RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The results of several studies have demonstrated that women and men with a cancer diagnosis benefit from interventions to reduce distress and improve quality of life (QOL). However, little is known about the costs and effectiveness of such interventions. Identifying a stress-reduction program that is low cost and effective is important for payers, employers, and healthcare professionals, as well as for patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the direct costs and effectiveness of the mindfulness-based art therapy (MBAT) program compared with the cost and effectiveness of a breast cancer support group (BCSG). METHODS: This economic pilot study evaluated the direct costs and effectiveness of a mindfulness-based intervention for stress reduction in patients with breast cancer who are receiving care versus the cost of a usual care support group used as the comparator. The cost variables for each cohort included the cost of program delivery (ie, staff and supplies), mileage reimbursements, medication costs, and healthcare utilization costs. Effectiveness was measured by a change in quality-adjusted life-year derived from the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) QOL battery. RESULTS: Overall, the cost for 191 participants in the MBAT intervention group was $992.49 per participant compared with $562.71 per participant for the BCSG intervention. Both interventions achieved a similar change in healthcare utilization based on the SF-36 QOL battery. Although the MBAT intervention was more costly than a BCSG intervention, sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness of the MBAT intervention could achieve parity with that of a BCSG if some intervention-related costs, such as staff time and supplies, were reduced. CONCLUSION: As psychosocial cancer care becomes more refined with time, it will be important to determine the best and most cost-effective interventions for patients with cancer, particularly in light of healthcare reform. Information from this study could help inform payers, employers, and other stakeholders regarding which interventions would be least costly and most effective for patients with cancer.
RESUMO
The disease management (DM) model for the treatment of chronic conditions has been around for many years and has been found to be effective for diseases of high prevalence and high cost (eg, diabetes, asthma, heart disease). With an increasing number of people living with cancer and the continual escalation of treatment costs, DM vendors have begun to implement DM concepts into cancer care. However, the multitude of cancer types, treatment options, and adverse effects have all presented barriers to oncology DM, and data reflecting the effectiveness of oncology DM have remained scarce. Oncology costs, the lack of congruence between provider and patient expectations of treatment, the lack of prevention and early detection for many cancers, and, most importantly, the inability of people to adhere to healthy lifestyles are additional obstacles that must be overcome. Moreover, when designing an oncology DM program, it is imperative to look at cancers individually as the etiology, treatment, and impact of cancer can be markedly different from one patient to the next. An effective oncology DM program is one that acts to decrease fatigue, reduces nosocomial infections, deals with dehydration and pain, manages anemia, identifies and treats skin infections, recognizes and treats depression and other psychological distress, provides patients access to palliative care services, facilitates informed decision making and end-of-life transitions, and promotes communication between patients and their providers as well as between physicians. Moving forward, DM vendors and health insurance companies capable of incorporating DM with medical management will be in the best position to provide optimal cancer care.
