What cost components are relevant for economic evaluations of palliative care, and what approaches are used to measure these costs? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: It is important to understand the costs of palliative and end-of-life care in order to inform decisions regarding cost allocation. However, economic research in palliative care is very limited and little is known about the range and extent of the costs that are involved in palliative care provision. AIM: To undertake a systematic review of the health and social care literature to determine the range of financial costs related to a palliative care approach and explore approaches used to measure these costs. DESIGN: A systematic review of empirical literature with thematic synthesis. Study quality was evaluated using the Weight of Evidence Framework. DATA SOURCES: The databases CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO and Medline were searched from 1995 to November 2015 for empirical studies which presented data on the financial costs associated with palliative care. RESULTS: A total of 38 papers met our inclusion criteria. Components of palliative care costs were incurred within four broad domains: hospital care, community or home-based care, hospice care and informal care. These costs could be considered from the economic viewpoint of three providers: state or government, insurers/third-party/not-for-profit organisations and patient and family and/or society. A wide variety of costing approaches were used to derive costs. CONCLUSION: The evidence base regarding the economics of palliative care is sparse, particularly relating to the full economic costs of palliative care. Our review provides a framework for considering these costs from a variety of economic viewpoints; however, further research is required to develop and refine methodologies

The development and application of a new tool to assess the adequacy of the content and timing of antenatal care

Abstract Background: Current measures of antenatal care use are limited to initiation of care and number of visits. This study aimed to describe the development and application of a tool to assess the adequacy of the content and timing of antenatal care. Methods: The Content and Timing of care in Pregnancy (CTP) tool was developed based on clinical relevance for ongoing antenatal care and recommendations in national and international guidelines. The tool reflects minimal care recommended in every pregnancy, regardless of parity or risk status. CTP measures timing of initiation of care, content of care (number of blood pressure readings, blood tests and ultrasound scans) and whether the interventions were received at an appropriate time. Antenatal care trajectories for 333 pregnant women were then described using a standard tool (the APNCU index), that measures the quantity of care only, and the new CTP tool. Both tools categorise care into 4 categories, from ‘Inadequate’ (both tools) to ‘Adequate plus’ (APNCU) or ‘Appropriate’ (CTP). Participants recorded the timing and content of their antenatal care prospectively using diaries. Analysis included an examination of similarities and differences in categorisation of care episodes between the tools. Results: According to the CTP tool, the care trajectory of 10,2% of the women was classified as inadequate, 8,4% as intermediate, 36% as sufficient and 45,3% as appropriate. The assessment of quality of care differed significantly between the two tools. Seventeen care trajectories classified as ‘Adequate’ or ‘Adequate plus’ by the APNCU were deemed ‘Inadequate’ by the CTP. This suggests that, despite a high number of visits, these women did not receive the minimal recommended content and timing of care. Conclusions: The CTP tool provides a more detailed assessment of the adequacy of antenatal care than the current standard index. However, guidelines for the content of antenatal care vary, and the tool does not at the moment grade over-use of interventions as ‘Inappropriate’. Further work needs to be done to refine the content items prior to larger scale testing of the impact of the new measure

Impact of Age and Sex on Outcomes and Hospital Cost of Acute Asthma in the United States, 2011-2012

Background Worldwide, asthma is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality and economic burden, with significant gender and racial disparities. However, little attention has been given to the independent role of age on lifetime asthma severity and hospitalization. We aimed to assess the effect of age, gender, race and ethnicity on indicators of asthma severity including asthma related hospitalization, mortality, hospital cost, and the rate of respiratory failure. Methods We analyzed the 2011 and 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project- National Inpatient Sample (NIS). We validated and extended those results using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-Severe Asthma Research Program (SARP; 2002-2011) database. Severe asthma was prospectively defined using the stringent American Thoracic Society (ATS) definition. Results Hospitalization for asthma was reported in 372,685 encounters in 2012 and 368,528 in 2011. The yearly aggregate cost exceeded $2 billion. There were distinct bimodal distributions for hospitalization age, with an initial peak at 5 years and a second at 50 years. Likewise, this bimodal age distribution of patients with severe asthma was identified using SARP. Males comprised the majority of individuals in the first peak, but women in the second. Aggregate hospital cost mirrored the bimodal peak distribution. The probability of respiratory failure increased with age until the age of 60, after which it continued to increase in men, but not in women. Conclusions Severe asthma is primarily a disease of young boys and middle age women. Greater understanding of the biology of lung aging and influence of sex hormones will allow us to plan for targeted interventions during these times in order to reduce the personal and societal burdens of asthma

Unstaged cancer in the United States: a population-based study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The current study examines unstaged disease for 18 cancer sites in the United States according to the influence of age, sex, race, marital status, incidence, and lethality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Analyses are based on 1,040,381 male and 1,011,355 female incident cancer cases diagnosed during 2000 through 2007. Data were collected by population-based cancer registries in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The level of unstaged disease was greater in more lethal cancers (e.g., liver, esophagus, and pancreas) compared with less deadly cancers (i.e., colon, urinary bladder, and female breast). Unstaged disease increased with age and is greater among non-married patients. Blacks compared with whites experienced significantly higher levels of unstaged cancers of the stomach, rectum, colon, skin (melanoma), urinary bladder, thyroid, breast, corpus, cervix, and ovaries, but lower levels of unstaged liver, lung and bronchial cancers. Males compared with females experienced significantly lower levels of unstaged cancers of the liver, pancreas, esophagus, and stomach, but significantly higher levels of unstaged lung and bronchial cancer and thyroid cancer. The percent of unstaged cancer significantly decreased over the study period for 15 of the 18 cancer sites.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Tumor staging directly affects treatment options and survival, so it is recommended that further research focus on why a decrease in unstaged disease did not occur for all of the cancer sites considered from 2000 to 2007, and why there are differential levels of staging between whites and blacks, males and females for several of the cancer sites.</p

Excess of health care use in general practice and of comorbid chronic conditions in cancer patients compared to controls

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The number of cancer patients and the number of patients surviving initial treatments is expected to rise. Traditionally, follow-up monitoring takes place in secondary care. The contribution of general practice is less visible and not clearly defined.</p> <p>This study aimed to compare healthcare use in general practice of patients with cancer during the follow-up phase compared with patients without cancer. We also examined the influence of comorbid conditions on healthcare utilisation by these patients in general practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We compared health care use of N=8,703 cancer patients with an age and gender-matched control group of patients without cancer from the same practice. Data originate from the Netherlands Information Network of General Practice (LINH), a representative network consisting of 92 general practices with 350,000 enlisted patients. Health care utilisation was assessed using data on contacts with general practice, prescription and referral rates recorded between 1/1/2001 and 31/12/2007. The existence of additional comorbid chronic conditions (ICPC coded) was taken into account.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared to matched controls, cancer patients had more contacts with their GP-practice (19.5 vs. 11.9, p<.01), more consultations with the GP (3.5 vs. 2.7, p<.01), more home visits (1.6 vs. 0.4, p<.01) and they got more medicines prescribed (18.7 vs. 11.6, p<.01) during the follow-up phase. Cancer patients more often had a chronic condition than their matched controls (52% vs. 44%, p<.01). Having a chronic condition increased health care use for both patients with and without cancer. Cancer patients with a comorbid condition had the highest health care use.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We found that cancer patients in the follow-up phase consulted general practice more often and suffered more often from comorbid chronic conditions, compared to patients without cancer. It is expected that the number of cancer patients will rise in the years to come and that primary health care professionals will be more involved in follow-up care. Care for comorbid chronic conditions, communication between specialists and GPs, and coordination of tasks then need special attention.</p

The impact of healthcare costs in the last year of life and in all life years gained on the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening

It is under debate whether healthcare costs related to death and in life years gained (LysG) due to life saving interventions should be included in economic evaluations. We estimated the impact of including these costs on cost-effectiveness of cancer screening. We obtained health insurance, home care, nursing homes, and mortality data for 2.1 million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1998–1999. Costs related to death were approximated by the healthcare costs in the last year of life (LastYL), by cause and age of death. Costs in LYsG were estimated by calculating the healthcare costs in any life year. We calculated the change in cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) if unrelated healthcare costs in the LastYL or in LYsG would be included. Costs in the LastYL were on average 33% higher for persons dying from cancer than from any cause. Including costs in LysG increased the CER by €4040 in women, and by €4100 in men. Of these, €660 in women, and €890 in men, were costs in the LastYL. Including unrelated healthcare costs in the LastYL or in LYsG will change the comparative cost-effectiveness of healthcare programmes. The CERs of cancer screening programmes will clearly increase, with approximately €4000. However, because of the favourable CER's, including unrelated healthcare costs will in general have limited policy implications

Ampicillin/Sulbactam versus Cefuroxime as antimicrobial prophylaxis for cesarean delivery: a randomized study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The efficacy and safety of a single dose of ampicillin/sulbactam compared to a single dose of cefuroxime at cord clamp for prevention of post-cesarean infectious morbidity has not been assessed.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Women scheduled for cesarean delivery were randomized to receive a single dose of either 3 g of ampicillin-sulbactam or 1.5 g of cefuroxime intravenously, after umbilical cord clamping. An evaluation for development of postoperative infections and risk factor analysis was performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and seventy-six patients (median age 28 yrs, IQR: 24-32) were enrolled in the study during the period July 2004 - July 2005. Eighty-five (48.3%) received cefuroxime prophylaxis and 91 (51.7%) ampicillin/sulbactam. Postoperative infection developed in 5 of 86 (5.9%) patients that received cefuroxime compared to 8 of 91 (8.8%) patients that received ampicillin/sulbactam (p = 0.6). In univariate analyses 6 or more vaginal examinations prior to the operation (p = 0.004), membrane rupture for more than 6 hours (p = 0.08) and blood loss greater than 500 ml (p = 0.018) were associated with developing a postoperative surgical site infection (SSI). In logistic regression having 6 or more vaginal examinations was the most significant risk factor for a postoperative SSI (OR 6.8, 95% CI: 1.4-33.4, p = 0.019). Regular prenatal follow-up was associated with a protective effect (OR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.005-0.36, p = 0.004).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Ampicillin/sulbactam was as safe and effective as cefuroxime when administered for the prevention of infections following cesarean delivery.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01138852</p

The quality of preventive health care delivered to adults: results from a cross-sectional study in Southern Italy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is assumed that providing clinical preventive services to patients can identify or detect early important causes of adult mortality. The aim of this study was to quantify access to preventive services in Southern Italy and to assess whether and how the provision of preventive care was influenced by any specific characteristics of patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a cross-sectional study adults aged 18 years and over attending primary care physician (PCP) offices located in Southern Italy were interviewed from June through December 2007. Quality indicators of preventive health care developed from RAND's Quality Assessment Tools and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) were used. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify and to assess the role of patients' characteristics on delivery of clinical preventive services.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 1467 subjects participated in the study. Excepting blood pressure preventive check (delivered to 64.4% of eligible subjects) and influenza vaccination (recommended to 90.2% of elderly), the rates of delivery of clinical preventive services were low across all measures, particularly for screening and counseling on health habits. Rates for providing cancer screening tests at recommended times were 21.3% for colonoscopy, 51.5% for mammography and 52.4% for Pap smear. Statistical analysis showed clear disparities in the provision of clinical preventive services associated with age, gender, education level, perceived health status, current health conditions and primary care access measures.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There is overwhelming need to develop and implement effective interventions to improve delivery of routine clinical preventive services.</p

Is hospital discharge administrative data an appropriate source of information for cancer registries purposes? Some insights from four Spanish registries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of hospital discharge administrative data (HDAD) has been recommended for automating, improving, even substituting, population-based cancer registries. The frequency of false positive and false negative cases recommends local validation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The aim of this study was to detect newly diagnosed, false positive and false negative cases of cancer from hospital discharge claims, using four Spanish population-based cancer registries as the gold standard. Prostate cancer was used as a case study.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 2286 incident cases of prostate cancer registered in 2000 were used for validation. In the most sensitive algorithm (that using five diagnostic codes), estimates for Sensitivity ranged from 14.5% (CI95% 10.3-19.6) to 45.7% (CI95% 41.4-50.1). In the most predictive algorithm (that using five diagnostic and five surgical codes) Positive Predictive Value estimates ranged from 55.9% (CI95% 42.4-68.8) to 74.3% (CI95% 67.0-80.6). The most frequent reason for false positive cases was the number of prevalent cases inadequately considered as newly diagnosed cancers, ranging from 61.1% to 82.3% of false positive cases. The most frequent reason for false negative cases was related to the number of cases not attended in hospital settings. In this case, figures ranged from 34.4% to 69.7% of false negative cases, in the most predictive algorithm.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>HDAD might be a helpful tool for cancer registries to reach their goals. The findings suggest that, for automating cancer registries, algorithms combining diagnoses and procedures are the best option. However, for cancer surveillance purposes, in those cancers like prostate cancer in which care is not only hospital-based, combining inpatient and outpatient information will be required.</p

In the absence of cancer registry data, is it sensible to assess incidence using hospital separation records?

BACKGROUND: Within the health literature, a major goal is to understand distribution of service utilisation by social location. Given equivalent access, differential incidence leads to an expectation of differential service utilisation. Cancer incidence is differentially distributed with respect to socioeconomic status. However, not all jurisdictions have incidence registries, and not all registries allow linkage with utilisation records. The British Columbia Linked Health Data resource allows such linkage. Consequently, we examine whether, in the absence of registry data, first hospitalisation can act as a proxy measure for incidence, and therefore as a measure of need for service. METHODS: Data are drawn from the British Columbia Linked Health Data resource, and represent 100% of Vancouver Island Health Authority cancer registry and hospital records, 1990–1999. Hospital separations (discharges) with principal diagnosis ICD-9 codes 140–208 are included, as are registry records with ICDO-2 codes C00-C97. Non-melanoma skin cancer (173/C44) is excluded. Lung, colorectal, female breast, and prostate cancers are examined separately. We compare registry and hospital annual counts and age-sex distributions, and whether the same individuals are represented in both datasets. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values are calculated, as is the kappa statistic for agreement. The registry is designated the gold standard. RESULTS: For all cancers combined, first hospitalisation counts consistently overestimate registry incidence counts. From 1995–1999, there is no significant difference between registry and hospital counts for lung and colorectal cancer (p = 0.42 and p = 0.56, respectively). Age-sex distribution does not differ for colorectal cancer. Ten-year period sensitivity ranges from 73.0% for prostate cancer to 84.2% for colorectal cancer; ten-year positive predictive values range from 89.5% for female breast cancer to 79.35% for prostate cancer. Kappa values are consistently high. CONCLUSION: Claims and registry databases overlap with an appreciable proportion of the same individuals. First hospital separation may be considered a proxy for incidence with reference to colorectal cancer since 1995. However, to examine equity across cancer health services utilisation, it is optimal to have access to both hospital and registry files