Factors Associated with the Adoption and Closure of Hospital Palliative Care Programs in the United States

The impact of outpatient supportive oncology on cancer care cost and utilization

BACKGROUND

Supportive oncology (SO) care reduces symptom severity, admissions, and costs in patients with advanced cancer. This study examines the impact of SO care on utilization and costs.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of utilization and costs comparing patients enrolled in SO versus three comparison cohorts who did not receive SO. Using claims, the authors estimated differences in health care utilization and cost between the treatment group and comparison cohorts. The treatment group consisting of patients treated for cancer at an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center who received SO between January 2018 and December 2019 were compared to an asynchronous cohort that received cancer care before January 2018 (n = 60), a contemporaneous cohort with palliative care receiving SO care from other providers in the Southeastern Pennsylvania region during the program period (n = 86), and a contemporaneous cohort without palliative care consisting of patients at other cancer centers who were eligible for but did not receive SO care (n = 393).

RESULTS

At 30, 60, and 90 days post-enrollment into SO, the treatment group had between 27% and 70% fewer inpatient admissions and between 16% and 54% fewer emergency department visits (p < .05) compared to non-SO cohorts. At 90 days following enrollment in SO care, total medical costs were between 4.4% and 24.5% lower for the treatment group across all comparisons (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

SO is associated with reduced admissions, emergency department visits, and total costs in advanced cancer patients. Developing innovative reimbursement models could be a cost-effective approach to improve care of patients with advanced cancer.

Palliative Care Utilization and Hospital Transfers in Veterans Treated in Telecritical Care-Supported Intensive Care Units Versus Non-Telecritical Care Intensive Care Units

Background: Although telecritical care (TCC) implementation is associated with reduced mortality and interhospital transfer rates, its impact on goal-concordant care delivery in critical illness is unknown. We hypothesized that implementation of TCC across the Veterans' Health Administration system resulted in increased palliative care consultation and goals of care evaluation, yielding reduced transfer rates. Methods: We included veterans admitted to intensive care units between 2008 and 2022. We compared palliative care consultation and transfer rates before and after TCC implementation with rates in facilities that never implemented TCC. We used generalized linear mixed multivariable models to assess the associations between TCC initiation, palliative care consultation, and transfer and subsequently used mediation analysis to evaluate potential causality in this relationship. Results: Overall, 1,020,901 veterans met inclusion criteria. Demographic characteristics of patients were largely comparable across groups, although TCC facilities served more rural veterans. Palliative care consultation rates increased substantially in both ever-TCC and never-TCC hospitals during the study period (2.3%-4.3%, and 1.6%-4.7%, p < 0.01). Admissions post-TCC implementation were associated with an increased likelihood of palliative care consultation (odds ratio [OR] 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.15). TCC implementation was also associated with a reduction in transfer rates (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.95). Mediation analysis did not demonstrate a causal relationship between TCC implementation, palliative care consultation, and reductions in interhospital transfer rate. Conclusions: TCC is associated with increased palliative care engagement, while TCC and palliative care engagement are both independently related to reduced transfers.

Perceptions of Palliative Care Program Viability During the Pandemic: Qualitative Results From a National Survey

Background: Palliative care programs have played a significant role during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the financial impact of the pandemic and operational challenges for palliative care programs have raised concerns for their future viability. Objectives: To explore palliative care program leaders' perceptions of the future viability of their programs in the context of the pandemic and inform future educational and program development. Methods: Surveys were sent to 1430 specialist palliative care program leaders, identified through the Center to Advance Palliative Care's contact lists, via email in May 2020 and January 2021. Leaders were asked why they were or were not concerned about the viability of their palliative care programs. Qualitative content analysis was applied to determine themes. Results: We received 440 responses. Most programs served hospital settings and were geographically located across all US regions. We identified four themes: 1) The importance of being valued by organizational leadership and peers, 2) The importance of adequate and supported palliative care staff, 3) The pandemic validated and accelerated the need for palliative care, and 4) The pandemic perpetuated organizational financial concerns. Conclusion: Findings provide insights about palliative care program viability from the perspective of program leaders during a global pandemic. Technical assistance to support palliative care teams and their relationships with stakeholders, methods to measure the impact of peer support, efforts to educate administrators about the value of palliative care, and efforts to reduce burnout are needed to sustain palliative care programs into the future.

Availability of Palliative Care in Long-Term Acute Care Hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To determine the availability of palliative care programs in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis using the 2016 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

LTACHs in the United States.

METHOD

We used descriptive analyses to compare the prevalence of palliative care programs in LTACHs across the United States in 2016. For LTACHs without a program, we also examined palliative care physician capacity in regions where those LTACHs resided to evaluate if expertise existed in those regions.

RESULTS

One-third (36.5%) of 405 LTACHs (50.6% response rate) self-reported having a palliative care program. Among LTACHs without palliative care, 42.4% were in regions with the highest palliative care physician capacity nationwide.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

LTACHs care for patients with serious and prolonged illnesses, many of whom would benefit from palliative care. Despite this, our study finds that specialty palliative care is limited in LTACHs. The limited palliative care availability in LTACHs is mismatched with the needs of this seriously ill population. Greater focus on increasing palliative care in LTACHs is essential and may be feasible as 40% of LTACHs without a palliative care program were located in regions with the highest palliative care physician capacity.