Cost Savings Associated With Palliative Care Among Older Adults With Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is inconsistent evidence that palliative care intervention decreases total healthcare expenditure at end-of-life for oncology patients. This inconsistent evidence may result from small sample sizes at single institution studies and disparate characterization of costs across studies. Comprehensive studies in population-based datasets are needed to fully understand the impact of palliative care on total healthcare costs. This study analyzed the impact of palliative care on total healthcare costs in a nationally representative sample of advanced cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study among Medicare patients with metastatic lung, colorectal, breast and prostate cancers. We matched patients who received a palliative care consultation to similar patients who did not receive a palliative care consultation on factors related to both the receipt of palliative care and end of life costs. We compared direct costs between matched patients to determine the per-patient economic impact of a palliative care consultation. RESULTS: Patients who received a palliative care consultation experienced an average per patient cost of $5,834 compared to $7,784 for usual care patients (25% decrease; p < 0.0001). Palliative care consultation within 7 days of death decreased healthcare costs by $451, while palliative care consultation more than 4 weeks from death decreased costs by $4,643. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that palliative care has the capacity to substantially reduce healthcare expenditure among advanced cancer patients. Earlier palliative care consultation results in greater cost reductions than consultation in the last week of life.

Quality of care at safety-net hospitals and the impact on pay-for-performance reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance reimbursement ties hospital payments to standardized quality-of-care metrics. To the authors' knowledge, the impact of pay-for-performance reimbursement models on hospitals caring primarily for uninsured or underinsured patients remains poorly defined. The objective of the current study was to evaluate how standardized quality-of-care metrics vary by a hospital's propensity to care for uninsured or underinsured patients and demonstrate the potential impact that pay-for-performance reimbursement could have on hospitals caring for the underserved. METHODS: The authors identified 1,703,865 patients with cancer who were diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 and treated at 1344 hospitals. Hospital safety-net burden was defined as the percentage of uninsured or Medicaid patients cared for by that hospital, categorizing hospitals into low-burden, medium-burden, and high-burden hospitals. The authors evaluated the impact of safety-net burden on concordance with 20 standardized quality-of-care measures, adjusting for differences in patient age, sex, stage of disease at diagnosis, and comorbidity. RESULTS: Patients who were treated at high-burden hospitals were more likely to be young, male, Black and/or Hispanic, and to reside in a low-income and low-educated region. High-burden hospitals had lower adherence to 13 of 20 quality measures compared with low-burden hospitals (all P < .05). Among the 350 high-burden hospitals, concordance with quality measures was found to be lowest for those caring for the highest percentage of uninsured or Medicaid patients, minority patients, and less educated patients (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals caring for uninsured or underinsured individuals have decreased quality-of-care measures. Under pay-for-performance reimbursement models, these lower quality-of-care scores could decrease hospital payments, potentially increasing health disparities for at-risk patients with cancer.