Yamini Kalidindi1, Jeah Jung1, Joel Segel1, Douglas Leslie2. 1. Department of Health Policy and Administration, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, PA, USA. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate differences in spending and utilization between hospice users and non-users with lung cancer by length of hospice enrollment. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis using 2009-2013 Medicare claims. METHODS: The study sample was a 10% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with lung cancer who died between 2010 and 2013. We identified different categories of hospice users (hospice enrollment for 1-7 days, 8-14 days, 15-30 days, 31-60 days, 61 days - 6 months) and non-users. We used propensity score matching to match users in each enrollment category with non-users. The outcomes were: a) total Medicare spending, b) number of hospitalizations, c) number of emergency department (ED) visits, d) number of physician-administered chemotherapy claims, and e) number of radiation therapy sessions. Regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between users and non-users by enrollment period. RESULTS: Hospice users had significantly lower spending, fewer hospitalizations, and fewer ED visits than non-users across all categories of hospice enrollment. Large savings occurred when patients stayed in hospice for at least one month (US$16,566 for those enrolled 61 days - 6 months; US$16,409 for those enrolled 31-60 days). Significant reduction in use of outpatient services including chemotherapy and radiation therapy was observed among patients using hospice for at least 1 month. CONCLUSIONS: Hospice led to cost savings by reducing utilization of aggressive care towards end-of-life among lung cancer patients. While cost savings were realized even when hospice is utilized for a short duration, large savings occurred when hospice is used for at least 1 month.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate differences in spending and utilization between hospice users and non-users with lung cancer by length of hospice enrollment. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis using 2009-2013 Medicare claims. METHODS: The study sample was a 10% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with lung cancer who died between 2010 and 2013. We identified different categories of hospice users (hospice enrollment for 1-7 days, 8-14 days, 15-30 days, 31-60 days, 61 days - 6 months) and non-users. We used propensity score matching to match users in each enrollment category with non-users. The outcomes were: a) total Medicare spending, b) number of hospitalizations, c) number of emergency department (ED) visits, d) number of physician-administered chemotherapy claims, and e) number of radiation therapy sessions. Regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between users and non-users by enrollment period. RESULTS: Hospice users had significantly lower spending, fewer hospitalizations, and fewer ED visits than non-users across all categories of hospice enrollment. Large savings occurred when patients stayed in hospice for at least one month (US$16,566 for those enrolled 61 days - 6 months; US$16,409 for those enrolled 31-60 days). Significant reduction in use of outpatient services including chemotherapy and radiation therapy was observed among patients using hospice for at least 1 month. CONCLUSIONS: Hospice led to cost savings by reducing utilization of aggressive care towards end-of-life among lung cancer patients. While cost savings were realized even when hospice is utilized for a short duration, large savings occurred when hospice is used for at least 1 month.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medicare spending; end-of-life; hospice; impact of hospice on spending; length of hospice; lung cancer
Authors: Donald H Taylor; Jan Ostermann; Courtney H Van Houtven; James A Tulsky; Karen Steinhauser Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Beth L Nordstrom; Joanna L Whyte; Marilyn Stolar; Catherine Mercaldi; Joel D Kallich Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Kristy T Duggan; Sara Hildebrand Duffus; Ralph B D'Agostino; William J Petty; Nathan P Streer; Richard C Stephenson Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: C von Plessen; B Bergman; O Andresen; R M Bremnes; S Sundstrom; M Gilleryd; R Stephens; J Vilsvik; U Aasebo; S Sorenson Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-10-03 Impact factor: 7.640