Cancer costs Australia nearly $2 billion per year in lost labour



File 20180405 189801 u3s5n0.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
A new study calls for additional support from government, employers and the medical profession for cancer survivors wanting to return to work.
from shutterstock.com

Antolin Bonnett, The Conversation

Australia loses nearly A$2 billion of GDP every year due to people with cancer leaving the workforce.

A study published today in BMC Public Health showed that 67% of Australians of working age (25-64) diagnosed with cancer reported changes to their employment in 2015, such as reduced hours and stopping work. Around 50,000 people with cancer weren’t working at all.

The authors calculated this equated to a loss of A$1.7 billion in GDP.

Compared to the workforce rates of other long-term health conditions, such as chronic epilepsy, heart disease and diabetes, those with cancer were almost twice as likely to not be in the workforce.

A previous report showed loss of productivity due to cancer diagnosis accounts for around 54% of the total lifetime cost of cancer. This is compared to only 29% in direct costs, such as medical treatment.

Previous studies show around 40% of cancer survivors will return to work after treatment at six months following a diagnosis, and 89% after two years.

The authors called for additional support from government, employers and the medical profession for cancer survivors wanting to return to work.

Lead author and lecturer at James Cook University, Nicole Bates, said returning to work was “an important milestone, both financially and emotionally”.

Australians with a cancer diagnosis who didn’t have a tertiary qualification were nearly four times as likely to not be working as those who did. Other factors affecting work status included having a manual labour job, less flexible working arrangement, and the type of cancer and treatment.




Read more:
We need more support systems for people who want to work during and after cancer treatment


Professor and medical oncologist at Flinders University, Bogda Koczwara, said lack of flexible employment was a significant roadblock to cancer survivors re-entering the workforce. She added Australian systems only allowed people to be either “on or off”.

“In Australia, there isn’t a lot of room for return to employment. Sometimes a person may be willing to return to work but not capable of doing so at full capacity. But they’re better off staying at home and claiming full insurance than going back to work partially because that way they lose their payments,” she said.

Professor Koczwara, who was not involved in the study, also said it was important to not only consider medical ways to assist cancer patients returning to work.

Miss Bates said employers could work with the cancer survivor and their medical professionals to “enable returning to work within their capabilities”.

Director of the Australian Healthy Policy Collaboration at Victoria University, Rosemary Calder, said it would be useful to explore how cancers that shared common risk factors with preventable chronic diseases contributed to the productivity impact.

“Given what we know about the shared risk factors for some cancers and other chronic diseases, if we invested in prevention of these risk factors, we potentially could reduce the productivity impact of cancers related to those risk factors,” she said.




Read more:
Interactive body map: what really gives you cancer?


The researchers analysed data from the 2015 Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers according to education, health condition, and employment status.

The study was limited by its inability to differentiate the rates of workforce participation of those currently undergoing treatment compared to those in remission.

The ConversationThis article has been updated to include other long-term health conditions that affected return to work, and clarify that the estimated loss of productivity due to cancer compared to direct medical costs was from a previous report.

Antolin Bonnett, Editorial Intern, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

New online tool can predict your melanoma risk



File 20180309 30994 zn9jqj.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
People who are unable to tan and who have moles on their skin are among those at heightened risk of developing melanoma.
from shutterstock.com

Phoebe Roth, The Conversation

Australians over the age of 40 can now calculate their risk of developing melanoma with a new online test. The risk predictor tool estimates a person’s melanoma risk over the next 3.5 years based on seven risk factors.

Melanoma is the third most common cancer in Australia and the most dangerous form of skin cancer.

The seven risk factors the tool uses are age, sex, ability to tan, number of moles at age 21, number of skin lesions treated, hair colour and sunscreen use.

The tool was developed by researchers at the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute. Lead researcher Professor David Whiteman explained he and his team determined the seven risk factors by following more than 40,000 Queenslanders since 2010, and analysing their data.




Read more:
Interactive body map: what really gives you cancer?


The seven risk factors are each weighted differently. The tool’s algorithm uses these to assign a person into one of five risk categories: very much below average, below average, average, above average, and very much above average.

“This online risk predictor will help identify those with the highest likelihood of developing melanoma so that they and their doctors can decide on how to best manage their risk,” Professor Whiteman said.

After completing the short test, users will be offered advice, such as whether they should see their doctor. A reading of “above average” or “very much above average” will recommend a visit to the doctor to explore possible options for managing their melanoma risk.

But Professor Whiteman cautions that people with a below average risk shouldn’t become complacent.

“Even if you are at below average risk, it doesn’t mean you are at low risk – just lower than the average Australian,” he said.




Read more:
Explainer: how does sunscreen work, what is SPF and can I still tan with it on?


An estimated one in 17 Australians will be diagnosed with melanoma by their 85th birthday.

The test is targeted for people aged 40 and above as this was the age range of the cohort studied.

However, melanoma remains the most common cancer in Australians under 40.

Professor Whiteman said that the test may be useful for those under 40, but it may not be as accurate, as that wasn’t the demographic it was based on.

But he added complete accuracy couldn’t be guaranteed even for the target demographic.

“I don’t think it’s possible that we’ll ever get to 100%. I think that’s a holy grail that we aspire to, but in reality, cancers are very complex diseases and their causality includes many, many, factors, including unfortunately some random factors.”

The prognosis for melanoma patients is significantly better when it is detected earlier. The University of Queensland’s Professor of Dermatology H. Peter Soyer explained that the five-year survival rate for melanoma is 90%. But this figure jumps to 98% for patients diagnosed at the very early stages.

“At the end of the day, everything that raises awareness for melanomas and for skin cancer is beneficial,” Professor Soyer said.

Dr Hassan Vally, a senior lecturer in epidemiology at La Trobe University, said the way risk is often communicated is hard for people to grasp. But he said this model would provide people with a tangible measure of their risk of disease, and point them towards what they may be able to do to reduce it.

“Everything comes back to how people perceive their risk, and how can they make sense of it.

The Conversation“If it makes people more aware of their risks of disease that’s a good thing, and if that awareness leads to people taking action and improving their health then that’s great.”

Phoebe Roth, Editorial Intern, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.