Healthcare use and costs in the last six months of life by level of care and cause of death.

BACKGROUND: Existing knowledge on healthcare use and costs in the last months of life is often limited to one patient group (i.e., cancer patients) and one level of healthcare (i.e., secondary care). Consequently, decision-makers lack knowledge in order to make informed decisions about the allocation of healthcare resources for all patients. Our aim is to elaborate the understanding of resource use and costs in the last six months of life by describing healthcare use and costs for all causes of death and by all levels of formal care. METHOD: Using five national registers, we gained access to patient-level data for all individuals who died in Norway between 2009 and 2013. We described healthcare use and costs for all levels of formal care-namely primary, secondary, and home- and community-based care -in the last six months of life, both in total and differentiated across three time periods (6-4 months, 3-2 months, and 1-month before death). Our analysis covers all causes of death categorized in ten ICD-10 categories. RESULTS: During their last six months of life, individuals used an average of healthcare resources equivalent to €46,000, ranging from €32,000 (Injuries) to €64,000 (Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs). In terms of care level, 63% of healthcare resources were used in home- and community-based care (i.e., in-home nursing, practical assistance, or nursing home care), 35% in secondary care (mostly hospital care), and 2% in primary care (i.e., general practitioners). The amount and level of care varied by cause of death and by time to death. The proportion of home- and community-based care which individuals received during their last six months of life varied from 38% for cancer patients to 92% for individuals dying with mental diseases. The shorter the time to death, the more resources were needed: nearly 40% of all end-of-life healthcare costs were expended in the last month of life across all causes of death. The composition of care also differed depending on age. Individuals aged 80 years and older used more home- and community-based care (77%) than individuals dying at younger ages (40%) and less secondary care (old: 21% versus young: 57%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis provides valuable evidence on how much healthcare individuals receive in their last six months of life and the associated costs, broken down by level of care and cause of death. Healthcare use and costs varied considerably by cause of death, but were generally higher the closer a person was to death. Our findings enable decision-makers to make more informed resource-allocation decisions and healthcare planners to better anticipate future healthcare needs.

A Norwegian 15D value algorithm: proposing a new procedure to estimate 15D value algorithms.

PURPOSE: So far there is no Norwegian value algorithm to inform healthcare decision making. The 15D health state values estimated with the original 15D valuation procedure tend to be higher than the values of other generic preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. The main purpose of this study was to use a new 15D valuation procedure to estimate Norwegian 15D health state values and to explore their empirical performance. METHODS: The visual analogue scale was used to collect 15D valuation data in a representative sample of the Norwegian general population. The new procedure used fewer valuation tasks and anchored the 15D health state values in an empirically assessed range. The Norwegian 15D health state values were compared to the values of five HRQoL instruments which were provided by Norwegian residents belonging to seven disease groups and a healthy population. RESULTS: The Norwegian 15D health state values ranged from 1 to - 0.52. Compared to 15D health state values estimated with the original procedure, the Norwegian 15D health state values were lower and more in line with values of other HRQoL instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The new 15D valuation procedure is simpler, links the 15D health state values better to the requirements of the QALY model, and provides an empirically-based range. We recommend using the new valuation procedure in future 15D valuation studies, and the Norwegian health state values for use in 15D-based health economic analyses in Norway.

Comparing 15D Valuation Studies in Norway and Finland-Challenges When Combining Information from Several Valuation Tasks.

BACKGROUND: The 15D is a generic preference-based health-related quality-of-life instrument developed in Finland. Values for the 15D instrument are estimated by combining responses to three distinct valuation tasks. The impact of how these tasks are combined is relatively unexplored. OBJECTIVES: To compare 15D valuation studies conducted in Norway and Finland in terms of scores assigned in the valuation tasks and resulting value algorithms, and to discuss the contributions of each task and the algorithm estimation procedure to observed differences. METHODS: Norwegian and Finnish scores from the three valuation tasks were compared using independent samples t tests and Lin concordance correlation coefficients. Covariance between tasks was assessed using Pearson product-moment correlations. Norwegian and Finnish value algorithms were compared using concordance correlation coefficients, total ranges, and ranges for individual dimensions. Observed differences were assessed using minimal important difference. RESULTS: Mean scores in the main valuation task were strikingly similar between the two countries, whereas the final value algorithms were less similar. The largest differences between Norway and Finland were observed for depression, vision, and mental function. CONCLUSIONS: 15D algorithms are a product of combining scores from three valuation tasks by use of methods involving multiplication. This procedure used to combine scores from the three tasks by multiplication serves to amplify variance from each task. From relatively similar responses in Norway and Finland, diverging value algorithms are created. We propose to simplify the 15D algorithm estimation procedure by using only one of the valuation tasks.

"When I saw walking I just kind of took it as wheeling": interpretations of mobility-related items in generic, preference-based health state instruments in the context of spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: In health economic analyses, health states are typically valued using instruments with few items per dimension. Due to the generic (and often reductionist) nature of such instruments, certain groups of respondents may experience challenges in describing their health state. This study is concerned with generic, preference-based health state instruments that provide information for decisions about the allocation of resources in health care. Unlike physical measurement instruments, preference-based health state instruments provide health state values that are dependent on how respondents interpret the items. This study investigates how individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) interpret mobility-related items contained within six preference-based health state instruments. METHODS: Secondary analysis of focus group transcripts originally collected in Vancouver, Canada, explored individuals' perceptions and interpretations of mobility-related items contained within the 15D, Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension (AQoL-8D), EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index (HUI), Quality of Well-Being Scale Self-Administered (QWB-SA), and the 36-item Short Form health survey version 2 (SF-36v2). Ritchie and Spencer's 'Framework Approach' was used to perform thematic analysis that focused on participants' comments concerning the mobility-related items only. RESULTS: Fifteen individuals participated in three focus groups (five per focus group). Four themes emerged: wording of mobility (e.g., 'getting around' vs 'walking'), reference to aids and appliances, lack of suitable response options, and reframing of items (e.g., replacing 'walking' with 'wheeling'). These themes reflected item features that respondents perceived as relevant in enabling them to describe their mobility, and response strategies that respondents could use when faced with inaccessible items. CONCLUSION: Investigating perceptions to mobility-related items within the context of SCI highlights substantial variation in item interpretation across six preference-based health state instruments. Studying respondents' interpretations of items can help to understand discrepancies in the health state descriptions and values obtained from different instruments. This line of research warrants closer attention in the health economics and quality of life literature.