A deep dive into

Financial Impact
of Cancer Claims

Cancer doesn't just arrive with a diagnosis—it arrives with uncertainty.

Health insurance is meant to bring certainty in moments of chaos. But when it comes to cancer, most people discover that coverage is only part of the story. Bills stack up. Paperwork multiplies. Approvals take time. And every delay adds another layer of stress — financial and emotional.

At Plum Datalabs, we wanted to look beyond policy brochures and claim forms to understand what the real cost of cancer looks like — not just in rupees, but in experiences. How much do patients actually pay? How much does insurance cover? How many times do families go through the cycle of hospital visits, pre-authorisations, and reimbursements?

It's a data-driven investigation into one of the most complex, life-altering diseases — seen through the lens of 8,102 insurance claims across multiple insurers.

TOTAL
COST
TOTAL COST OF CANCER CARE:
₹78.0 Cr
claimed in this cohort
OUT-OF
POCKET
PATIENT OUT-OF-POCKET:
₹23.2 Cr
what patients actually paid
INSURANCE
RATIO
INSURANCE PAYOUT RATIO:
70.8%
insurance coverage rate

Early detection of cancer has increased by 72% over the last three years.

We're observing a surge in in-situ carcinoma cases over the last three years, indicating that cancer is being detected in the earlier stages before it becomes invasive.

Note: Carcinomas in situ is an early-stage condition where abnormal cells are confined to the tissue layer where they first formed and have not yet spread to surrounding areas. It is also known as 'stage 0 cancer' and is considered non-invasive. While not yet invasive, the abnormal cells may eventually become cancerous, which is why early detection and treatment are crucial for preventing them from developing into invasive cancer.

EARLY
DETECTION
AVERAGE PATIENT RATE:
29.25%
AVERAGE CLAIMS RATE:
31.91%
TOTAL CHANGE (PATIENT):
+72.48%
TOTAL CHANGE (CLAIMS):
+26.66%
How to Use This Chart
  1. Line shows trend of in-situ (Stage 0) cancer detection over time
  2. Y-axis represents the percentage of total claims that are in-situ
  3. X-axis shows time periods (quarters)
  4. Rising trend indicates increased early detection
  5. In-situ cancers are Stage 0, caught before spreading
In-Situ Incidence Rate
Time Period
Patient Incidence Rate
Claims Incidence Rate
Patient Trend
Claims Trend

Breast Cancer Leads the Malignant Burden.

Among malignant cancers, breast cancer stands out as the leading type and is overwhelmingly female‑predominant. Even when gender‑specific cancers are set aside, clear patterns remain: several high‑incidence cancers skew male (such as lung and head & neck), shaped by exposure and behavior. Keep this lens in mind as we examine costs and care pathways.

How to Use This Chart
  1. Bars extend left for male incidence, right for female
  2. Bar length represents the percentage of claims for that gender
  3. Cancer types are sorted by total claim volume
  4. Balanced cancers show similar bar lengths on both sides
Male Incidence Rate
Female Incidence Rate

When do different types of cancers manifest?

This horizon chart illustrates how various cancers impact different age groups. Each row represents a cancer type, with color intensity showing claim volume across age ranges. Notice how some cancers like testicular cancer concentrate in young adults, while prostate cancer only appears after age 50.

We observe two concerning patterns. First, a relatively high incidence of blood cancers among infants warrants deeper investigation. Second, there is an earlier onset of cancers among individuals in their 20s — especially liver, bone, and testicular cancers. An illness traditionally associated with older age is increasingly manifesting among younger, working‑age Indians.

How to Use This Chart
  1. Each row represents a different cancer type
  2. Color intensity shows claim volume across age ranges (darker = more claims)
  3. Horizontal axis displays age ranges from 0 to 80+ years
  4. Row patterns reveal when cancers typically manifest (e.g., prostate after 50, testicular in young adults)
  5. Top legend shows overall intensity scale, bottom legend shows per-row normalization
CLAIM VOLUME INTENSITY
Low Medium High
CLAIM VOLUME INTENSITY (Per Row)
Minimum Maximum

Treatment Complexity Determines the Years of Household Savings Lost

We analyzed cancer claims by Treatment Intensity Levels (TIL) — a measure that captures the overall treatment journey, including the number of claims, hospital admissions, total expenses, treatment duration, and variety of medical procedures.

This helped us understand how the financial burden of cancer increases with treatment complexity (TIL I–IV).

In the Indian context, where a typical household saves about ₹1,00,000 a year, patients in higher intensity tiers (TIL III and IV) face a median treatment cost of ₹7.6 lakh — effectively erasing 7–13 years of household savings, and in extreme cases, up to 20 years.

How to Use This Chart
  1. Y-axis shows years of household savings lost (at ₹1,00,000 per year)
  2. X-axis displays Treatment Intensity Levels (TIL I-IV)
  3. Error bars show Interquartile Range (IQR) - the middle 50% of data
  4. Higher TIL levels indicate more complex treatments requiring more savings
  5. Center point represents the median value for each TIL level
Years of Savings Lost
Error bars show Interquartile Range (IQR)
Years of Savings Lost
IQR
Treatment Intensity Level
How to Use This Chart
  1. Box plot shows cost distribution for each Treatment Intensity Level
  2. Box boundaries represent quartiles (25th, 50th median, 75th percentile)
  3. Whiskers extend to show the full range of costs (excluding outliers)
  4. Y-axis uses logarithmic scale to handle wide cost ranges
  5. Outliers appear as individual points beyond the whiskers
Total Cost Distribution
Logarithmic scale showing cost spread
Total Cost (₹)
Treatment Intensity Level
How to Use This Chart
  1. Violin plot shows probability density of treatment duration
  2. Shape width indicates how many patients had that duration (wider = more common)
  3. Y-axis shows duration in days across all TIL levels
  4. Multiple peaks suggest different treatment patterns within the same TIL level
  5. Compare shapes across TIL levels to see duration patterns
Treatment Duration Distribution
Probability density of treatment duration
Duration (Days)
Treatment Intensity Level
How to Use This Chart
  1. Bar height shows average number of claims per patient for each TIL level
  2. X-axis displays Treatment Intensity Levels (TIL I-IV)
  3. Higher TIL levels typically require more claims over the treatment period
  4. Progression from left to right shows how claim frequency increases with complexity
  5. Compare heights to understand relative treatment intensity
Average Claims per Patient
Treatment intensity progression
Average Claims
Treatment Intensity Level

Blood, brain and colorectal cancers drive the highest costs.

Blood cancers (leukemia, lymphoma) and brain cancer consistently push the highest percentage of patients into the ₹10L+ cost bracket. Liver and pancreatic cancers also show heavy concentration in higher cost brackets. Not all cancers cost the same—this pattern reveals where patients need the most financial protection.

How to Use This Chart
  1. Each row represents a cancer type (top 25 by patient volume)
  2. Dots show the percentage of patients in each cost bracket
  3. Horizontal position indicates percentage (further right = higher percentage)
  4. Color corresponds to cost bracket (darker = higher costs)
  5. Filter buttons sort rows by specific cost brackets to find highest concentrations
  6. Hover over dots to see exact percentages
Treatment Cost Distribution by Cancer Type
Top 25 cancer types showing cost range distribution
Sort by Cost Range:
₹0-25K
₹25K-50K
₹50K-1L
₹1L-2L
₹2L-5L
₹5L-10L
₹10L+

Surgery Dominates Cancer Treatment Claims, But Patterns Vary by Type.

Cancer treatment varies dramatically by type, reflecting fundamental differences in disease biology and therapeutic approach. Colorectal, brain, and stomach cancers are the most financially intensive, while stomach and ovarian cancers require the most frequent medical engagement. Care settings also differ. Blood and lymph cancers demand heavy hospitalization, while breast and stomach cancers rely on daycare chemotherapy. Brain cancers stand apart for their diagnostic complexity, requiring substantially more imaging and testing than other malignancies. These patterns reveal that cancer treatment isn't uniform—each type follows distinct pathways shaped by where the disease occurs and what interventions work best.

How to Use This Chart
  1. Each bar represents one cancer type, normalized to 100%
  2. Stacked segments show claims breakdown by treatment modality
  3. Surgery IPD (#1E5FDB), Chemo Daycare (#1447B8), Pre/Post (#002DC0)
  4. Bar width is always 100%—compare proportions, not absolute claim counts
  5. Hover to see exact percentages and total claim counts
Treatment Claims by Modality
Percentage breakdown across surgery, chemotherapy, and diagnostics
Surgery IPD
Chemo Daycare
Pre/Post

The Tail End of Cancer Costs: Extreme Variations Reveal Hidden Burdens.

While median costs provide a baseline, the tail end of the cost distribution reveals extreme variations. Some patients face costs 5-10x higher than the median, highlighting the unpredictable financial burden of cancer treatment. This analysis focuses on these outliers—the patients who bear the heaviest economic weight.

How to Use This Chart
  1. Each dot represents one patient's total treatment cost
  2. Horizontal position shows deviation from median (center = median)
  3. Vertical position shows total cost amount
  4. Color indicates if cost is above (blue) or below (gray) median
  5. Filter by cancer type to see variation within specific diagnoses
Treatment Cost Deviation from Median
Showing all malignant cancer claims
Select Data:
Below Median
Above Median

Cost Scenarios

We analyse five cancer patient journeys to depict the actual burden of cancer across treatments and cost.

1 in 4.7 patients exceed their ₹5L insurance limit.

While 39.5% of cancer patients stay within ₹1.25L in treatment costs, a significant portion—21.4%—exceed ₹5L, pushing them beyond their typical sum insured coverage and into catastrophic financial territory.

Treatment Cost Distribution
21.4% (1 in 4.7) patients exceed ₹5L annual insurance limit
Cost Range % of Patients Avg Claims
0 to ₹1,25,000 39.5% 1.5
₹1,25,000 to ₹2,50,000 19.5% 2.6
₹2,50,000 to ₹3,75,000 11.8% 4.2
₹3,75,000 to ₹5,00,000 7.8% 4.7
₹5,00,000+ 21.4% 7.4

Insurance payouts are decreasing.

Over the last three years, the deduction rate for cancer-related claims has increased by 58%. This trend shows a concerning pattern where insurance payouts are becoming less reliable, leaving patients with higher financial burden. The cancers that require the highest treatment costs often receive the lowest payout percentages, forcing patients to bear significant out-of-pocket expenses.

KEY
INSIGHT
DEDUCTION RATE INCREASE:
58%
Over the last three years, cancer-related claim deductions have increased
How to Use This Chart
  1. Each bar represents a cancer type's payout ratio
  2. Height shows the percentage of claim amount paid by insurance
  3. Color indicates payout ratio range (darker = lower payout)
  4. Hover over bars to see exact payout percentages
  5. Note: Lower payout ratios mean patients pay more out-of-pocket
Payout Percentage by Cancer Type
Highest-cost cancers receive payout rates as low as 25–44%, leaving patients to cover 56–75% out-of-pocket

Why does cancer show such high rates of deduction?

Understanding the root causes behind high deduction rates helps patients navigate the insurance landscape more effectively. Several systemic factors contribute to this problem.

01

Off-label Drug Approvals

New cancer drugs with US FDA approval may still be considered 'off-label' in India. Many standard plans exclude or limit coverage for these drugs, making this the most common reason for claim rejections.

02

50% Sub-limit on Modern Treatments

Modern treatments like oral chemotherapy are subject to a 50% sub-limit. Even when covered, insurers only pay half the cost.

03

Other Policy Exclusions

Multiple exclusionary clauses reduce coverage: pre-existing condition waiting periods, room rent capping, co-payments (10-20% of claims), and exclusion of 'experimental' procedures even if they're standard treatments.

content and brand, Plum
data, Plum
Privacy & Anonymisation

We show patterns, not people.

Every Datalabs story uses anonymised, aggregated datasets, including claims and health-checkup records where relevant. Before analysis reaches the page, direct identifiers are removed, rare combinations are grouped, and every chart is reviewed so no individual patient, employer, hospital, or policy can be inferred.

  1. 01

    Direct identifiers are removed

    Names, phone numbers, email addresses, policy numbers, and other direct identifiers never appear in the analysis or the visuals.

  2. 02

    Only aggregate views are published

    We publish cohorts, ranges, medians, ratios, and counts — never row-level records or patient-level timelines.

  3. 03

    Small groups are protected

    Rare slices and extreme outliers are grouped, rounded, or excluded whenever a cut could make someone identifiable.

  4. 04

    Examples are composites

    Personas are composites used to explain patterns — not real patient stories.

Our goal is to make system-level healthcare economics visible without making any person's health journey identifiable.

This analysis represents our effort to understand and visualize the economic impact of cancer treatment. We've compiled data from thousands of patient records to reveal patterns that might otherwise remain hidden.

While we've worked to ensure accuracy, this analysis is an ongoing process. If you notice any discrepancies or have insights that could improve it, please report them to us.

Talk to us at [email protected].