Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Home-Based Hospice-Palliative Care for Terminal Cancer Patients.

Ye-Seul Kim, Euna Han, Jae-Woo Lee, Hee-Taik Kang
{"title":"Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Home-Based Hospice-Palliative Care for Terminal Cancer Patients.","authors":"Ye-Seul Kim,&nbsp;Euna Han,&nbsp;Jae-Woo Lee,&nbsp;Hee-Taik Kang","doi":"10.14475/jhpc.2022.25.2.76","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We compared cost-effectiveness parameters between inpatient and home-based hospice-palliative care services for terminal cancer patients in Korea.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A decision-analytic Markov model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of hospice-palliative care in an inpatient unit (inpatient-start group) and at home (home-start group). The model adopted a healthcare system perspective, with a 9-week horizon and a 1-week cycle length. The transition probabilities were calculated based on the reports from the Korean National Cancer Center in 2017 and Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service in 2020. Quality of life (QOL) was converted to the quality-adjusted life week (QALW). Modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis were performed with TreeAge software. The weekly medical cost was estimated to be 2,481,479 Korean won (KRW) for inpatient hospice-palliative care and 225,688 KRW for home-based hospice-palliative care. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to assess the impact of different scenarios and assumptions on the model results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with the inpatient-start group, the incremental cost of the home-start group was 697,657 KRW, and the incremental effectiveness based on QOL was 0.88 QALW. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the home-start group was 796,476 KRW/QALW. Based on one-way sensitivity analyses, the ICER was predicted to increase to 1,626,988 KRW/QALW if the weekly cost of home-based hospice doubled, but it was estimated to decrease to -2,898,361 KRW/QALW if death rates at home doubled.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Home-based hospice-palliative care may be more cost-effective than inpatient hospice-palliative care. Home-based hospice appears to be affordable even if the associated medical expenditures double.</p>","PeriodicalId":73780,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospice and palliative care","volume":"25 2","pages":"76-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fa/ad/jhpc-25-2-76.PMC10180035.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospice and palliative care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14475/jhpc.2022.25.2.76","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We compared cost-effectiveness parameters between inpatient and home-based hospice-palliative care services for terminal cancer patients in Korea.

Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of hospice-palliative care in an inpatient unit (inpatient-start group) and at home (home-start group). The model adopted a healthcare system perspective, with a 9-week horizon and a 1-week cycle length. The transition probabilities were calculated based on the reports from the Korean National Cancer Center in 2017 and Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service in 2020. Quality of life (QOL) was converted to the quality-adjusted life week (QALW). Modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis were performed with TreeAge software. The weekly medical cost was estimated to be 2,481,479 Korean won (KRW) for inpatient hospice-palliative care and 225,688 KRW for home-based hospice-palliative care. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to assess the impact of different scenarios and assumptions on the model results.

Results: Compared with the inpatient-start group, the incremental cost of the home-start group was 697,657 KRW, and the incremental effectiveness based on QOL was 0.88 QALW. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the home-start group was 796,476 KRW/QALW. Based on one-way sensitivity analyses, the ICER was predicted to increase to 1,626,988 KRW/QALW if the weekly cost of home-based hospice doubled, but it was estimated to decrease to -2,898,361 KRW/QALW if death rates at home doubled.

Conclusion: Home-based hospice-palliative care may be more cost-effective than inpatient hospice-palliative care. Home-based hospice appears to be affordable even if the associated medical expenditures double.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
晚期癌症患者居家安宁疗护的成本-效果分析。
目的:比较韩国晚期癌症患者住院与居家安宁疗护服务的成本效益参数。方法:采用决策分析马尔可夫模型比较住院部(住院部启动组)和住院部(住院部启动组)安宁疗护的成本-效果。模型采用医疗保健系统视角,视界为9周,周期长度为1周。转移概率是根据2017年国立癌症院和2020年健康保险审查评估院的报告计算得出的。生活质量(QOL)换算为质量调整生命周(QALW)。利用TreeAge软件进行建模和成本-效果分析。据估计,每周住院临终关怀-姑息治疗的医疗费用为2481479韩元,家庭临终关怀-姑息治疗的医疗费用为225688韩元。采用单向敏感性分析评估不同情景和假设对模型结果的影响。结果:与住院启动组相比,居家启动组的增量成本为697,657韩元,基于生活质量的增量有效性为0.88 QALW。在家开始组的增量成本-效果比(ICER)为796,476韩元/QALW。根据单向敏感性分析,如果每周家庭临终关怀费用增加一倍,ICER将增加到1,626,988韩元/QALW,但如果家庭死亡率增加一倍,ICER将减少到-2,898,361韩元/QALW。结论:居家安宁疗护可能比住院安宁疗护更具成本效益。即使相关的医疗费用翻倍,以家庭为基础的临终关怀似乎也是负担得起的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Phased Plan for the Expansion of Hospice and Palliative Care. Content Analysis of Online Resources Regarding Needs for Advance Care Planning. Ethical and Practical Issues with the Use of Antimicrobial Agents during the End of Life. An Evolutionary Concept Analysis of Pediatric Hospice and Palliative Care. Early Hospice Consultation Team Engagement for Cancer Pain Relief: A Case Report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1