IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hrv/faseco/22856726.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Association Between the Medicare Hospice Benefit and Health Care Utilization and Costs for Patients With Poor-Prognosis Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Obermeyer, Ziad
  • Makar, Maggie
  • Abujaber, Samer
  • Dominici, Francesca
  • Block, Susan Dale
  • Cutler, David M.

Abstract

Importance More patients with cancer use hospice currently than ever before, but there are indications that care intensity outside of hospice is increasing, and length of hospice stay decreasing. Uncertainties regarding how hospice affects health care utilization and costs have hampered efforts to promote it. Objective To compare utilization and costs of health care for patients with poor-prognosis cancers enrolled in hospice vs similar patients without hospice care. Design, Setting, and Participants Matched cohort study of patients in hospice and nonhospice care using a nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who died in 2011. Patients with poor-prognosis cancers (eg, brain, pancreatic, metastatic malignancies) enrolled in hospice before death were matched to similar patients who died without hospice care. Exposures Period between hospice enrollment and death for hospice beneficiaries, and the equivalent period of nonhospice care before death for matched nonhospice patients. Main Outcomes and Measures Health care utilization including hospitalizations and procedures, place of death, cost trajectories before and after hospice start, and cumulative costs, all during the last year of life. Results Among 86 851 patients with poor-prognosis cancers, median time from first poor-prognosis diagnosis to death was 13 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3-34), and 51 924 patients (60%) entered hospice before death. Matching yielded a cohort balanced on age, sex, region, time from poor-prognosis diagnosis to death, and baseline care utilization, with 18 165 patients in the hospice group and 18 165 in the nonhospice group. After matching, 11% of nonhospice and 1% of hospice beneficiaries who had cancer-directed therapy after exposure were excluded. Median hospice duration was 11 days. After exposure, nonhospice beneficiaries had significantly more hospitalizations (65% [95% CI, 64%-66%], vs hospice with 42% [95% CI, 42%-43%]; risk ratio, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.5-1.6]), intensive care (36% [95% CI, 35%-37%], vs hospice with 15% [95% CI, 14%-15%]; risk ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.3-2.5]), and invasive procedures (51% [95% CI, 50%-52%], vs hospice with 27% [95% CI, 26%-27%]; risk ratio, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.9-2.0]), largely for acute conditions not directly related to cancer; and 74% (95% CI, 74%-75%) of nonhospice beneficiaries died in hospitals and nursing facilities compared with 14% (95% CI, 14%-15%) of hospice beneficiaries. Costs for hospice and nonhospice beneficiaries were not significantly different at baseline, but diverged after hospice start. Total costs over the last year of life were $71 517 (95% CI, $70 543-72 490) for nonhospice and $62 819 (95% CI, $62 082-63 557) for hospice, a statistically significant difference of $8697 (95% CI, $7560-$9835). Conclusions and Relevance In this sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with poor-prognosis cancer, those receiving hospice care vs not (control), had significantly lower rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and invasive procedures at the end of life, along with significantly lower total costs during the last year of life.

Suggested Citation

  • Obermeyer, Ziad & Makar, Maggie & Abujaber, Samer & Dominici, Francesca & Block, Susan Dale & Cutler, David M., 2014. "Association Between the Medicare Hospice Benefit and Health Care Utilization and Costs for Patients With Poor-Prognosis Cancer," Scholarly Articles 22856726, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hrv:faseco:22856726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/22856726/JAMA%20Final%20Association%20Medicare%20hospice%20benefit%20utilization%20and%20costs.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jui-Kun Chiang & Yee-Hsin Kao & Ning-Sheng Lai, 2015. "The Impact of Hospice Care on Survival and Healthcare Costs for Patients with Lung Cancer: A National Longitudinal Population-Based Study in Taiwan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Xiaotong Niu & Melinda Buntin & Joyce Manchester, 2015. "Changes in Medicare Spending per Beneficiary by Age: Working Paper 2015-08," Working Papers 51027, Congressional Budget Office.
    3. Niyazi Taneri & Arnoud De Meyer, 2017. "Contract Theory: Impact on Biopharmaceutical Alliance Structure and Performance," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 453-471, July.
    4. Dong Jun Kim & Sun Jung Kim, 2022. "Is Hospital Hospice Service Associated with Efficient Healthcare Utilization in Deceased Lung Cancer Patients? Hospital Charges at Their End of Life," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-10, November.
    5. Ya-Ting Huang & Ying-Wei Wang & Chou-Wen Chi & Wen-Yu Hu & Rung Lin Jr & Chih-Chung Shiao & Woung-Ru Tang, 2020. "Differences in medical costs for end-of-life patients receiving traditional care and those receiving hospice care: A retrospective study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, February.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hrv:faseco:22856726. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Office for Scholarly Communication (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deharus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.