Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 9350147, 8 pages
Research Article

Household Financial Burden and Poverty Impacts of Cancer Treatment in Vietnam

1Hanoi University of Public Health, Hanoi, Vietnam
2Nuclear Medicine and Oncology Center, Bach Mai Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam
3Vietnam National Cancer Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam
4Ho Chi Minh City Oncological Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
5Hanoi Oncology Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam

Correspondence should be addressed to Van Minh Hoang

Received 4 January 2017; Revised 16 May 2017; Accepted 12 June 2017; Published 21 August 2017

Academic Editor: Giedrius Vanagas

Copyright © 2017 Van Minh Hoang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Purpose. This paper aims to analyze the household financial burden and poverty impacts of cancer treatment in Vietnam. Methods. Under the “ASEAN CosTs in ONcology” study design, three major specialized cancer hospitals were employed to assemble the Vietnamese data. Factors of socioeconomic, direct, and indirect costs of healthcare were collected prospectively through both individual interviews and hospital financial records. Results. The rates of catastrophic expenditure based on the cut-off points of 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% of household’s income were 82.6%, 73.7%, 64.7%, and 56.9%, respectively. 37.4% of the households with patient were impoverished by the treatment costs for cancer. The statistically significant correlates of the impoverishment problem were higher among older patients (40–60 years: 1.77, 95% CI 1.14–2.73; above 60 years: 1.75, 95% CI 1.03–2.98); poorer patients (less than 100% national income: 29, 95% CI 18.6–45.24; less than 200% national income: 2.89, 95% CI 1.69–4.93); patients who underwent surgery alone (receiving nonsurgery treatment: 2.46, 95% CI 1.32–4.59; receiving multiple treatments: 2.4, 95% CI 1.38–4.17). Conclusions. Lots of households were pushed into poverty due to their expenditure on cancer care; more actions are urgently needed to improve financial protection to the vulnerable groups.