Uncontrollable, unimaginable, destructive, cancer. When most people think of cancer, sterile hospitals with chemotherapy drips and sickly patients usually comes to mind.

The vivid depiction is at the forefront of our minds due to the horrible toll that cancer takes on patient’s health. Cancer ravages the body.

But another casualty, one that only those who have gone through it can understand plays out in the form of the financial devastation that we are only now beginning to appreciate.

Patients in this country suffer a unique financial burden as compared to other countries: without any discernible benefit.

A recent study analyzed the extent of those economic burdens associated with cancer treatment. The results are not only astounding and heart-wrenching, but also reveal the need to address ethical considerations relating to costs and scream for structural Reform.

The study was designed to evaluate the financial impact of cancer on patient’s net worth and debt in the US.

The study analyzed data for individuals aged 50 plus with newly diagnosed malignancies over the course of 16 years.

The study “found that 42.4% of individuals depleted their life assets 2 years following diagnosis, extending to 38.2% at 4 years following.” It also noted that groups with known vulnerabilities such as poor cancer status, low socioeconomic status, and weak clinical characteristics were at an increased chance of asset depletion.

This data indicates that the financial toll is not small; life assets have the term “life” in it for a reason. Their depletion alters current and future behavior.

The emotional and physical expense of cancer is evident from the treatment itself, and many times has consequences that can last a lifetime.

This trauma scars patients and forces them to adapt to a new normal.

The financial toll often results in another type of forced adaptation on top of the emotional change; it forces a lifestyle shift, which only adds to their suffering.

Unfortunately, these financial costs have not been publicly discussed until now.

The physical and emotional costs of cancer prove painful enough for any individual’s lifetime, and the economic cost only exacerbates the nature of cancer.

The argument grows even more compelling when one looks at our cancer treatment system in comparison to other countries.

Just North of us, in Canada, cancer costs are half as much as in the US.

Despite the extra costs, outcomes in Canada are no worse than US outcomes.

Our deeply disturbing cancer financial costs are unique to our country. Maybe you don’t always “get what you pay for.”

This data indicates the troubling state that cancer leaves patients in post treatment.

With that said, it is equally as telling of the rising ethical dilemma for treatment. Many times, patients in end stage cancer are pressured to pursue experimental and costly treatment that ultimately fails.

The results are not only the ultimate death that the patient was going to experience anyway, but the additional enormous debt left for the patients loved ones to manage.

This situation is largely at play because of the medicalization of death and dying that our country emphasizes, specifically, the sociological concept that people feel the pressure to exhaust all possible options despite the consequences, if there is any sliver of hope.

The medicalization of death and dying is not always a bad thing, as many times people who would die without treatment are able to have a greater chance of survival due to intervention.

Nevertheless, this urge to “do what it takes” pushes some people, who would otherwise be at peace with their hospice status for example, to pursue intervention that bankrupts their estate and places enormous burden on their surviving family.

Another ethical consideration is the cost of care for sick newborns; this data begs the question of where to allocate resources in situations of limited hope.

If a newborn is diagnosed with a rare and incurable cancer to a financially unstable couple, then is it worth it for the family to go into massive debt to try an experimental drug that will likely not work? And if it does work, what lifestyle are they creating for their new child if they have no financial stability to care for the child? Do they let the child die if they cannot afford the treatment?

These questions, while highly morbid and uncomfortable to discuss are necessary as the toxicity of cancer care becomes more evident. These topics of morality and mortality only emphasize the importance of reform to the financial aspect of cancer treatment.

The conclusion of the study states that “as large financial burdens have been found to adversely affect access to care and outcomes, the active development of approaches to mitigate these effects among already vulnerable groups remains of key importance.”

The approaches to mitigate the financial effects mostly boil down to insurance reform, as certain plans are more likely to cover some treatments than others.

Similarly, hospital fees are a large part of the steep price tag for cancer, and hospitals can do their part to alleviate the financial burden by reallocating resources to their cancer treatment centers.

The study provided a rich set of data with important values relating to the direct financial costs, and perhaps more importantly, provided insight to the indirect costs relating to lifestyle, mindset, and choices.

Despite the upsetting nature of this kind of study, it provides enough evidence to make noise. Change begins with passion, which hopefully sparks enough support for the insurance companies to notice.

Cancer is tough enough already, the financial cost shouldn’t have to add to the pain.