.1
±6661.4
(n = 48)
2230 *
+ 2994 9
(n«26)
4470 6
±672«.5
(n^6*)
1271 4
♦ 2991.2
146
TT2X1
1161.7
±15*3.2
(n-33)
2543 6
±27**6
(n«7|)
16274.2
±1307* 6
(n - 7|»
±3795.1
169
9512
±1206.4
107
0754 6
±10131.0
33
5*58.4
±J *595.0
955.6
± 1*40.7
1*5
3 it 75.4
± 14564.3
26
7582.4
2026/
±2*02.1
' •»2
J77I.In“
♦ 53*1.3
1*1
1464 6
±2191.3
67
Z^O^
±4516.7
194
1^964 *
±26’*4 *
|Q<
0 1665411
0.06R15g
0.4431 ax
0(5724X1
’TTl 01643
OJW07
Tf.MdKTT
0.<R6.l44
’5/46414
0.4.0760
0/71452
OJW120
0J6C*’A
4^
+ 13444.2
IV*
Table C7
Unit Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Occupation
O.cupaiion
Expenditure in Rupee* (Mean ± Std Dev)
Coiuuiuiion
InveMigationi Radiotherapy Chemotherapy Surgery
dther t)rugs
Hospitali/^iion fneome Loss
Relatives* Exp Pxtra Food
Lodging
Transport
Total
1053.8
11426.3
(n-37)
1051.7
±1852.9
(n-46)
835.0
+ 989.8
(n-31)
10061 I
±10844 4
(n-8)
I 171.2
±860.3
(n-9)
905.0
+ 1166.8
(n-47)
728.7
±1154.8
(n-6)
12828.1
±26244.0
(n«22)
3039.7
±4373.0
(n-ll)
5409.0
+ 7524.0
(n»47)
1247.5
±1737.7
(n-17)
2835.3
±3247.7
(n-50)
19294 9
±23068.8
(n — 51)
1282.3
±2100.4
fn- 17)
1297.1
±2306.0
(n*2l)
666.3
±28.0
(n* 12)
12253.7
1 ±13259.6
(n = 3)
26017.7
±47X43 ?
(n = 4j .
1391.2
±3832.1
(n-22)
39316 8
±50342.9
(n=-2)
8831 0
+ 6842.9
(n=l5)
I960 3
(n-9)
4109 4
+ 5034.8
(n = 20)
1666.2
±2591.1
(n = 8)
5171 8
±9583.1
(n-22)
30295 9
±57412.3
(n-22)
1567.9
±3920.9
(n-22)
2712 3
±9504.8
(n = 23)
786 9
±375.5
(n= 18)
13220.0
±18082.3
(n-5)
4063.3
±4413.6
(n = 3)
1102.3
±1901.1
(n«26)
909 7
± 1364.4
(n-7)
7180 0
±8987.5
(n= 19)
1916.6
±2581.5
(n=!3)
3331.I
+ 2859.8
(n = 26)
9X7 3
±1082.4
(n= 10)
3119.3
±5377.3
(n-28)
20339 9
±28005.6
(n-28)
Agrkuhurc
919 8
±1164.9
(n-18)
909.6
±1310 I
fn= 18)
661.1
±31.0
(n-9)
8190 6
±7664.2
(n = 3)
7232 5
±7303.4
(n = 2j
935 2
±1472.3
(n-19)
452.3
±416.7
in = 4)
5982 4
±4820.3
(n= 16)
1679 9
±1332.8
(••^11)
3878 7
+ 4891.9
(n- 19)
761.0
±908.2
(n=!2)
2629.7
±2781.0
(n-20)
17355 6
+ 12747 4
(n-20)
SLiiled
Labour
2194 J
±6723 9
(n=l6)
726.2
± 1375.3
(n-22)
1053.0
+ 1243.3
(n- 12)
6845 7
±6353.9
(n = 5)
550.0
±636.4
(n-2)
682.6
±1224.5
(n = 26)
(n = 0)
3786.7
±3431.6
(n = 17)
2226.2
±4345.2
(n= 10)
1141.2
+ 1133.9
(n = 24)
2688 3
±3995.4
(n-5)
1223 I
±1291.8
(n-26)
10617 X
± 11111.3
(n —26)
787.7
+ 1066 9
(n«|7)
420.9
±634 4
(n = 18)
1215 8
±1686.3
(n= 10)
8067.8
±6979.2
(n = 7)
1988.3
±2797.2
<n=5)
741.6
±1090.2
(n = 2l)
2716 8
±2845.3
(n = J)
5668 8
±8307.9
(n= 19)
2112.9
+ 2400.0
(n= 10)
2898 8
±2849.7
(n = 20)
2933 5
±2914.4
(n = 6)
2OO8.5
16902 9
±2855.9 ±16840 2
(n-22)
(n-22)
+ 2206.6
(n-19)
571.6
±922.4
(n-21)
1546.8
±2253.5
(n« 15)
3388.4
±2921.9
(n = 2)
2933.9
±2863.5
(n-2)
995.6
±1531.9
(n-24)
356.5
±378 4
(n = 4)
(n»0)
954.0
±805.6
(n = 8)
4019.2
+ 6427.2
(n - 25)
1504 5
±2869.4
(n-9)
2612 5
±2406.5
(n-26)
11078 4
±12302 9
(n-26)
I2>l .4
±2991.2
146
1123.8
±3795.1
169
±1206.4
107
9254.6
+ 10131.0
33
3858.4
±18595.0
27
9557
±1840.7
185
3875 4
± 14564.3
26
■7585.4
±13444.2
108
2020
±2802.1
72
377|.|
±5381.3
181
1464 6
±2191.3
67
2780.4
±4516.7
194
17964 8
+ 26784.8
195
0.996J 74
0.798341
0.01R92R
0.^71472
75.4075 <0
0.70SO8I
0.198491
0.084275
0.553660
0 002058
0.8J4494
0.024605'
0.022166
Jut) (Govt)
Job (pvtj
Business
Unskilled
Labour
House Wite Ijil.l
Ail
n
p Kruskal
Wai h s
±r69.i
4
IhbleCS
Unit Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers, living in Delhi, on Treatment according to Distance
Dicta ru e
(Km)
Expendilurt in Rupees (Mean ± Sid Dev)
Conwtutiofi
’nvestipiiions lUdiotheraps Chemotherapy Surgery
Other Drugs
Hospitiliwtion Income Loss
Relatives' Exp Lxtra Rood
Lodging
Transport
Total
Residents of DrUu
<10
467 6
±376 0
(n-A)
10 io 29
1637.7
+ 2034.7
(o-20)
>30
5401.1
±8827.7
(o-4)
16.56.7
±17'4.4
(n-9)
2888.2
+ 8399 0
(n-30)
1832.0
±2942.5
(n = 4)
4138 4
±4201.1
(n-4)
845.4
±640.1
(n-^96)
681.8
±0.0
(n’3)
JI2J9.6
152 8
±145.4
(n = 2)
13297 0
+ 30217.0
(n = 6)
318 ?
6.1 R 0
290V0
+ 6303 8
(n = 8)
3202 6
+ 4427.6
(n = 34)
|8>5 4
+ 2331.7
fn-=3)
JJ0M.3
1427.4
±1982.2
(n« 10)
3195 6
+ 8866.5
(n-35)
4218.2
±4210.3
(n-5)
16898 4
±25060 7
tn « 10)
2178" 9
+ 49158 <
(n = 36)
255*2.5
"± 4I I .’0 2
tn-M
iW 5
±3600 2
(n=»30)
25321
±7087.3
(n = 43)
(n = 4)
2^44 2
±7576.2
(n - 50)
21198.3
±44 i 13 0
(n»5D
0 3l2R?l
(n-» I)
5362.7
±6111.0
(n = 7)
45454 5
(n — 0)
14931.9
±33563.6
(n’8)
(n= I)
(n = 0)
1097 8
+ 1519.9
(n = X'
1489.8
±3284.1
(o = 34)
2286.8
+ 3836.8
(n = 5)
1229.7
±1783.4
(n = 33)
12(925
± I MR0.4
(n = 9)
14931.9
±33563.6
(n-8)
1507.9
±3076.4
(n«47)
0.R473IK
0.24R46R
6 11K442
Patients redding outside Delhi
<50
3279 4
317.8
±512.4
±7034.2
(n-15)
(n- 19)
SO TO 99
898.7
881.9
±1526.8
+ 1395.4
(n-22)
(n-2i)
100 TO 249 7^,1
766 3
t>kl65 0
± 1859.2
(n = 34)
(n-35)
250 70 499 528.2
596.7
±660.8
±902.0
(n = 25)
0i-25)
500+
993 8
567.4
±1153.2
±660.0
(n«20)
(a-26)
833 9
±546.3
(n= 11)
655.6
±73.8
(n- 14)
684.3
±63.1
(n- 19)
681.8
±0.0
(n® 15)
1312 8
±1713.8
(n-15)
13851.9
± 12*79 9
(n = 4)
5653.7
±4644.2
(n = 3)
6734 8
±5648.4
(n = 5)
5448.7
±5303.2
(n = 5)
8268 8
±5293.1
(n-7)
1942 I
+ 2641.8
(o = 3)
1403.9
±944.9
(n-3)
1803.1
±2841.0
(o = 5)
1079.6
±776.7
(o-3)
3285.7
+ 5179 |
(n-5)
654 3
+ 733.8
(n = 38)
49*0
±780.9
(n = 28)
543.8
±558.7
(o-23)
I 194.0
+ 1445.8
(n = 28)
1008.2
+ I77O.O
(o-2l)
1107.5
±2807.2
(n« 116)
MH
±1250.8
(n= 126)
829.9
±818.1
(n-74)
7965.3
+ 6980 2
(n » 24)
2037.9
+ 3060.3
(n= 19)
76775
±1110.1
(n= 138)
1197.3
+ 1634.2
(n = 17)
7982.8
±14806 0
(n = 82)
2072.2
±2618.4
(n = 53)
4006.4
±5605.0
(n= 136)
1483.9
±2236.2
(n = 63)
2723.5
±2802.4
(n-144)
16819 7
±16965.7
(n*144)
0.577824
0.629810
0.993321♦
0.76291J
067024
0.143568
0.842148
0 980216
0.608772
0.233663
0.045050
0.000815
0.O09324
All
n
p Kruskal
Wallis
ait
n
p Kruskal
Walin
10586.2
+14846 4
tn —5)
5757.5
+ 5378.4
(n« 18)
?58l 0
+ 2874 0
tn —3)
tn- I)
2296 6
±3972.5
(n= 13)
1035 0
±959.0
tn-5)
±24769.0
(n-9)
6319 7
±7819.4
(n-26)
1877.3
±3336 8
(n= l<b
O.7993RJ
0.496,.g<
O.<02<99
0.9)2.r4.
0 326115
0.179^12
O.S65*5*
0 ^6J241
165.3
(n= I)
1767 0
+ 2408.5
(n«5)
15533.4
+ 33425.8
(n’13)
6833.4
±7106.0
(n« 12)
5631 I
±4193.5
(0 = 23)
8020.8
+10795.8
(n= 12)
6585.8
+ '>552.3
(n-22)
1450.4
±898.3
(o = 5)
1383.8
±1562.6
(0 = 6)
2736.7
±39|9.|
(o=l7)
1 186.1
±921.9
(o = 9)
2317.1
+ 2132 6
(o- 16)
2766 4
±2389.0
(n = 20)
3303.3
±2836.0
(n = 24)
6()89 4
±9470.4
(n = 36)
2604.5
+ 2747.0
(n = 28)
4218 5
±3599.0
(n = 28)
496 2
±850.5
(n-6)
351.3
±245.9
(o-7)
1723.1
±2813.4
(n= 12)
889.4
±1117.7
(n= 16)
2415.6
±2760.1
(o = 22)
2017.3
±2063.2
(n-22)
2017.2
±1781.2
(o-25)
2535.9
±3381.9
(n — 40)
2533.1
±2712.0
(n = 29)
4374.1
+ 2744.2
(n-28)
20856 6
+ 29020.1
(o-22i
12334 6
+ 8471 0
(o-25)
16425 I
±|A<A« 4
(O- 40)
I2III.2
+ 9925.9
tn = 28)
23092.6
±I44Q8 «
(n»28)
<n« I)
inrrn
(o-l)
921.0
±1591.2
(n-5)
1167.8
+ '.249 J
(n = 5j
909.1
wn—
±4625.0
(n«45)
(n= I)
44J.6
±404.3
(n = 3)
(n«0)
1159.8
±1469.9
• Patients from distance group 250 to 499 Km category were not included in testing for statistical significance, since all of them incurred an expenditure of Rs. 681.0 and variance was 0.
Table C9
Unit Expenditure by Patients Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Mode of Transport
cOsTliLsT
Expenditure in Rupeek (klean + Sid Dev)
MODE OF
Consultation
TRANSP
Invertigationa kadiotherap)
Chemotherapy Surgery
Other tSrugi
Hospitalization Income Low
Relauves txp Extra Food
Lodging
Tramport
Tool
Scuulet
1831 4
±3904.8
(n-26)
842 8
±1449.2
(n“33)
676 7
±26 6
(n-23)
21218.5
±18605.3
(n«4)
890.7
±83 I
(ns 4)
953 7
±1678.3
(n=35)
385.1
±288.7
(ns 5)
4406.5
±5704.0
(n« 24)
944.9
±705.9
(n^ 12)
2816.3
±3623.0
(n* 36)
751.5
±746.2
(ns 8)
1956 6
±1980 7
(n»39)
12888 3
± 17363.3
(n = 40)
Car
1531 9
+ 1855.7
(n* 13)
5643.1
±12591.6
(n=Q)
1692.1
±2647.8
(n>= IV)
6838 6
±2887.2
(n = 3)
35914.8
±53702.0
tn“3)
2177 0
±4503.0
(n=- 16)
13681.0
±30039 0
(n-6)
22369.3
+ 42063.1
(ns 8)
1917.9
±1402.4
(ns 5)
9006.8
+12349.9
(ns 14)
448.0
±325.6
(ns 4)
6866 3
± 12971 4
(n= 16)
48854 I
±74004.5
(n= 16)
Bus
723.9
±1197.2
tn«52;
8170
±1283.5
(n»68)
879 7
±973.2
(n-40
7282.9
±9226.5
(n«IO)
2022.1
±2015.4
(n-ll)
639.6
±994.4
(n-73)
651 9
±1260 I
(n»8)
6046 5
±6536.1
(n* 39)
1822.5
±3033.2
(n-25)
3405.3
±4952.1
(ns7l)
1100 9
±2322.9
(n«24)
1647 I
± 1881.7
(n»76)
12'01 '
± 13031 7
(n=76)
Train
1431 *
±3831.7
(n«53)
625.3
±974.2
(n-53)
1021 2
±1205.8
(n-33)
7872.8
±7585.2
(n« 15)
2736 2
±3924.0
(0 = 9)
1006 5
±1435.3
(ns 59)
1647.5
±2005.9
(n» 7)
8116.1
±8430.4
(ns 36)
2633.5
±3195.2
(n« 30)
3384.9
±3075.0
(ns 58)
2126.6
±2365.1
(n- 30)
3576.9
±3039.1
(n-61)
19768 0
±15072.8
<n-6l)
Air
2293 9
±3190.0
(n = 2)
27.3
619.M
9090.9
(ns I)
(n« I)
(n-0)
(n = 0)
8489.6
±5960.1
(n=2)
100.0
(ns 2)
1251.3
±1152 4
(n = 2)
(n=M)
4926 0
±2364.9
(n« 2)
24993 4
±6420 0
(ns2)
2020.8
±2802 I
72
3771.1
±5381.3
181
1464 6
±2191 3
67
17807
±4516.7
194
179641
+ 26784 8
195
0
0.029115
0.014864
7T
R
o.OoOjU
TTDl
All
n
p Kruskal
Wallu
±2991.2
146
0.^1834
+ 3795.1
169
"55T2
±1206.4
107
"5X<4*----±10131.0
33
5858.4
± 18595.0
27
0.402503
7H596IH
0.367744
95V6
+1840.7
185
6200.0
(n = 0)
(n= I)
38TTT
"“ 7585.4
+ 13444.2
± 14564.3
108
26
0 0<R259
*J
' u.
A
,, . „
Table CIO
.
Unit Expenditure by Patients Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Place of Residence
Place of
Reudcnce
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean ± Sid Dev)
-
Coni lotion
Investigations Radiotherapy Chemothcrap) Surgery
Other Drugs
UospitaliMtion Income Low
Relatives* Exp txira Food
Lodging
Transport
TxaT
21198 3
+ 44 I11 0
(n»5l)
1905 5
±3600.2
(n-JO)
2532.1
+ 70R7.J
(n«43)
1229.7
±1783.4
(n-33)
12692.5
+ 15880.4
(n«9)
14931.9
+ 33563.6
(n-8)
1507.9
+ 3076.4
(n = 47)
8934.0
+ 24769.0
(n»9)
6319.7
±7819.4
(n-26)
1877.3
+ 3336 8
(n-19)
3059.8
±4625 0
(n«45)
1159 8
+1469 9
(n-4)
2944.2
1107.5
+ 2807 2
(n= 116j
643 2
+ I25OR
(n= 126)
829.0
±818 I
(n = 74)
7965.3
±6980.2
(n-24)
2037.9
+ 3060.3
(n= 19)
767.5
±1110.1
01 =138)
1197 J
+ I6H.2
(n - 17)
7982.8
±14806.0
(n = 82)
2072.2
±2618.4
(n»53)
4006 4
±5605.0
(n= 136)
1483.9
±2236.2
(n = 63)
2723.5
All
1271 4
+ 2991 2
9254 6
5858.4
±10131.0 ■ + 18595.0
33
27
955.6
±1840.7
185
387^ 4
±14564.3
26
108
2020.8
±2802.1
72
3771.1
146
OST?
+ 1206.4
107
7582 4
n
8
±3795.1
169
±5381.3
181
1464 6
±2191 3
67
2780.4
±4516.7
194
I «5
0.0J 1702
TWIT
O.7522JR
0.9J 5560
0.I272R0
O.R295H r
0 470176
0.OA5692
0 013514
0.915693
0.00I6O8
0.123817
Delhi
()u< mJc
D.lhi
p Kruskal
Uhll.s
O.O27JR5
± 13444.2
±7576 2
fn«50)
±2802 4
(n« 144)
16819 7
+16965.7
(n« 144)
I "64.8n~
+ 26784 8
1.
oo
J
n . r
ThbleCIl
Unit Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Survival Status
Survival
Status
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean ± Std Dev)
Consultation
investigations Radiotherapy Chemotherap\ Surgery
1545 8
±3678.0
(n»9l)
13264
±4581.3
(n-109)
97| |
±1315.1
(n=63)
10231.8
± 11638.9
(n=23)
817.5
±1068 4
in = 55)
755.8
±1542.0
(n*60)
927 6
±1045.3
(n = 44)
All
n
1271.4
±2991.2
146
1153 8
±3795.1
169
±1206.4
107
p Knixkal
Wallis
0 U?R6j
O.!(W45J
0.6M 104
Expired
Sunn mg
Other brugs
Hospiulization Income Loss
Reiaiives' Exp Exin food
Lodging
Transport
Tool
8473.9
±23236.4
(0=17)
1019.7
±2143.4
(n = 118)
4758.2
±16585.7
(n = 20)
8827.0
±16242.5
(n = 65)
1955.7
±2601.0
(n = 48)
2996.2
±4331.2
(n= 113)
1509.6
±2406.5
(n = 39)
2648.7
±5166.2
(n«l24)
18829 2
±31909 9
(n« 124)
7006 9
±5073.7
(n« 10)
1412.0
±2034.5
(n=IO)
842.8
±1132.0
(n = 67)
932.6
±1329.8
(n«6)
5701.0
±7241.7
(n»43)
2151 0
±3221.3
(n«24i
5058.6
*6614.0
(n«68)
1401.8
* 1892.1
(n«28)
3013.5
±3065.7
(n-70)
16455.3
±13980 5
(n = 7|)
0154 6
TOT73
± 10131.0
33
±18595.0
27
9557
±1840.7
185
±14564.3
26
7582:4
±13444.2
108
7020 8
±2802 I
72
3771.1
±5381.3
181
1464 6
±2191.3
67
2780.4
±4516.7
194
17964.8
±26784.8
195
0 05)140
0.0H7459
0.747016
0.5417JJ
0.02S498
0 7)8004
O.MWW
0.507771
0.007939
0.109976
4
TiibleC12
Unit Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Site of Involvement
,
,
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean + Std Dev)
_______________________
Involvement
ICD9 code
(Consultation
Investigations Radiotherapy Chemotherapy Surgery
Other brugs
140
174.0
109.1
±77.1
(n = 2)
938.5
±1361.3
(n-38)
8090 9
± 17040.4
(n«7)
1105.9
±2137.1
(n-8)
645.3
± 944.1
(n-26)
663.1
±1163.7
(n = 32)
742.8
+1098.1
(n-ll)
2727.3
681.8
±00
(n«2)
847 7
+ 6’6.9
(n»25)
681 8
±0 0
(n = 3)
681.8
±00
(n*2)
150* 5
±2378.6
(n-15)
991.9
±'.204.2
(n = 22)
690.1
+ 39 6
(n«9)
7172 8
±8549.6
(n»2)
8700.6
±7076.6
(n = 6)
6025 3
±2278.3
(n = 2)
454*4.5
(n=l)
6938.5
±4400.3
(n«9)
15622.9
± 15953.0
(n = 4)
3023.7
±4332 4
(n=»4)
5454.5
(n-I)
1638.7
±1128.9
(n = 4)
867.8
±58.5
(n = 2)
1615.7
± 1952 3
(n«3)
124.5
±63.6
(n = 3)
634.7
± 1074 8
(n = 40)
3021.3
±6714 *
(n = 7)
1754 4
±3041.7
(n = 8)
1198.2
±1617.7
(n»29)
6*5.7
±856.7
(n = 34)
837.4
±1151 9
(n* 11)
1545.5
(n = 35)
1880 3
±2439.3
(n»6)
(n-l)
768.8
±1902.6
(n«=J5)
1418.0
±1232.9
(n»9)
(n = 0)
934 8
±1135.7
(n = 22)
692.4
±45.4
(n«7)
(n = I)
8033.7
±7504.3
(n«2)
11396.1
±13802.2
(n»2)
<n = 0)
952.7
±651.4
(n = 5)
2483.5
(n= I)
1271.4
±2991.2
146
1123.8
±3795.1
169
5^r2
±1206.4
107
9254 6
4-10131.0
33
0.402026
0.415437
0.3X251 ?♦
0.747503
141
I4J
144
145
146
I4H
1*0
(n«l)
1003.9
±1720.3
(n-33)
973.9
±1657.3
(n-8)
3229 9
±6399.4
(n«8j
658.1
±1017.3
(n-20)
1870.5
±5565.6
(n-24)
459.1
±495 6
fn» 10)
3000.0 .
(n-l)
161
162
AIT
n
p Kruskal
Willis
(n = 0)
3209.8
±4172.1
(n = 9)
53417 7
±62687.5
(n»2)
2068.2
Mospitilizaiion Income Loss
(n»0)
879 9
±739.1
(n-4)
26200 3
±42225.9
fn~3)
409.1
±128.6
(n-2)
337 9
±334.3
(n = 3)
1778.8
±2691.4
(n = 4)
607 9
±1062.2
(n * 4)
Relatives Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
Tout
2140 I
±2064 7
(n = 2)
2263 6
+ 3848.6
(n= 17)
I35R.O
± 1086.3
IMI.S
16191
± 54A? f,
(n = 3)
I4U82.5
±1144*.2
(n«42>
5*210.7
± IW562 M
(n=»8)
2*286 4
±30696 0
(n»8)
16065.7
±1*5*2 3
fn«J2|
16149 ■
±1’569 0
(n-34)
1217* 4
■►9404 4
(n» I2»
59132 2
3836.1
±3310.8
(n = 3)
5399.4
±4143.6
(n = 2*)
9241 0
± 10584.6
fn = 3)
7551.4
±6735.3
(n = *)
8200.8
±11071.1
(n= 17)
6226.8
±8512.1
(n= 18)
6395.5
±4765.2
(n = 6)
1816 9
±593 I
(n = 5)
1727.1
+ 14*1.5
fn« 12)
-92* 0
♦ 1046.0
(n«ll)
561.0
±108 9
fn«2)
3466 3
±3189.5
(n=«3)
2984.9
±2834.5
(n-39)
5015.7
±6*66.6
(n = K)
3294.2
±3431.1
(n = 8)
3099.2
±4050.6
(n«=29)
48*9.7
±8597.8
(n-32)
3278.1
• ±4233.6
(n= I I)
32396.7
(n«=0)
9090.9
1910 4
±107* 7
(n«3)
2315.4
±2649.7
(n-42)
10471 6
± l /JU* .9
fn-R)
3360.5
±2809.0
(n-8)
2376.8
±2422.3
(n-31)
2089.7
±1615 9
(n«34)
1916.2
±2289.8
(n= 12)
4917.3
(n = 0)
3202.2
±3783.1
(n= 17)
1039.1
±906.2
(n = 3)
(r. = I)
3501.0
±3651.6
(n = 42)
3548.2
±3975.4
(n = 8)
(n= I)
1555.0
4-2200.3
(n=|7)
312.2
±400 3
(n»5)
(n-I)
2807.2
+ 3633.2
(n--45)
2679 4
±2839.9
(n* 10)
<n= I)
14792 I
+ 13263 5
(n«45)
28505 I
±39313.5
(n« 10)
(n’3)
(n-I)
396.3
±453 9
(n» II)
440.9
±533.6
(n = 2)
946.7
+ 920.9
(n«4)
2365.7
±3081.3
(n-14)
1*59.0
±1232 6
(n= 12)
(n= I)
910.7
+ 1188.8
(n«=42)
979.5
±1759.2
(n-10)
(n«l)
(n = 0)
6647.7
±6255.9
(n = 24)
22502 0
±45638.4
(n = 7)
5858.4
± 18595.0
27
955.6
±1840.7
.185
3875 4
±14564.3
26
7582.4
±13444.2
108
2020.8
±2802 I
72
J 771 |
±5381.3
181
1464 6~
±2191.3
67
2780.4
±4516.7
194
17964.8
±26’84 8
195
0.433131
0.62016?
0.473|70
0.9787^6
0.203397
0.875756
0.0J4766
0.755258
0.753494
(r. = 0)
708.2
+ 1303.1
(n = 5)
3719 0
* Data for sites 140. 14i & 144 not considered while calculating statistical significance, as these categories had 0 variance.
r
A'A J £ 5
ZU (s 9i 5□ x
o
, v (
>
tr
T
©
UJ «
X
r
re™ o
68Qt6f 0
0
S'fZIOOO
Of 6^QfO
>61
4 910?
___ > 08£Z
£9
fl6IZ?
I Ml
(18(5?
__ I l££(
rzo8c?
<6’“)
0 8I86(?
(6-«)
(5-°)
(>=■=“)
I99il
9 66X1?
54(68
KIKE?
4>U((
(l-u)
?
6 0606
I POZf?
> Z699I
(86-u) *
9Z0l>?
(qf^u)
£'6W«*
5 tLbl
Qf-u)
ftMZZT
I 9151
(Zr-u)
I kZ8fl +
8 64(91
(I*-«)
ffOOc*
£$6IZ
(91»“)
6 016?
I 59M
(!► = “)
9 Z8Z(?
P 8>6(
(81-u)
KV8ZZ +
(9Z-u)
Z Z£(9I?
5 fiOlZ
<9Z-“)
OflflT
6ZUZ
(fl-u)
OflfrZ*
0 1061
<H-«)
9S6I6?
L 0£8S
(ll-u)
K0m?
(H-“)
€£0991T
9 £H9I
(H-u)
IWT
f 60Zf
(5»“)
0 5ZZ?
£ Z6f
(f I «u)
0 C69f?
I 09£C
((-U)
(nox
Modwaj£
iinfpo*]
poo-j m>q dx^ OAinpfl
56!
8 W49Z?
8 »96£l
<roi
9 mi
5 0Z63
Z4
8 QZOZ
f O85Z
1665 +
9 t>6ll
Z Llll
Z 980
9(4ZI?
(44ZI
^WH'Q
9906$ 6 0
IhCOftlQ
801
9Z
f r95H?
4 0f8l?
z ntn +
- -»'ZV5£
rs£8f
((
691
I56£f?
E'Cill
9H
4 166c?
u
9 556
£01
> 90ZI?
Z C56
r ltd
>IV
(6=»u)
(I «U)
(( = u)
^«u)
( 5441?
I(54Z
(t»u)
6 1811?
0Z9ZI
(£•»>
>fq*ywD
6 5991?
4 4K)Z
i“N
(Z5-«)
4 (ZZ?
6 904
(88
4 >805*
> ZOH
5 9I8(?
6 I If I
t
(ZZ-“)
9 (IZI?
9 HOI
<£(•“)
£1(01?
f hr
<5f-«)
1 8681?
9 1801
f
(HI-«)
5 4591?
0 64(1
<>4-“)
5549?
9 1Z*
(61 -«•
8 4(41?
8 MIZ'
z
(ll-u)
8 8/ ?
f 6W
(ZI-«)
£ 9t8Z?
041(1
(01 -»)
9CZ5I?
U?gjn^ <du?<pow>tp fdMPlQOiprfr WO»wil)WAU|
00<m{IWU03
8 I50Z?
5S>6
3 0(81
(05 = u)
!((>£♦
( 5»9
(ZI='O
roo>iz?
(86 = u>
£fHZ?
f I0Z4
rm
(6Z = “)
6 065£ +
f 9£09
(£ = M)
8 ZZfl?
9 4401
($1 -u)
(O = U)
?
Z-Z4Zf?
( 8085
(Zl«u)
8 >554?
(OZ = U)
6 I9E0I?
9 69011
6 >(84
(6(»«O
(■54(1?
( (Z8
(6=“)
O-^ZZT
f Uct
(5=“)
(9Z = U>
<1 =U)
5 5151?
00101
(f-u)
16858?
0 001
9 94IZI
(>au)
6 06(1?
0 166
(d-u)
9 Z(£?
<>=»u)
4’6Z£?
(|=u)
Z SPL
6 (811
f46UZ
««r| xuo.xjj uoiiwi|ti»(fco^
Uiug -wpo
9 0085
(A>q pi$ j urew)
0 lOlcl?
8X011
ui ajniipuadxg_____________________________
aseasiQ jo aSejs o) SuipjojJE ‘juawiBajj, uo sjaaucj pajEpy oaoBqoj. jo sjuaiiuj Xq ajnjipuadxg jiuq
fioaiqm
d
I6»u6Z0
3tm_0___ _L5000t.Q.
0 1(101?
9 >5i6
(C«»i)
9 1011?
(6 = «i
9 9(6(?
Vok
Ll
0’56581?
F 8585
581
(s»u)
KZ90K?
S 4I6MZ
► >Hc£?
4 Z8>8
GO
CD
UZ>
(54-“)
8Z6II
I
>w«»a
jo ^ims
u
0
o
0 _
4
fi -. r
"Bible C14
Unit Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on
Imcnte of
Treatment
Expenditure in Rupees (X<ean ± Std Dev)
Consultation
Curative
Palliative
AIT
a
p Kruskal
U’all.s
r
Treatment, according to Intent of Treatment
Investigations Radiotherapy
Chemotherapy Surgery
Other bnjgs
Howpitalizafion Income Loss
Kelafves’ ?.xp Extra foot!
Lodging
Transport
JotaT
5590 9
±5916.9
(n-=80)
2081 0
±31193
(n-52)
4721 4
1 6075.7
(n- 128)
1512 4
±2194.2
(n« 54)
3154.7
±4711.5
(n«l3J)
19440 6
±27343.9
(n= 134)
1149.6
± 17J5.3
(n»7)
13272.4
±23843.9
(neJR)
1864.3
1 1785 J
(n-20)
1475. R
±1579.2
(n « 53)
1265 7
±22'6.7
(n= 13)
1964 2
±3974.8
(n»6|)
14723.1
±25431.2
(n«6l)
387*7-----± 14564.3
26
7582.4
±13444.2
108
2020.8
±2802.1
72
3771 |
±5381.3
181
14^77
±2191 3
67
2780 4
±4516.7
194
17964.8
±26784.8
195
D 0OO025
0 (VWW59
I47J R
±3434 2
(N-104)
837 0
±1595.3
(n-119)
946 4
±1196.0
(n-89)
8965.3
+ 9949.6
(n = 26)
6196.1
±20154.5
(n = 23)
1082.3
4 lion I
(n= 128)
4879.6
±17019.2
(n- 19)
7703
± 1285.4
<N-42)
1806.5
±6525.0
(n-50)
986 9
±I29| 7
(n-18)
10328.9
±11541.9
(n-7j
3916.3
+1460 0
(n«=4)
67| 0
±1005.5
(n = 57)
ITO—
±2991.2
146
II23 8
±3795.1
169
953 2
±1206.4
107
*254 6
± 10131.0
33
±18595.0
27
±1840.7
185
0I71S6J
0.4941
0 36222?
7) <564872
0. lORJ^T
0 20935A
Table DI
Institutional Expenditure on Treatment of Tobacco Related Cancers
I
Department
Expenditure on Each Loss on Each
Activity (Rs.)
Activity (Rs.)
Radiotherapy
ENT Surgery
Surgery at IRCH
Chemotherapy at IRCH
Anaesthesia
Radiodiagnosis
X-ray
CT Scan
Ultrasound
Mammography
Endoscopy
Biochemistry
Sugar
Urea
Haematology
Blood Counts
Pathology
Biopsy/Cytolody
General Maintenance
7,084.02
1,163.0
4,276.64
110.8
721.22
6,295.84
1,113.0
4,276.64
110.8
721.22
134.20
126.70
OPD expenses
1,316.99
942.1
210.87
491.8
826.3
85.87
491.8
826.3
15.9
16.1
15.9
16.1
26.85
26.85
148.91
83.47
142.31
4.35
83.47
3.35
53
1
Table D2
Estimated Institutional Expenditure for Treatment of Tobacco
Related Cancers in the Department of Radiotherapy (1994-95)
Item
Amount
Total no. of patients treated
Purchase value of equipments
Average life of equipments
Annual cost of equipments
Annual salaries of staff
-
Annual cost of maintenance of machines
-
1,827
Rs. 87.5 million
15 years
Rs. 5,833,300
Rs. 5,359,200
Rs. 750,000
Rs. 1,000,000
Rs. 12.9425 million
Rs. I. 44 million
Rs. II. 5025 million
Rs. 7084.02
Annual cost of comsumables
Total expenditure by the institution
Money collected from patients
Deficit for institution for radiotherapyinstitutional radiotherapy expenditure (per patients)
Institutional loss on radiotherapy
(per patient)
Rs. 6r 295.84
54
L
1
3
Table 03
-institutional
rExpenditure
for
ENT
Treatment of Tobacco RelatedJ Cancers (1994-95)
Itea
Surgery
for
Amount
total no. of Surgeries
20,567
Purchase value of equipments
Rs. 100,000
Average life of equipments
10 years
Annual cost of equipmets
Rs. 10,000
Annual maintenance & consumables
Rs. 12,000
Annual salaries of staff
Rs. 2.302 million
Total expenses on ENT surgery work
Rs. 2.324 million
Money received from patients
Rs. 1.028 million
Deficit for institution
Rs. 1.296 million
Kitchen expenses
<------per stay (10 days)
Rs. 1,050 /patient
Average cost of a ENT
...
ENT 1surgery to
institution-Rs. 1,163
Average loss on a ENT surgery to institution-Rs. 1,113
i
1
I
I
f
t
55
Estimated I ns t i tut io.xol
Treatment of Tobacco
E.;>r-u
re for Surgery
t (1994-95)
Item
Amount
Total no. of Surgeries
Cost of equipments.
Average life of equipments
Annual cost of equipmets
Annual maintenance
Annual cost of consumables
Annual salaries of staff
Annual salary for surgery v’Ork
Total expenses on Surgery work
^ients
Money received- from
■_ • j.tion
Deficit for institv
ilon .
per patient
Kitchen exo^~
t Of
of a Surgery to Institutionjv..- '
average loss oni a Surgery to institution-
428
Rs. 530,01
i to 15 ye
RCH
for
Rs. 97,000
Negligible
Negligible
Rs. 1.602 mi
Rs. 1.362 mi.
...
Rs. 1.459 mil
Rs. 78,000
KS. 1.381 million
Rs. 1,050
Rs. 4,450 P8
Rs. 4,276.64
56
‘ X.
Estimated Tnstitr.-: a..
for Treatment of rnjucc*.
.rc vor Chemoth
''sneers (1994-95)
Item
Number of chemotherpies
Cost of equipments \
Annual salaries of staff
Annual salary for chemotherapy
Total salary of staff for day care
chemotherapy
?
Money received from patients
Deficit for institution
Average cost of a-chemotherapy to
institution
Average loss on a chemr-herapy
institution
at
Amour
6,062
-Nil
Rs. 1.84 .
Rs. 1.84 n
Rs. 626,00k
Nil
RS. 626,000
rs. 110.6
Rs. 110.8
i
I
i
57
IRCH
Estimates Iulci’.uc..
of Tobacco Related
Item
on AnaestheeL
<:
Treatment
? 4 - ?')
Amoun
74,228
Total no. of Anaesthesias
Rs. 36.3
Purchase value of equipments
7 years
Average life of equipments
Rs. 5,186,
Annual cost of equipmets
Rs. 1,45
Annual maintenance of equipments
Rs. 37.114 •4 on
Annual cost of consumables
Rs. f.7^5
Annual salaries of staff
vork
Rs.
$.785 mi
Annual salaryanaesthesia
1
'•'on anaesthesia work
Rs. 53.535 nTotal- expences
Money ’--ceived from patient'*
.
“
Nil
Deficit for institution fc^‘ anaesthesia ps. 53.535 million
Average cost of an anaestnesia to instituion Rs. 721.22
Average institutional )os3 on an anaostheeM-Rs. 721.22
58
.Estimate-^ ins: '.u•; a
Related Cancao; in ’
al .»•. for Investiga*.
ot Radiodiagfaosi
Item
Plain X-rays
Total no. of patients
Plain X-rays
Cost of equipments
Average life of equipments
Annual cost of equipments
Annual maintenance
* • Annual cost of consumables
'“"Annual salaries of staff in
Annual salary for X-ray work (^8-76%)
Total expense on X-ray wort
Money received from patients for plain
y-rayS
Deficit for institution fcr X-rays
Average cost of an o
Xjvdy
y co Institution .°X-ray
to Institution
Average loss for
*
CT Scan
Total
of CT scans
Pur^v^^e value of equipments
average life of equipments
Annual cost of equip. .2nts
Annual cost of maintenance ->f equipmentsAnnual cost of consumables
Annual salary of staff in the departmentAnnual salary of staff f->r CT work (8.19%)Total expenses on CT sc-*n work
Money received from CT patients
Deficit for institution for CT scan
Average cost of a CT scan to InstitutionAverage loss on a CT scan to institution-
Tobacco
4-15)
Amount
178,034
351,456
Rs. 37.0
10 years
3.7 milli
Rs. 925,0C'.
Rs. mo ml’
Rs. 7.998 m
RS. 4.7 ndlu
Rs. 20.325 m
RS. 1.136 mi.
n
n
n
on
Rs. 19.189 million
Rs. 134.20
Rs. 126.70
5,281
Rs. 40.0 million
10 years
Rs. 4.0 million
Rs. 2.0 million
Rs. 300,000
Rs. 7.998 million
Rs. 655,000
Rs. 6.955 million
Rs. 1.98 million
Rs. 4.975 million
Rs. 1316.99
Rs. 942.1
Cont...
Table D7 (cont.)
Estimated Institutional Expenditure for Investigations of Tobacco
Related Cancers in the Department of Radiodiagnosis (1994-95)
Item
Amount
Ultrasound
Total no. of Ultrasounds
Purcahse value of equipments
Average life of equipments
Annual cost of equipments
Annual maintenance
12112
Rs. 3.2 million
10 years
Rs. 0.32 million
Rs. 0.08 million
59
F
- -
!• '
Anr.u‘» < o.'!* r : •. ...
Annual salaries oi . •
Annual salary fci
i .
''i.nil • ork ( 18.8%)Totql insti cut iona 1 •• v 'v.sd.s on UltrasoundMoney received from u ‘xasound patients Deficit for institution for ultrasound
Average cost of an ultiasound to Govt
Average loss on an ultrasound to Govt
Mammography
Total number of'mammogrames
Purchase value of the equipment
Average life of equipment
Annual cost of euipment
Annual cost or maintenance
Annual cost of consumables
•. .§taff salary for mammograph work
Total expenses on inainniograv^y work
Money received from patie*ts
Averaac cost of a mammor-am to institution-
Rs
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
Rs. .
Rs.
Rs e
million
‘ million
million
million
million
lllion
122
0.5 mil
10 year
Rs. 0.05
Nil
,n.
Rs. iort oor
Negligible
Rd. 50,000
Nil
Rs. 491.8
60
'
•
•'
Ebtimaved
(1994-95)
Item
J
Instj”
• < jr
. .1 . CViia
for
IRCH
Rnd<
Anoun\
783
Total no. of Endoscopies
PS. h.i
Purchase value of equipments
10 yeeir
?.
Average life of equipments
Rs. 450
Annual cost of equipmets
Nil
Annual maintenance
Nil
Annual cost of consumables
Rs. 1.15S
Annual salaries cf staff
Rs. 197,00
Annual salary for 5n<?oscoPy work (17%)
Rs. 647,00
_..r27.z*‘'; on Endoscopy wor^
Total• expenses
Nil
..
— -.i received
from patients
Money
l-Rs. 647,OOQ
Deficit tor institution
to
institutionRs
« 826.3
Ave-a9e cost of an endoscopy
826.3
institutionRs.
Average loss on an endoscopy to
on
i
61
i
5
Estimated In’sb’l t.ui > ‘
Related cancers in tv
of Tobacco
4-95)
a for Invest!
rent of Biochemistr
Item
Blood Sugar
Total no. of Blood sugars tests
10,40
Purchase value of equipments
Rs.
1,.
Proportionate purchase value of requipmentRs. i*j
for blood /sugar estimation (13%)
Average life of equipments
8 years
Annual cost of equipmets for blood sugar
Hs.
19,5
Annual maintenance for blood sugar
Rs
x
3,000
Anqual cost’ of consumaoles
Rs. 50rQDC
Annual salaries of.,staff in department —
R$. 714,00^
Zmnual salary for BDood sugar wrrk (13%)RS . 92,B20
TotaL expenses bn Flood sugar work
Rs. 165,320
Money received from patients
Nil
Deficit for institution fo- blood sugar
sugar -Rs. 165,320
Average institution cost
a BloodJ f-SUga-*
* *-• -“
Rs. 15.90
Average loss to institution for a Blood sugar-Rs. 15.90
9
Blood f’ •
- no. of Blood drea tests
12,000
purchase value r- ^vuipments
Proportionate j
*
‘
Rs. 1,200,000
purchase value of ecuipmentRs. 180,000
for blood
-J urea estimation (15%'
Average lif
e
c
f
-- equipments
8 years
Annual rcost•_ or equipmets for b'ood urea
Rs
. 22,500
Annual maintenance
-- i for blood ;rea (15%)
Rs.
3,600
Annual cost of consumables
Rs. 60,000
Annual salaries of staff
Rs. 714,000
Annual salary for Blood
Rs. 107,100
Total expenses on Blood Ur*a work (15%)
Urea work
Rs. 193,200
Money received from pat ients
Nil
Deficit ---for• IInstitution
_
for Blood urea
Rs.
Average cost
of
-------- r f_B3ood 9rea to institution- Rs. 193,200
16.10
Average loss to institution
------------- 1 for a Blood Urea -Rs. 16.10
Table Dio
Estimated
Instituticnal
rExpenditure
Haematology for
-- Blooc Counts
in
the
Department
Item
Amount
2°’ °f invcstigations
cost of equipments
Average life of equipments
Annual cost of equipmets
Annual maintenance & consumables
25,000
Rs. 700,000
7 years
Rs. 100,000
Ks. 350,000
62
of
ici lari: -
■ '
•21c) Annua 1
C3Cs workAnnua 1 salary spenv
Total institutional
; • it S
Money received from pa- tor C3C
Def icit for institution
CBC CO institution
Average cost of a
institution
Average loss on a CBC to i..£
-
■
-A’
•
<
■’
Rs.
Rs.
Nil
RS. <
Rs. <
Rs. 2^
)0
0
0
1
I
63
r
l
Ir
I
-■
Table Dll
Estimated Institutional Expenditure on
Department pf Pathology (1994-95)
Biopsy/cytology
in
Item
Amount
Total no. of biopsies and cytologies
Purchase value of equipments
Average life of equipments
Annual cost of equipments
Annual maintenance of equipments
Annual cost of consumables
Annual salaries of staff
Total expenses on biopsy work
Expenses for routine histopathology (89.9%)Money received from patients
Deficit for institution for histopathologyAverage cost of a biopsy/cytology to GovtAverage loss for a biopsy/cytology to Govt-
35,423
Rs. 1.05 million
30 years
Rs. 35,000
RS. 0.125 million
Rs. 0.35 million
Rs. 5.358 million
Rs. 5.868 million
Rs. 5.275 million
Rs. 0.234 million
Rs. 5.041 million
Rs. 148.91
Rs. 142.31
I
I
the
64
■
Estimated
(1994-95)
institutions ».
Tabx^ 012
Expend-turo
f*
:neral
$
Maintenance
i
mount
Item
general maintena >ce
Total expenditure on
<
;
seen
Number of patients
Average cost of general ip9<ncenance .
ts. 131.8 million
1,579,087
is. 83-47
83.47
J
I
3
j
■
65
I
i
1
1
-■
Estimated Expend!turu
i
I
!
I
!
Table 013
Patienta (
5)
-
Item
km ou nt
Total number cf OPD cases seen
Staff Salary for for OPD work
(100% for staff for OP^» l/3rd for
senior residents and faculty)
Receipt from patients (Re. 1/new pati
Deficit for institut-°n for OPD work
Average expendituran OPD patiei
Average loss for ■4n
patient
1,492,832
*S. 6,494,900
524,000
<s.
’:s.
■’.Se
5,970,900
4.35
4.00
II
1
I
I
I
<
4
I
1
I
*7
£
66
4
Table D14
Institutional Loss for Various Management Activities
Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers in the Cohort
Item
for
the
Average Loss (Rs.)
Investigations
X-rays
CT Scan
Biopsy
Ultrasound
Haemogram
LFT/RFT
Endoscopy
Special X-rays
Bonescan
166.98
159.43
186.10
5.72
28.23
16.35
12.71
5.2
2.6
Total Investigations
583.32
i
Management
Radiotherapy
Anaesthesia
ENT Surgery
General Surgery
Chemotherapy
General Maintenance
OPD Expenses
3,196.35
36.99
45.66
43.86
15.91
83.47
3.35
Total Management
3/425.59
Total Loss
r
I
I
4,008.91
67
Ii
B
Table El
Loss to GNP due to Death of Patients of Tobacco Belated Cancers
Loss of salary
Pension
Savings on--Family Pension
Loss of
Total
Loss
Average Loss
Mean ± s.d.
(for expired
patients)
172,471.9
±396,092.9
(n=124)
65,263.6
±140,676.9
(n=124)
69,668.1
±140,385.9
(n=124)
17’6,876.5
±411,929.
(n=124)
Unit Loss
Mean ± s.d.
264,031.1
±465,554.5
(n=81)
207,504.6
±183,751.7
(n=39)
221,508.9
±171,093.9
(n=39)
238,398.8
±463,171.
(n=92)
Mean for
the cohort
109,674
(n=195)
41,501
(n=195)
44,302
(n=195)
112,475.3
(n=195)
x -z-
-'--
5
“'.kt-?
•. "
68
1
*
■3
-
*
Tables on Median Expenditure by Patients of Tobac
co Related Cancers
I
I
4.'I
&
Choice of Average for Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related
Cancers on Treatment of their Illness
During one of the meetings of the Expert Group on this Task Force ^dy, it was
the factUhat
fact that
suggested that median as an expression of average may be cons.dered in view of
ofThe
many of the patients did not spend any money on certain aspects related to their treatment.
This was tried during the analysis.
In view of the great variation in the amount spend by the patients, it woidd be aPP1^
priate to consider only mean or median for expression of the average money spent by these
patients.
It is expected that most of the characteristics have a normal distribution in u"‘ve^^
in figure). In a normally distribute sample, the mean and median are exactly the same.^ev
er this is not the case when a sample contains values from the extreme end of lhe spectrum
(BB in figure) At such times, mean may not represent a true average, thus, it may be better to
use median This is to take care of the inherent problem associated with sampling procedure.
A look at the data collected on the project shows that a large number of value were at
the extreme of the spectrum. This was mainly brought about due to the fact that a large number
of people were availing the free or near free facilities being provided by the government hospi
tal^Aho there werwe differences in choice of treatment modalities, due to site of die d sease
and other disease characteristics, which are considered by the doctors while (?ecl^’n|
modalities. Some indirect costs were also influenced by personal .charact^istl? °ftJ ^ing
While the expenditure did not show a normal distribution, it was not due to^ sampling.
Thus, choice of median may not be better than choosing mean as an expression of a^fe^|e- f
look at the median distribution of expenditure also shows that e*Pendlture<^ °r s^U?n
categories was 0 which is again not true representation. Even though the standard deviation m
many categories is more than the mean, it is to be expected due to expenditure
that ymean would be an appropriate average, as it would enable calculation of expenditure at
national level.
i
f
•ftble Fl
Median Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment
Median Expenditure in Rupees
n« |05
M
!
Conrahation
Investigations ftadinthcrapy Chemotherapy Surperv
Other Drops
1*1 «
130 n
3*0 9
MQ *
0.0
0.0
Hospitali^jtion Income Loss
00
635.0
Relatives' Exp Extra Eood
0.0
2027.4
Lodpinf'
0.0
16’1.1
10*4’?
D i
5^ s8
II ■•
3^
a is
u
to’
-t
z
o
c
bl
i
KJ
8
©
b
b
£
g
2
s
f
IJ
b
g.
b
Ie
2
©
b
«>
*
X
2
a
S’
XJ
o
CL
I
3
m
X
3
TJ
c
b
o
c
o
b
©
o
o
©
1?3
g3
b
Q.
&
3
3
o
b
c
b
©
3
c
b
©
b
b
5
5
89
ft*
3
ft
b
©
2
Mi
o
b
§
c
o
G
b
o
b
o
b
c
b
b
o
o
c
b
§
8
b
b
C
o
b
c
J
<>
r
©
b
J
X
§
o
o
&
k>
o
b
o
iu
l<J
KJ
b
o
b
c
b
£
M
CD
b
-o
tn
I
I
s’
g" s’
<»
rl
2?
I
i
“3
©
Q.
I
n
89
3
8
a
©
3
H
g
**
a
©
5
89
o
b
Q
n
i
3.
i
©
£
KJ
5
b
£
£
I
b
K*
*
oo
b
I
I
©
■*»
§
KJ
c
b
sr
s
tn
■5
xj
£
j
*<
KJ
c
. J
CT
a
b
i
C
ft
s
f § ss £ I
C
I
*♦
o
>
90
©
I
KJ
I
I ■
frri
roiniiw »
Tabic F3
Median Expenditure all by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Sex
Median Expenditure in Rupees
SEX
Consultation
Investigations Radiotherapy
Chemotherapy Surpery
Other brugs
Hospitalization Income Loss
Relatives Exp Extra Food
Lodging
TninspofT
T-al
Men
(n-162)
200.0
135.5
619 R
0.0
0.0
390.5
0n
1609.1
0.0
2060 4
0.0
I67R.6
II4JO *
Wunen
170 0
113.6
619.R
0.0
0.0
37 3 6
00
0.0
oo
IR72 6
00
142* 6
7A.10 <
TrTR
TjoT)
619.R
(n = 32)
Both Sexes
(n«I95)
TVO"'
?F(T
THT
63 VO
TO
2027 4
TO
l*’!l
u
41r
Table F4
Median Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Religion
RELIGION
Median Expenditure in Rupees
“
Conwliaiion
Uivcstigaliom Radiotherapy Chemotherapy Surgery
'Other Dni|»%
Hospiuliulion Income Loss
Hindu
164;
142.0
144.4
619.8
0.0
0.0
400.0
0.0
553 5
0.0
2215.3
0.0
~T641.6
10127.1
Muslim
<n = 23)
3273
500
0.0
0.0
0.0
211.2
0.0
1163.6
253 6
ISO2.9
0.0
1952.6
19073.1
(Mhcrs
159.4
2340
00
0.0
0.0
523.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1373.1
0.0
1229.7
7331 2
All
<n^l95)
TiUM
nw
6iirf
6JH5
OJT
2027.4
1671.1
T7J147T
4^
w
oa
TkOT
o
Relatives' Exp Exira Food
Lodging
O’
Transport
TbuJ
I
I
J
o
o
©
.©
re
©
©
s
J
I
I
*
E
Ji
C
C
p
K
X
P.
o
c
c
p-
i
s
r.
s:
r-
©
c"
JS
©
*•©
c>
u
©
u
u
re
c’
1
c
©
E
•c
5
E
•M
©
6
c
r!
o
r.
fM
Ir i
*C*
©
©
©
©
©
©
p
p
©
©
•C
©
re
UJ
•e
H
c
(*
E
©
c
re
(J
v
£
E
©
?
■u
£
"re
V
C;
oc
c
c
I
<•
£
o
k’.
I
o
o
p
©
©
©
c
o
t
x
c
<>
p
i
©
p
o
c
o
©
©
©
p
o
©’
©
©
©
©
®c
£1
«c
©
©
©
©
m
©
8
S’
©
©
y
|
2
I
u
3
C
I
I
&
£
©
.£
©
i
i
z
o
u
D
D
uJ
I
c
lL
£i
©
I
O
!
t2 “5
E
c
o
I
©
c
v
©
re
3
p
T
©
l
©
5
p
c
. e
©
p
p
c
e
p
p
©
—
«c
O'
«c
1
o
JC
©
©
8
<©
v
C
lw
X
o^
«c
©
©
c
1
.•-
jg£
= £ ££
=£
_
c ■
•
E »tti
2 «
r-
1
©
8
i
u> —
c u
5
o
- u
>
u ~*
£«
5
1
I
7
.
Tible F6
Median Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Tobacco Use
TOBACCO
USE
Median Expenditure in Rupee*
'edigaiion*
No
(0*43)
315.0
Pad
(n-80
200.0
Ye*
(n-71;
114.5
All
(o*I95j
TiTT
1910
140 9
86 4
no
rapv
619.8
00
619.8
6T9T
iei
0.0
0.0
0.0
O’
lerapj Surgery
0.0
0.0
0.0
O
)nifs
Ioapitaii74l
Income
*u
lelative*
xtra
IfiOg
raruptxi
lotal
373.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1503.8
0.0
1863.6
8778 2
357.3
00
931.8
0.0
2199.1
0.0
1428 6
I0683.6
414.8
0.0
1863.6
0.0
2476.5
O.fr
1761 9
13211.8
1671. |
10847.2
W
o
630
O'
ToTTJ
O
0\
I
Medhn &Pen<IH.re b,
(XTCUPATION
Palicnls „r T„bil„„
„„ Trca|men(
according Jo Occupation
MediRn Expenditure in Rupees
Conwllahnn Tnvestiggfior^ Radiotherapy Chemotherapy Surgery
Job (Govt.)
(n«5l)
Job (FM .)
(n-22)
R2.5
BuMtncss
(n = 2*t
3R2.5
Other bru^
^5
239.1
119 7
Afnvuhttrv 3R6 3
(n-20)
203.1
Skilled
R7.6
Labour
(n«26)
Unskiled
2R2.7
Labour
(n-22)
House Wife 175 9
(n-26)
67.2
All
(n«!95>
I
TO
1*1.* .
97.5
99 0
LKH)
3TO
6I9.R
6RI.R
0.0
0.0
0.0
65O.R
6i9jr
(HT
0.0
on
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(TO
0.0
oo
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 -
Motphal^hnn Incbmc Lo„
———irjy
■JW.4
JI5.3
4IM.R
26V.9
322.R
I o .l 4
402.5
00
nn
(l.O
00
00
0.0
0 "
ftel.tke?
Txp txtn Food
Tn*,!
W
thtt
(To
T’.W J
"l Pi< X
0.0
2176.5
0.0
*
|U?n 4
1195.5
0.0
224J.<
00
!*nj <
fnjoc g
3RR9.5
I34.J
I9RJ g
61.1
fw o
U!2O I
0.0
72^.3
0.0
745.Q
«4a r
on
2195.6
0.0
*75.
I IJZO 4
0.0
209R .9
0.0
223* 0
'’IM *
O.o
20i7.4
0.0
IK) i j
To<j7 ;
3*79.1
1322.R
2070.9
0.0
Table F8
Median Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Distance from IRCH
Expenditure in Rupee*
DISTANCE
Km
ftadutiherany Chenuxhcrap) Surgery
Other Drug*
HospiulizMiton Income Lou
Relative*' Exp Extra Pood
Lodfinf
Transpod
TouT
BafdwrttnTOaE'
i TO 9
(n= 10/
30.5
473.2
0.0
0.0
00
437.3
0.0
68.2
0.0
300.0
0.0
649.4
8970 4
10 TO 29
<n ~ 3Oi
152 5
252.8
681 8
00
0.0
4i8 7
0.0
150.0
0.0
1558.8
0.0
667.8
81104
3U TO 4*
(n = 5,
iluu.u
140.9
681 8
0.0
00
694.2
0.0
413.2
727.3
413.2
0.0
4573 6
9225 4
All
<n*5i/
ToTo
619 8
00
era
421.4
0.0
T3M
CTO
9O97T
01)
669.4
8905.4
Oufeidr IMki
<50
(n-22/
96.8
70.5
309.9
0.0
0.0
350 9
0.0
1527.3
0.0
1900.!
0.0
1725.0
12606.9
5u To 99
<r.s=25)
175 3
125.0
619 8
00
0.0
272.0
00
0.0
0.0
2325.2
0.0
1618.8
10209.3
I uO TO 249 187.0
(U»40» QQ
102.3
00
0.0
00
327.1
0.0
901.5
0.0
2736.2
0.0
1481.0
8434.6
250 70 4*9 200 0
(o»29;
104 5
681.8
0.0
0.0
240.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1802.9
63.6
1946.0
9830.7
SuOt
o»«2b/
212.8
200.1
619 8
0.0
0.0
734.3
0.0
4014.9
608.7
2430.2
600.0
4213.3
20349 5
All
•,o«i44>
1909
1143
619 K"
0.0
0.0
365.9
0.0
8927
0.0
2174.9
0.0'
1881.9
'
12288 8
WbleF9
Median Expenditure by al! Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Mode of Transport
COSTLIEST
Median txpvrxlHure in Rupees
MODE OF
Comuhahon
TRANSP
<
Investigations ftadiolherapy Chemotherapy Surgery
Other Drugs
‘.
&ebhvesJ txp Eirtra Food
Lodging
Tnnsporl
Total
SvrwMer
(n-40)
107 5
114.5
65O.R
0.0
0.0
400 0
0.0
315 3
00
R36.I
00
1065 4
*44*.2
Car
(n» 16)
513.2
423. R
6*0.R
0.0
0.0
799 9
0.0
IRI0 0
no
4019.5
0.0
1549 V
IV47 I
Bus
(n = 76)
59.R
114.R
619 R
00
0.0
293 5
0.0
2F2.R
ff n
1064 2
nn
in?? J
«<6o a
Train
(n-M)
372.5
136.4
619 R
0.0
0.0
327.J
0.0
IRIR.2
00
2537.1
0.0
27R4 J
I63*4 J
Air
(n = 2)
229J 9
27.3
309 9
4545 5
0.0
1251 J
0.0
3100 0
no
R4R9.6
50 0
4926.0
24oot 4
All
(n-195)
TRTT
TT07T
6I9.R
TTo
TO
3*0 O’
0 0
*3 < n
no
™ 4
K£>
J
RnspHalization Income Lo*<
■ I
|A"l J
£
Table F10
Median Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Place of Residence
Median Expenditure in Rupees
PLACE
OF
R£S1
Coosulution
investigahotu (Udiotherap) Chemotherapy Surgery
Other Drugk
Ho^iuloauon income
D<itu
(n = 5l/
105 0
330.6
619.X
0.0
0.0
421.4
00
136.4
0.0
Ouiwdf
Delhi
<n= 144/
190 9
114.5
619.8
0.0
0.0
365 9
00
897 7
00
AU
<n» 195;
1X1 8
130.0
619 8
0.0
0.0
380 9
0 0
635.0
Relalivei' Exp Extra Food
0.0
Lodging
Transport
TouT
909 I
0.0
669 4
8905.4
2374.9
0.0
1881.9
I228X 8
J 6TTT
I084T2
20114
o
h.
■
,v al, PatiCTIS „f
Survival
Status
Corrnilimion
Expired
<n= 124)
160.2
Living
(n«7|)
210.0
aP
(n- |05)
TrTT
Median Expenditure in Ru|
ipees
Investigations Radiotherapy
Chemotherapy Surgen
157.5
R6.4
nznr
530.9
6RI R
JI0.R
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Other Dnijyj
369.5
400 0
JRO.Q
n,
flo’pitilirabnn income Loss
no
0.0
735.3
635.0
AJ5.0
’Relatives’ gxp Extri
0.0
0.0
TO
Lodging
Trantpoo
1663.1
00
1206.4
10129.7
2R36.R
0.0
I95R.6
13100.5
T67I. i
Tom 2
3)^.4
lot*]
J
Table F12
Expenditure
by
all
Patients
of
Tobacco
Related
Cancers on Treatment, according to Site of Disease
Median
Median Expenditure in Rupee»
Site
JCD9code
CruwiUlMvn
InveiiigatMMM Radiotherapy
Chemotherapy Surgery
Other Drugs
Hokpilaloalioq Ineome Loss
Relatives £xp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
TouT
54 5
681.8
1127 3
0.0
127.3
0.0
5545.5
680.1
3317.8
2237.9
□702.7
0.0
0.0
140
(n»3>
170.6
00
0.0
369 5
0.0
1458.4
0.0
2281.4
0.0
10S3I.I
166 8
619.8
1037.1
141
(n»42|
210.8
00
0.0
0.0
458 5
0.0
0.0
00
2658.1
0.0
6813 4
392 *
2251.6
143
<n= 8;
86 4
O0
0 0
0 0
732 4
0.0
3127.5
1361 3
1999.1
2052 6
15631 0
354 8
500
144
m* 8;
184.2
00
00
0.0
283 9
00
563 2
0.0
1464 6
1740.9
11330 8
125.2
0.0
145
id* 32;
581 8
0.0
0 0
382 I
0.0
320.0
0.0
2264.8
2020.6
9970.0
56.2
125 7
0.0
146
<n=34;
2000
203.2
681.8
0.0
00
382.7
0.0
68 2
00
1789.7
0.0
970.4
9407.0
148
10=12)
727.3
0.0
5454.5
0.0
1545.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
9090.9
4917.3
59132.2
3000 0
32396.7
HO
tn= 1;
56 4
00
0 0
0.0
455.5
0.0
330.6
0.0
2255.6
1618.8
10050.0
fsj 675.6
0.0
lol
<n«45;
311 4
987.3
681 8
0.0
0.0
310.4
00
2720.5
0.0
1144.7
12.4
1549.9
15282.1
162
<n» 10;
Ail--------(n^ 195;
ta i r
130
6357?
u.u
lOTTJ
(TO
167 ITT
10847.2
■UTT
O
OaT
f
..
Tab,C FI3
r-
Median Expenditure by all Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Stage of Disease
Stage
Median Expenditure in Rupees
Consultation
Investigations Radiothenpy
I
(n-14)
R2T
T5H5
2
95.2
Ot-26)
3
JH.3
63.7
164.3
(n = 42)
(n= 104)
1
127.6
Not Cla'si- 7*4.5
GaMe (n = 9)
477.3
irnr
TW
All
<n« |9M
t
162.2
650
6RI.R
619.R
309 9
00
mH
~
Chemotherapy Surgery
070
7>her Drugs
nospitalizatum Income Loss
(To
0.0
00
00
Relatives Exp Extn Food
Loping
22257
W
2570.4
00
Trimport
Tot if
l
51.1.2
00
12111 2
0.0
3206.2
15 9
2IJR.5
”*O2 2
0.0
222.1
0.0
I227J
0.0
2*59.2
00
1604 |
153412 2
0.0
0.0
361.3
0.0
0.0
00
1466.5
00
1275.6
R74j 2
0.0
0.0
909.1
00
IRM 5
0.0
903.5
0.0
1723.4
17 7
1027.4
To
I6?|.|
070
(TO
3 RO. 9
no
‘6350
GO
ToTTr?—--------
all Patients of Tobacco RelaVed Cheers on Treatment, according to Intent of Treatment
Median Expenditure by
Median Expenditure in Rupees
Treatme nr
Ibudi
Curative
CnnaMluiioa
222 5
TnveUigahons Radiotherapy
132.1
681.8
1000
130 0
0.0
845.0
2616 I
0.0
0.0
0.0
400.0
0.0
00
636 4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
267. K
0.0
0.0
,n = 61)
All
liTT
HOTT
Lodginf
Hospitaliz-alion ItKocnc Loas
(n= 134)
Palliative
Relalivea* Exp Extra Food
Other Drugs
Chemolherap) Surgen
070
0.0
’OTT
0 0
202774
Transport
Toul
13792.2
692 7
6846.6
1671.1
10847.T
(n= 195)
t
Tabled
Unit Median Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean
Consultation
400.0
(n-146)
Median
Investigations Radiotherapy Chemotherapy Suigeiry
191.0
(n-169)
681.8
(n— 107)
6423.6
(n®33)
1000.8
(n = 27)
Std Dev)
Other Drugs
Hosplolizailon Income Loss
Relatives Exp Extra food
400.0
(n= 185)
318.2
<n-»26)
1049 R
(n«72)
4734.2
(n-IOR)
RMe: Unit expenditure « IB cakulated for each of the items, for the patients incurring some expense on that expenditure item.
(Jt
-j
■ ■ - >
. it;-.
2286 4
(n«IRI)
Lodging
TransporT
TSaT
545.5
(n»67)
1678.6
108472
(n-194)
tn« |O<»
TablC G2
Unit Median Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Age
aGEGR^UP
(Years)
ConaulLaUon
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean ± Sid Dev)
InvcsUgauon* Tt*dicMhcr*py
Chcnwihcrapy Surgery
Other Drugs
RtTspilali/utlKHi liuome Los*
Relatives* Exp Exira FoocT
Lodging
Transport
TihjI
19 TO J9
753 4
(n=l3)
163 6
(n-J9)
6KI .8
(n= 14)
4958.7
(n=7)
727 J
(n-3)
346 7
(n = 20)
727.3
(n»3)
5000.0
(n» 17)
975.0
(n-10)
1793.4
(n-20)
500.0
(o- 10)
2438 0
(n-21)
14002 2
<n»2l)
40 TO 49
400 0
(n-39)
204 5
(0 = 43)
6X1 X
(n = 30;
9243.0
(n = 5)
3801 6
(n = 7)
492 3
(o = 49)
136 4
(o = 5)
4539.8
(o = 32)
2170 I
(n= 14)
2465.8
(n=45)
632.7
(n= 12)
1686 0
(n = 49)
10886 4
(n = 491
iU IO 59
372.5
(n*47)
2b4.l
(n = 5M)
OKI K
(n = 33)
4414.3
(n= 15)
luuu X
(n= 11)
40o u
(n=59)
804.6
(n=l4)
5113 7
(0 = 36)
1818.2
(n = 23)
2836.8
(n»59)
562.0
(n = 30)
2043.8
(o = 63)
13702 1
(n = 63i
t»U TO 69
420 9
(n = 33)
134.4
(n = 36)
681 8
(n = 24)
8144 2
(n = 6)
665 3
(n=2)
385.3
(n= 40)
165.9
(n = 2)
5454 5
(n= 15)
537 2
(o=l9)
2325.2
(n = 4l)
327.3
(n=ll)
746 3
(a =44)
9065 4
(n = 441
70-r
220.5
(n-14)
320.0
0»» 13)
681.8
(n = 6)
0.0
(n»0;
1488.7
(n«4)
226.5
(n» 17)
103.3
(o»2)
487.3
(o = 8)
1088 7
(•> = 6)
634.3
(o-l6)
512.4
(.»*4)
508 8
(o= 17)
4843 8
(n — I Xi
All Ages
40015
(n= 146)
19170
(n= 169)
680
in= 107)
6423 6
(n = 33)
iTOFx
40075
(o= 185)
3.<~
(o = 26)
TTTTT-
1049.8 ’
(n = 72)
228674
(n= 181)
545.5,
(n = 67)
1678.6
TOiUTT"
(n= 195)
(n = 27)
(n= 108)
(n=I94)
Thble G3
Unit Median Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Sex
Expenditure In Pupces (Mean + $l<J Dev)
SEX
i
Reltltves' Exp Extr» Food
Lodging
Tr» n^por?
Tool
4*15.5
(n= 101)
1050.0
(n = 59)
22*3 7
(n=!50)
545.5
(n = 56)
1686.0
(n=»l6l)
I 14JO f,
fn= 162)
2i< o
(n = 4»
3305.8
(n« 7)
1000.0
(n= I J)
232V2
(n ~ JI)
545 5
II)
142*6
Oi-JJ)
76J9.6
JJ»
tin-
47J42
(n- IO«)
1049.6
(n-72)
22*6.4
Cn^lRI)
545.5
(n*67)
IP*. 6
'n«l94>
IA*J7 S
Other Drops
Hoxptlalixation Income Loss
1000 4
(n = 24)
4000
(n^!55)
JI* 2
(n - 22)
1927.3
(n» J)
402.5
(n = J0)
^423 6
1060 R
(n = J J)
. (n= 2‘T)
100 0
(n-185)
Consukation
Investigations ftadiolherapy Chemotherapy Surgery
Male
420.9
(n= 173)
213.6
(n= 141)
681.6
(n = R8)
6530 0
(n~ 26)
Female
242 0
(n»2J)
166.6
(n«2K)
661.8
(n-19)
5454 5
Both Sexes
400.0
(n« 146)
I9L0
<n- 169)
(a-107)
(n*5)
(n-26)
Table G4
Unit Median Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Religion
Rehfujn
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean f Sid Dev)
Relatives1 Pxp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
TouT
5250.0
(n-90)
1000.0
(n- 56)
2344 5
(n- 152)
545.5
(n-59)
1641.6
(a-164)
10827.8
(n-164)
2959 5
(n«2)
3337.2
(n- 16)
1050.0
(n» 13)
1802.9
(n-23)
1155 9
(n«8)
1952 6
(n-23)
19073.8
(n-23)
690.7
(n»7)
438 2
(n = 2)
650 0
(n = 2)
1127.8
(n«3)
1764.3
(n = 6)
7 •
(n = 0)
1278 5
(n = 7)
7331.2
(n = K)
400
(n- 185)
3I8T~
(m = 26)
4734.2
(n=IO8)
1049.8
(n-72)
2586.4
(n= INI)
545.5
(n*67)
1678 6'
(n-- 194)
10847 2
(n-195)
Other Drugs
Hospitalization Income" Losa
1000 8
(n«» 23)
415 9
(n- 155)
295.5
(n-22)
6423 6
(n = 3)
1818 2
(n^3)
218 2
(n» 23)
7
(n = 2)
13340.0
(n= I)
909.1
(n= I)
I9H)
^8T8
tn= 169)
(n= 107)
6423 6
(n = 33)
(n^27)
Chemotherapy Surgen
Consultation
Inveui^aljona Radiotherap)
Hindu
382 5
(n- 122)
209.1
(n-143)
681.8
(n-97)
5454.5
(n-29)
Muslim
410 5
(n» 18)
55 0
(n«20)
681 8
(n»8)'
(Afters
1395 4
(n«6>
700.6
(n = 6)
All
40075
tn* 146)
CD
-.iii
Table G5
Unit Median Expenditure bv Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Education
Educthon
Expenditure 3n Rupees (Mean ± Sid D«v)
Consultation
InvesligMtons Radiotheraps
Chemotherapy Surgerv
Other Drugs
Uospitalizatinn Income l^oss
Relatives Exp Extra EnoJ
Lodging
Transport
Total
J7R.R
(n-34)
170.0
(n-J9)
6M.R
(n = 23)
2727.3
(n-7)
244J.2
(n-6)
JR9.I
(n—43)
1236 4
(n«4)
3575.3
(n-32)
’652.9
(n- 19)
22RI 0
(n-4*)
776. R
(n-IJ)
I42R 6
(n-47)
10749 R
(n«47)
Just Literate 223.2
(n«26)
134.1
(n-2R)
6RI.R
(n= 15)
IO5OR.2
(n = 4)
1376.9
(n-4)
202.5
(n = 34)
165.3
(n = 7)
4109.6
(n- 17)
636.4
(n= 13)
IR37.R
fn = J4)
J90.9
(n« 14)
1272 7
(n=35)
(n-JM
611.7
(n-12)
IRR.7
(n«IR)
6RI.R
(n- 14)
10202.9
(n-2)
909.1
(n«=J)
492.J
(n*l9)
77.3
(n-4.
6994.J
In- R)
R00 0
(n-9)
2OJ5.J
(n* 16)
RO6.R
(n — 6)
747 0
(n-19)
922* 4
(n-fO,
572.7
(n-32)
231.R
fn-20)
6RI.R
(n- 27)
6636.4
(rr-R)
1409.1
(n-=J4)
499 2
(n»5)
727.3
(n=»24)
5227.3
(o- 12)
2000 |
(n-33)
2199 J
(n-IJ)
909 I
(n —35)
2440 01271 < 3
(n-J<)
446.0
(n-26)
I9R.2
(n«30)
6RI.R
(n- 17)
9167.0
(n» 10)
41.3
(n-l)
4IR 2
(n-30)
3IR 2
(n-J)
504*. 5
(n-15)
112’ R
(n» II)
2715.7
'n-29)
124 0
(n-11)
2325.3
(n-3!)
14537 x
*n»J»t
554.5
(n-21)
291.R
(n-22)
6RI.R
(n-IR)
495R.7
(n-5)
909 I
(n-5)
700.0
3030 I
(n - 3)
4466 9
(n- 12)
1751 «
(n^K)
JI 11.6
(n = 24)
6RI.9
(n«IO)
IR63.6
(n-27)
0625 o
(n = 2R)
7>m
641J.6
lOOO.R
mor“
(n-27)
J7Jd .2
(n*33)
(n=l*<)
JIR.2
(n-26)
IO40.5
(n«107)
(n- I0R)
(n-72)
25W.4
(n = IR1)
545.5
(n = 67)
I67R.6
(n-l<M)
1054s 2
IHrterafe
Prim.Sch.
Middle Sch.
Seen. Sch.
College
w
AIT
(n—146)
ID
(n=lft9)
(n-5)
m-25)
7925.0
(n«|O5’
Unit Median Expenditure by Patient;
Table G6
Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Tobacco Use
Expenditure in Rupees'(Klcan ± Sid Dev)
Tuba:.«>
Use
1808.2
(n-39)
909.1
(n = 9)
1990 9
(n»42)
8778 2
(n = 43)
1063.9
(n = 30)
2325.1
(n-74)
545.5
(n=25)
1428 6
(n-81)
10683 6
(n = 8l •
4321.9
(n-48)
1200 3
(n = 26)
2578.2
(n = 68)
545.5
(n = 33)
1761 9
(n = 71)
13211 8
(n= 7|)
1049 8“
(n«72)
^2*6 4
(n-181)
545.5
(n»67)
16786
TWIT"
(n«= I OH)
400 0
(n = 39)
307 9
(n = 8)
4582.7
(n* 16)
908 7
(n- 16)
4IM) 9
(n- 14)
2483.5
(n= II)
389 I
(n — 77)
318 2
(n- IO»
5511.8
(n = 44)
7217 3
(n- 10)
818.2
(n= 10)
421.4
(n = 69)
477.8
(n=8>
400 0
(n= 185)
718 2"
(n = 33)
1000 8
(n = 27)
S72 7
(n=B)
407 7
(n= )4)
681.H
tn»?M
7636 3
tn =-9)
P«S4 Uh7»
400.0
tn = 60)
206 h
(n* 70)
681 8
tn = 39)
327 3
in* 53)
125 0
(n«65;
681.8
(n = 43)
400'6”
(n=l46»
T5ni
(n« 107)
Total
1590.9
(n-6)
Nuo u*ei
(n» 169)
Transport
Hospiializalion Income Loss
Investigations kadiotherap)
AU
Lodging
Olhei Drugs
fhcniothcrap> Surger>
ConsuiUHon
(n- 26)
Relalivcs' Exp Extra Food
(n«- 194)
(n« I9S)
K)
O
r
Thble G7
Unit Median Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Occupation
Ocevp»h«»n
Expenditure in Rupee*. (Menn + Std Dev)
Consultation
Tnvestigitions Radiotherapy
Chemotherapy Surgery
Other Drugs
573.1
209.2
(n®J7)
(n = 46)
6RI.8
(n = 31)
6R7R.I
(n-R)
909.1
(n = 9)
210.0
(n= 17)
264.6
(n = 2l)
6RI.R
(n= 12)
6636.4
(n* J)
3142 6
477.3
(n-22)
177.3
(n«23)
6RI R
(n= IR)
495R.7
Agrictihunc 435.6
(n-IR)
304.5
(n-lR)
Skilled
Labour
370.5
(n’16)
Unskilled
Lab* nit
Hospitalization Income Loss
Relatives Exp Extra Food
<14.R
264.2
32RJ.9
(n = 6)
704R.9
(n=22)
1127.R
(0 = 47)
(n-II)
(n = 4)
315.3
(n = 22)
’0JI6 R
(n = 2)
7.<IR.2
(n= 15)
(n^5)
2272.7
(n = 3)
4<7 |
fn = 26)
3IR 2
fn- 7)
6RI.R
(n»9)
9243 0
fn* 3)
7232.5
(n 2)
272.0
(n« 19)
161.4
(0-22)
6RI.R
(n- 12)
6423.6
(n-.<)
<50.0
(n = 2)
322 .R
(n » 26)
fn «O)
400.0
(0^17)
147.1
(n-IR)
6RI.R
(n«I0)
779R.2
(n-7)
R26.4
(n-5)
200.0
(n = 2l)
Hnusc Wife 242 0
(n-19)
170.0
(n = 21)
6RI.R
(n= 15)
33RR.4
(n« 2)
2933 9
(n = 2)
aTT
1917)
(n-169)
Tim
'6421b
(n» 107)
(n-33)
Job (Govt)
Job (Pvt)
Business
(n» 146)
ftj
Lodging
Transport
Total
(n = 47)
490.9
(n= 17)
IR42.7
(n = <O)
11715.6
'n = <l)
2200 0
(n = 9)
2450 6
(n = 20)
657 0
(n=R)
24<6 6
(n = 22>
I <670.4
<n = 22)
5R4I.7
(n- 19)
1000 0
(n= I Ji
2396 4
(n = 26)
5 RO. 5
fn- hl)
|ROJ.<
fn = 2R)
10195 9
fn»2R)
4|R 2
(n « 4)
4<99.2
(n« 16)
I50J.R
(n^ | |)
2199 |
tn « 19)
4IR 2
(n- 12)
1777.9
fn-20)
14120 I
(n«2O)
0.0
3530.6
6-»3.<
(n = 17)
(n-- 10)
9J9.7
(n® 24)
1090 9
(n» 5)
745.9
(n • 26)
<R46 I
(0’26)
2200 0
(n«3)
29.11.6
(n= 19)
1222.7
(n’ 10)
2413.R
(n»20)
2764.5
(n«6)
R75.2
(n = 22)
13329 4
(n-22)
435.7
(n-24)
275.0
(n-4)
0.0
(n = 0)
727.3
(n=R)
2325.2
(n-25)
57R.5
(n = 9)
223R.O
(n*26)
7J6R.6
<n-26)
IMO.R
4rto 0~
3IR.2
(n’26)
tOJQ.R
(n = 72)
54 V5
(n = 67)
1678.6
(n=» IM5)
47J4.2
(n= I OB)
’ 2586.4
(n = 27)
10*4’.2
(n=l95»
(n= IRI)
(n=|94)
Unit Median
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean"± Sid Dev)-----------------------
Conwluilun
krudtuu of ImK"
< JO
572.3
->30
Ail
ng
Transport’
lulaf
3308.3
(n» I)
649 4
(n=10)
8976.4
(n= 10)
1777.9
(n-34)
497.5
(n = 3)
669.4
(n = 35)
«i 10.4
(11 = 36)
727 3
(n-5)
607.5
(n*3)
0.0
(n»0)
4573 6
(n«5)
’OTy(n« 19;
9225.4
vi - 5)
T3KO~
9’
(n=»45)
(n«4)
■XxET(n-50)
’WCKV
(n -51)
477.3
(n=9j
3421 5
(n = 4;
31239 6
(n= I)
00
(n = 0)
809 9
(n“20;
4«|.O
(ii“8)
477 3
(n=»30/
. 152.8
(n « 2)
6X1 8
(n-26;
7518 2
(n=5)
3636 4
(n — 71
638.0
(n= 1)
2545.5
(n = 8;
507. |
(n = 8)
4'2.1
(n = 34)
560 2
(r.-4,
549 6
(n = 6)
6X1 8
Ui-3;
3772.5
(n ~ IX;
454>4 S
(n- I)
4X4.0
(n= 13)
00
(n = U)
47T3—
(n-43)
694 2
(n-5;
Vxrx-
*IH 2
(n - I)
45oTr
TM.n-----
H90.9
(n-3;
(n-9;
(n«8)
T7r<“
(n«47;
■'272’T
(n = 9>
"JTTTr
1484 |
(m -4)
684~4
(«-30;
4J2 7
(n«22;
IVUTU249 321 7
O»»34;
250 TO 499 242 .0
M <n-25)
IU
SOU-r
607 9
(n * 20;
Air
Invcsli^auocu Radu,the up/
(n=6;
RrwdeiMrTuruDmIm
<Su
372 5
• ii- 15/
To
Wng .„
on Treatment according to Dista
Di>ui..c
<Kjnj
iO u> 2y
b, palienls „f Totacco
—
(n» 116;
(n-33;
IM.3
(n= 19;
6X1 8
(Il “II;
13896.1
(n = 4;
826 4
<n»3)
204 5
(w=2lj
6KI x
(n« 14;
6423 6
(11-3;
louo.x
115 4
(n«35)
6X1.8
(nr» 19;
143 2
(n-25;
247.1
(nx-26)
ITT?
(n*126;
(n-26;
374.4
iin-JX)
165 j
(n» |)
4090.9
(n- 13)
1049 6
oi« 51
2259.0
(n« 20)
174.8
(n«6;
63 6
(n-5)
5582 7
(n- 12;
1725.0
(n-22)
(n-3;
318 2
(n»2X;
12606 9
(n“22)
5454 5
fn* 5)
760.3
<n = 6)
X26.4
(ii*5)
2411.4
(n-24)
396.9
(n=23)
363.6
(n = 7)
500.0
(n-5;
1618 8
(n = 25;
10209 3
(n = 25;
6X1.8
(n= 15)
5454 5
(n-2);
4414 3
(n = 5)
1272.7
(n =» 17;
909.1
(n = 3;
3053 4
(n»36)
243.0
(n-28)
909.1
(n^l)
700.0
(n*!2)
1481.0
(n = 40)
8434 6
(n -= 40)
6hl «
(n® 15)
3465.3
(n=» 12;
9010 9
(n=7;
1127 8
(n=»9)
IX18 2
(n-5;
1915 2
(n = 28)
734.3
(n = 2l)
562.0
(n=«l6)
700.0
(n-5)
1946.0
(n = 29)
4998.7
(n«22)
9X30 7
(n«28)
1735.6
- (n* 16)
2430.2
(n = 28)
1288.6
(n-22)
4213 3
(n = 28)
20349.5
(n-28)
W(T“
(n= 17)
49G7?g“
(n = 82)
inrr
345.5
TS3BF~
nm-
6& 1.8
(n«74)
TO0‘(T
(n = 24)
W.l
(n = 19)
3 iTHJ
(n= 138)
(n = 53)
(n=!36)
(n = 63)
(n= 144)
(n= 144)
r
Unit Median
COSTLIEST
MODE OF
Consultation
TRANSP
i
Scooter
450.0
(n=26)
Car
Bus
Train
Air
ATT
InveMigaliom KaJtotherapy
190.1
(n = 3J)
6*1*
fn®23)
Chemotherapy Surgery
19600.6
(n«4)
Other Dn>ps
-«M- or r^,
-T—
,.^^2X7"
fTotph.ilizmion income Ln-
Relatives’ Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
Torsi
*67.*
(n®4)
500.0
(n® 35)
(n’5)
2902 o
(n = 24)
(n- 12)
11*5.0
(n = J6)
'90.0
fn = X)
1177.7
(n = JO)
*4*6 2
(n = 40)
31*.2
*50 0
675.6
fn« I J)
477.J
(n® 13)
6*1*
(n» 10)
7636. J
(n* J)
9090.9
(n»3)
799.9
(n® 16)
1674 2
fn = 6)
6022.0
<n = *)
245.5
(n»52i
I7J.7
(n«-6*)
2000 0
<n®5)
51*5.4
(n- 14)
6RI.R
(n-40
474.6
(n-=4i
5059 9
(n»IO)
1549 9
<n= |6)
1*1* 2
(n-ll)
16747.1
(n« 16)
357.3
(n = 7J)
173 3
(n®X.
500 0
(nsr'J)
-174I.X
in-39)
520 6
<n-2<)
163.6
(n-53)
6RI.R
22*6.4
(n»7|)
495*.7
(n-15)
(n-24)
IO22.J
(n= 7ft)
1*1*.2
(n«9)
*<60 *
fn« 7ft)
375.0
(n = 59)
000.1
<n = 7)
229J.Q
(n*2)
5500 0
(n = J6)
1660.'
fn* JO)
27J
(n«2)
619*
2509.3
(n®5*)
9090.9
(n® I)
1250 0
fn«JO)
27*4.3
(n=6l)
I6JX4.J
<n = ft|,
(n^Ot
12'1 J
fn=2)
10 = 01
6200.0
fn — I)
(0 = 0)
*4*9 6
(n = 2)
100.0
OiM)
4926 0
7ivn5r~
.11RJ?
<*•!)
24003 4
'n«2)
(fi- |R<)
m- 26»
TO?
TMTIT"
(n=» 1*1)
XB <
(n = 67)
i67*.6
(n«|u4)
19*47.2
(n«io<)
WTJ'
fns |46)
(n= I)
Trrn
fn*IA9)
(n«IO7)
(n®33)
07)0 «“
(n-27)
rn= mH)
<n»72)
M
W
- •-It-u/ii-
Table GIO
Unit Median Expenditure by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Place of Residence
Pb.e of
Residence
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean ± Sid Dev)
Consultation
Investigaiions Radiothcrap)
Chemotherapy Surgcrx
Other Drug*
HospiulizalionliKonK Loss
Rdaiivcs* Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
Toul
684 4
(n = JO)
477.3
(n-43)
681.8
(n»33)
4665 3
(n-9)
2545 5
(n-K)
474 5
(n-«47)
272 7
(n = 9)
3772 5
(n = 26)
638.0
(n= 19)
1369.9
(n»45)
657.9
(n = 4)
681 I
(n-50)
8905.4
(n = 5l)
D.ihi
368.9
<n= 116)
157 5
(n» 126)
681 8
(n = 74)
6530.0
(n = 24)
909 I
(n= 19)
385.0
(n= 138)
500.0
01=17)
4907 8
(n-82)
1172.7
(n = 53)
2512 9
(n= 136)
545.5
tn = 63)
12288 8
(n « 144)
Ah"
400.0
w
1881.9
(n= 144)
’681’8
6423.6
(n* 169)
(n= 107)
(n = 33)
TOSO"
(n = 27)
■
(n - I 46)
■JT872—
(n = 26)
4734 2
(n«= 108)
T049T-
2286.4
• (n» 181)
(0 = 67)
1678 6
(n-194)
10Rm7$
(n=!95)
Dcihi
( lul »ldk-
(n» 185)
(n = 72)
hJ
Xs
f
Table Gil
Unit Median by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Survival Status
Expenditure in Rupee* (Mean ± Sid Dev)
Survival
Statu*
lotaT
IR0R.2
(n= 11 J)
(n’39)
1206.4
(n= 124)
10129 7
(n-!24»
|OXX o
(n = 24)
J040.I
(n = 6X)
504 7
fn = 2X>
2001.2
(n = 70)
IJ100 5
(n=7n
<4^.5
IA7I 6
(n = 72j
(n= IXI)
tn =67)
(n»l94)
10X47 2
(n = rc»
1927.3
(n= 17)
JX2.I
(n= IIX)
409.1
(n = 20)
5545.5
(n = 65)
1000.0
(n»4X)
637X.5
(n= 10) •
X67.X
(n«l<n
436 4
fn-67)
126.1
(n = 6)
3411.1
(n = 4j)
TRTTI
T4IT.6(n = 3J)
1000.X
(n«27)
TVT75
(n= 1X5)
31X2
(n-=26)
thtt
(n-107)
Expired
400.0
(n = 9l)
216.0
(n= 109)
6RI.8
(n»63)
6423.6
(n = 2J)
Soniving
500.0
(n-55)
139.X
6X1.X
(ns 60)
(n - 44)
TKTO
PLO
(n= 146)
(n= 169)
M
in
Tn napori
Hospitalization Income L»’*s
Investigations Radiotherapy Chemotherapy Surgerj'
AIT
Looping
Relative< Exp Extra Pood
Other Drug*
Consultation
(n= I0X)
Tabled?
Unit Median by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Site of Involvement
Site of
Involvement
ICD9 code (Consultation
140
141
144
145
146
148
150
Chemotherapy Surgery
Other bnigs
Hospitalization Income Loss
Relatives Exp Extra Food
Lodging
Transport
T^TT
174.0
(n»l)
109.1
(n-2»
681.8
(n’2)
7172.8
(n-2)
0.0
(n=0)
127.3
(n=3)
0.0
(n=-0)
5545.5
(n = 3)
2140.1
(n-2)
3317.8
(n’3)
181.8
(n=D
2237.0
fn=3)
13702 7
fn-= n
400.0
(n»33)
263.6
(n-38.
681.8
(n-25)
8444.6
(n-6) .
909.1
(n = 0)
386.8
(n-40)
776 0
fn- 4)
1000/
(n- 25)
625.0
<n* 17)
2371.1
(n-30)
225.6
<n=m
1037.1
(n-42)
10811 8
'n-42»
392 5
(n = 8)
330.6
(n = 7)
681.8
(n = 3)
.6025 J
(n=2)
53417.7
(n = 2)
600.7
(n = 7)
3636 4
(n = .b
5924 |
(n = 3)
1668.0
(n = 3)
2658.1
(n = 8)
440 9
(n-2)
2251 6
G1-8)
MIJ 4
»n = 8»
354.8
(n-8)
86.4
(n = 8)
681.8
(n-2)
45454.5
(n« I)
2068.2
(n« I)
732.4
(n-8)
409 I
<n - 2)
6200.0
(n ~ ')
1652.0
fn = ')
1909.1
fn»8)
715.7
fn-4)
2052.6
fn —8)
!'*’! 0
'n -
321.7
(n-20)
270.3
(n-»-26)
681.8
(n- 15)
6423.6
(n"9)
1818.2
(n~4)
351.4
(n-20)
272 7
(n-3)
46'2 9
fn^ 17)
1442 I
12)
1802.9
^n-20)
711.2
<n-|4)
1863 4
rn*3l)
!I3!O 8
'n - 32»
284.7
(n-24)
136.4
(n-32)
681.8
(n-22)
15516.9
(n«4)
867.8
(n = 2)
382.1
(n«34)
582.4
(n = 4)
3465.3
(n—18)
420 0
(n« 11)
2378.8
rn-32)
1118.2
<n’l2)
2020 5
(n-34)
•XJ’nn
200.0
(n= 10)
2J6.4
(n= 11)
681.8
(n = 9)
1398.7
(n = 4)
1000.0
(n = 3)
500.0
(n---H)
03 0
(n-4)
7259 9
(n-^6)
'61 0
(n = 2)
1872.6
(n= I i)
0.0
fn=0)
0704
(n= 12)
ogn* n
f n * f 2)
3000.0
fn-1)
2727J
(n» I)
0.0
(n-O)
5454.5
(n« I)
0.0
(n®0)
1545.5
(n^l)
0.0
(n«0)
0.0
(n = 0)
0.0
(n = 0)
32396.7
(n «I)
9000.0
(n«l)
4OI7.J
(n« I)
5QI32 2
tn- !i
130.0
(n-35)
(n-35)
681.8
(n’22)
8033.7
(n = 2)
909.1
(n = 5)
525.6
(n = 42)
II'.7
(n = 5)
5806 7
(n = 24)
1818.2
(n= 17)
2415.6
fn=42)
458.2
(n«|7)
1618 8
(n’45)
IOO<n n
tn-J’)
662.5
(n-6)
1270.0
(n = 9)
681.8
(n-7)
11396.1
(n’2)
2483.5
I)
310.4
(n= 10)
3719 0
(n= I)
3545.5
(n-7)
017.4
fn = 3)
2330 2
(n = 8)
49 6
(n’5)
1540 9
(H- 10)
1'282 I
rn« 10)
TTT75
6HTR
(n-107)
A42J.6
IMO.8
(n = 27)
4no n
(n= 185)
118 5
(n = 26)
4734.2
(n= 108)
|n4o r
(n-72)
22H6.4
(n= 181)
<4*.5
(n = 67)
1^71 6“
(n= 194)
P*!'* 2
0,-105)
161
162
ExpendHurt in Rupees (Mean + Std De\»
Investigations Radiofhcrapx
X1T
(n» 146)
(n«l69)
(n-33)
rr
I
Unit Median
by Patients of Tobacco Reiated’ca^re on Treatment,
according to Stage of Disease
Expcndiiun: in Rap,‘*0 (ta'cia ± Sid Dcvj--------
ClumMiunp, Sutt —
1
797.0
(o- 10)
2
751.9
(o-i9)
J
572.7
<u = J5)
4
385 0
ia-7$j
j»u9 1
(a * 7)
AJJ
•MJU.O
(a= 140)
T^iwr Drugs
RospiializaiioA Inc,
ome Lom “Rchiive? Exp Exira Food----- [
Loddin#
Transport
Tool
327.J
(o-5)
1720.5
(o«i4)
10498.0
(a-14)
3459.6
(n-24)
909.1
(n«13)
2138.5
(o-26)
15402.2
1660.5
(n-18)
3099.2
(n«4l)
509.1 •,
(n-16)
1664.3
(o-4l)
863 2
(n-36)
15342.2
(n-42)
1648.5
(n-98)
562.0
(n-32)
1275.6
(n-jO4)
(fl»5)
1797.4 .
(o = 4)
6743.?
(n-104)
1628.1
(n»5)
9090.9
(n-l)
1723.4
(o-9)
19517.7
(n-9)
473X2"
(u® 108)
T045I.8
(n-72)
2286.4
(n« IM1)
545.5^
(a=67)
76)8.6
(n-194)
10847.2
(n»!95>
226.0
(o*l2)
681 8
(o=ll)
27397 3
(0= I)
867 8
(o = 4)
539.6
(0*13)
JU6.9
(n=24)
681.8
421.5
(n = 4)
5628.0
(n-9)
680.1
(o=3)
100.0
(n= I)
2652 9
(o» 13)
(0=18)
13114.2
(n = 4)
?64.6
<o = 37)
513.2
(n*26)
681.8
(o»22)
0.0
(o = 0)
4665.3
(o = 5)
6200.0
(o«15)
J8IM.2
(n-9)
1049.6
(n«l|)
225.0
(0 = 39)
700 0
(o*7)
3741.8
(a = 29)
264 2
169.0
<n*88i
873.7
(n = M)
iwi u
(11= |6^J
081.8
(n = 52)
5691.2
(n = 20)
1872.M
(0=12)
382.1
(n»98)
6$U 8
(4*4)
(0’12)
5454.5
(n-3)
4327.6
(o«50)
45.5
in - 1)
909.1
<n = 9)
500.0
(n = 3)
6119.8
‘tiAl.i
(n= J U7>
042X6"'
(0-33)
7bu(Dr
(0*27)
40inr~
(0= 18$)
□TxT"
(« = 26)
(0*26)
NJ
I
r.
*
Table G14
Unit Median by Patients of Tobacco Related Cancers on Treatment, according to Intent of Treatment
Intentc of
Treatment
Expenditure in Rupees (Mean + Std Dev)
Relatives' Exp Extra FootJ
Lodging
Tr> report
. J9|6 4
(n = *0)
1024 *
(n-52)
2*690
(n« 12*)
632.7
(n-54)
1967.1
(it-IB)
13792 2
(s-!3^
90 Q
(n-7)
64*0*
(n-2*)
1127*
m«20)
ooo |
(n — *3>
602.7
(n«6b
6*46 6
<n» 13)
31*2
(n»26)
47.1 J. 2
fn« 10*)
104<J g
22*6 4
(n« 1*1)
■Ms
1^7* A
Other bmps
Hospitalization Income Laws
909.1
(n-2.b
407.5
(n« 12*)
31*.2
19)
6423.6
fn= 71
237* |
<n»4i
3*7.3
(n«*?)
642J. A
(n» JJ»
TTTOI”
fn = 27|
40075
(n® I**)
Consultation
Investigations ftadiotherapy Chemotherapy Surgen
541.1
(n-104)
191.0
(n- 119)
6*1.*
(n-*9)
6045.*
(n = 26)
PwOiMivc
2*6.7
(n«42)
197.3
(n-.*0)
6*1.*
(n«l*)
Aff
400.0
(n- 146)
191.0
(n— 169)
ARI.R
(n- 107)
Cimtrve
————
I
klj.i. I
(n-’2)
(n-67)
l«5»
- Media
6082.pdf
Position: 1207 (7 views)