Cost-effectiveness of the Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) trial tele-rehabilitation interventions for patients with advanced cancers.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a Collaborative Care Model (CCM)-based, centralized telecare approach to delivering rehabilitation services to late-stage cancer patients experiencing functional limitations. METHODS: Data for this analysis came from the Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) trial, a randomized control trial of 516 patients assigned to: (a) a control group (arm A), (b) tele-rehabilitation (arm B), and (c) tele-rehabilitation plus pharmacological pain management (arm C). Patient quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D-3L at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up. Direct intervention costs were measured from the experience of the trial. Participants' hospitalization data were obtained from their medical records, and costs associated with these encounters were estimated from unit cost data and hospital-associated utilization information found in the literature. A secondary analysis of total utilization costs was conducted for the subset of COPE trial patients for whom comprehensive cost capture was possible. RESULTS: In the intervention-only model, tele-rehabilitation (arm B) was found to be the dominant strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $15 494/QALY. At the $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold, this tele-rehabilitation was the cost-effective strategy in 95.4% of simulations. It was found to be cost saving compared to enhanced usual care once the downstream hospitalization costs were taken into account. In the total cost analysis, total inpatient hospitalization costs were significantly lower in both tele-rehabilitation (arm B) and tele-rehabilitation plus pain management (arm C) compared to control (arm A), (P = .048). CONCLUSION: The delivery of a CCM-based, centralized tele-rehabilitation intervention to patients with advanced stage cancer is highly cost-effective. Clinicians and care teams working with this vulnerable population should consider incorporating such interventions into their patient care plans.

Evaluating Travel Distance to Radiation Facilities Among Rural and Urban Breast Cancer Patients in the Medicare Population.

PURPOSE: The distance patients travel for specialty care is an important barrier to health care access, particularly for those living in rural areas. This study characterizes the actual distance older breast cancer patients traveled to radiation treatment and the minimum distance necessary to reach radiation care, and examines whether any patient demographic or clinical factors are associated with greater travel distance. METHODS: We used data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Our cohort included 52,317 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2013. Driving distances were calculated using Google Maps. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate associations between patient demographic and disease variables and travel distance. FINDINGS: Patients living in rural areas traveled on average nearly 3 times as far as those from urban areas (40.8 miles vs 15.4 miles), and their nearest facility was more than 4 times farther away (21.9 miles vs 4.8 miles). Older age, being single or widowed, and lower household income were significantly associated with shorter actual travel distance, while increasing rurality was significantly associated with greater actual and minimum travel distance to radiation treatment. Disease severity (stage, grade, etc) was not significantly associated with actual or minimum travel distance. CONCLUSIONS: In this insured population, travel distance to radiation facilities may pose a significant burden for breast cancer patients, particularly among those living in rural areas. Policymakers and patient advocates should explore service delivery models, reimbursement models, and social supports aimed at reducing the impact of travel to radiation treatment for breast cancer patients.