End-of-Life Care Interventions: An Economic Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The annual cost of providing care for patients in their last year of life is estimated to account for approximately 9% of the Ontario health care budget. Access to integrated, comprehensive support and pain/symptom management appears to be inadequate and inequitable.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of end-of-life (EoL) care interventions included in the EoL care mega-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Multiple sources were used, including systematic reviews, linked health administration databases, survey data, planning documents, expert input, and additional literature searches. REVIEW
METHODS: We conducted a literature review of cost-effectiveness studies to inform the primary economic analysis. We conducted the primary economic analysis and budget impact analysis for an Ontario cohort of decedents and their families and included interventions pertaining to team-based models of care, patient care planning discussions, educational interventions for patients and caregivers, and supportive interventions for informal caregivers. The time horizon was the last year of life. Costs were in 2013 Canadian dollars. Effectiveness measures included days at home, percentage dying at home, and quality-adjusted life-days. We developed a Markov model; model inputs were obtained from a cohort of Ontario decedents assembled from Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences databases and published literature.
RESULTS: In-home palliative team care was cost-effective; it increased the chance of dying at home by 10%, increased the average number of days at home (6 days) and quality-adjusted life-days (0.5 days), and it reduced costs by approximately $4,400 per patient. Expanding in-home palliative team care to those currently not receiving such services (approximately 45,000 per year, at an annual cost of $76-108 million) is likely to improve quality of life, reduce the use of acute care resources, and save $191-$385 million in health care costs. Results for the other interventions were uncertain. LIMITATIONS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was based in part on the notion that resources allocated to EoL care interventions were designed to maximize quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) for patients and their family, but improving QALYs may not be the intended aim of EoL interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: In-home palliative team care was cost-effective, but firm conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of other interventions were not possible.