Nina R O'Connor1, Paul Junker2, Scott M Appel3, Robert L Stetson4, Jeffrey Rohrbach2, Salimah H Meghani5. 1. 1 Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. 2 Program for Clinical Effectiveness and Quality Improvement, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. 3 Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. 4 Corporate Office of Strategic Decision Support, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Health System, PA, USA. 5. 5 School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospitals are under increasing pressure to manage costs across multiple episodes of care. Most studies of the financial impact of palliative care have focused on costs during a single hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: To compare future acute health-care costs and utilization between patients who received inpatient palliative care consultation for goals of care (Palliative Care Service [PCS]) and a propensity-matched cohort of patients who did not receive palliative care consultation (non-PCS) in a single academic medical center. METHODS: Data were extracted from the hospital's electronic records for admissions and discharges between July 2014 and October 2016. A stratified propensity score matching was used to account for nonrandom assignment and potential inherent differences between PCS and non-PCS groups using variables of theoretical interest: age, gender, race, diagnosis, risk of mortality, and prior acute care costs. RESULTS: The analytical sample for this study included 41 363 patients (PCS = 1853; non-PCS = 39 510). Future acute care costs were significantly higher in the non-PCS group after propensity score matching (highest tier = US$15 654 vs US$8831; second highest tier = US$12 200 vs US$5496; P = .0001). The non-PCS group also had significantly higher future acute care utilization across all propensity tiers and outcomes including 30-day readmission ( P = .0001), number of future hospital days ( P = .0001), and number of future intensive care unit days ( P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Palliative care consultations for goals of care may decrease future health-care utilization with cost savings that persist into future hospitalizations.
BACKGROUND: Hospitals are under increasing pressure to manage costs across multiple episodes of care. Most studies of the financial impact of palliative care have focused on costs during a single hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: To compare future acute health-care costs and utilization between patients who received inpatient palliative care consultation for goals of care (Palliative Care Service [PCS]) and a propensity-matched cohort of patients who did not receive palliative care consultation (non-PCS) in a single academic medical center. METHODS: Data were extracted from the hospital's electronic records for admissions and discharges between July 2014 and October 2016. A stratified propensity score matching was used to account for nonrandom assignment and potential inherent differences between PCS and non-PCS groups using variables of theoretical interest: age, gender, race, diagnosis, risk of mortality, and prior acute care costs. RESULTS: The analytical sample for this study included 41 363 patients (PCS = 1853; non-PCS = 39 510). Future acute care costs were significantly higher in the non-PCS group after propensity score matching (highest tier = US$15 654 vs US$8831; second highest tier = US$12 200 vs US$5496; P = .0001). The non-PCS group also had significantly higher future acute care utilization across all propensity tiers and outcomes including 30-day readmission ( P = .0001), number of future hospital days ( P = .0001), and number of future intensive care unit days ( P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Palliative care consultations for goals of care may decrease future health-care utilization with cost savings that persist into future hospitalizations.
Entities:
Keywords:
health services research; health-care costs; palliative care; readmissions
Authors: Lauren T Starr; Connie M Ulrich; Scott M Appel; Paul Junker; Nina R O'Connor; Salimah H Meghani Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Lauren T Starr; Connie M Ulrich; Paul Junker; Scott M Appel; Nina R O'Connor; Salimah H Meghani Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Katherine R Courtright; Corey Chivers; Michael Becker; Susan H Regli; Linnea C Pepper; Michael E Draugelis; Nina R O'Connor Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lauren T Starr; Connie M Ulrich; Paul Junker; Liming Huang; Nina R O'Connor; Salimah H Meghani Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Sarina R Isenberg; Christopher Meaney; Peter May; Peter Tanuseputro; Kieran Quinn; Danial Qureshi; Stephanie Saunders; Colleen Webber; Hsien Seow; James Downar; Thomas J Smith; Amna Husain; Peter G Lawlor; Rob Fowler; Julie Lachance; Kimberlyn McGrail; Amy T Hsu Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lauren T Starr; Connie M Ulrich; G Adriana Perez; Subhash Aryal; Paul Junker; Nina R O'Connor; Salimah H Meghani Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 2.090