We can afford to die well, but it will require coordinated care with someone
in charge. . .
An aging population that demands more treatment and
new technology to stay alive will continue to pressure the current
health-care system. As much of palliative care concerns federally funded
Medicare and Medicaid, all of us have a share in this "medical
commons." Currently, about 25% of Medicare dollars are spent on patients in
their last 60 days of life,[3,4] and money spent for palliative care cannot be
spent for prevention, screening, or other treatment.
At the same time, the quality of cancer care that we purchase is
suboptimal.[5,6] Examples include studies showing that high-volume or specialty
centers/providers are associated with 5% to 10% better breast cancer survival,
twofold better survival for testicular cancer patients, less mortality for
prostatectomy, and up to fourfold better survival for complicated cancer
surgery. The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and
Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT) showed that half of all dying patients had
unnecessary pain in their final days of life in academic hospitals. Poor pain
relief has been found in academic practice and in minority populationsindeed,
We have identified some important questions about economic outcomes and
palliative care, which are listed in Table 1. The first questionwhat outcomes
justify treatmentalthough probably the most important (and clearly the most
contentious), is beyond the scope of this manuscript. The American Society of
Clinical Oncology (ASCO) could not describe a minimum benefit that would justify
treatment, but did state that some benefit must be demonstrable, and that cost
and toxicity should be considered along with benefit. We will address the
other issues with data in this manuscript, based on a review of Medline from
1970 to the present and selected searches within bibliographies.
Hospice has been recommended by ASCO as the most applicable model for good
end-of-life care in the United States, but there are few solid data that
show hospice improves care or reduces costs (Table
2).[12-19] The only
randomized clinical trial of hospice vs conventional care showed no important
differences by any measured benchmark (pain, ability to perform activities of
daily living). Patients still used many hospital days (48 for control group,
51 for hospice group), but more of the hospice patients were hospitalized on the
hospice unit. There was no difference in diagnostic procedures or in total costs
of about $15,000 per patient.
Hospice care may be cost-saving in the last month of life.[16,17] For those
who enrolled during that intervaltypically, over half of Medicare patientsMedicare
saved $1.26 to $1.65 for each $1 spent. Those who elected hospice tended to use
more resources in the months from diagnosis until about 3 months before death,
so the total disease management costs were equal.
Hospice may actually not be saving total disease management costs, but just
shifting them to costs not captured by our current accounting systems. In our
own study of Medicare hospice use in Virginia, matching hospice use with
Medicare files, total disease management costs in the last year of life were not
changed by hospice care (unpublished data, T.J. Smith et al). In the same study
of hospice use in Virginia, multivariate logistic regression showed that
patients who were very old, white, well-to-do, and without comorbidities more
often elected hospice than those who were not (unpublished data, T.J. Smith et
al). This group is also able to absorb more home care costs, out-of-pocket drug
costs, and so forth. The data are consistent with an affluent group of patients
using all the resources needed for treatment, then electing hospice. There are
few published data on whether the poor or minorities use hospice, how much those
patients will cost the system, or total costs.
Studies from databases of hospice use have shown similar results, with one
study finding a 39% reduction in end-of-life care costsby prevention of
hospitalizationif patients were in hospice more than 2 weeks. Hospice
patients were more likely to receive home nursing care and spend less time in
the hospital than conventional care patients. Conventional care was the
least expensive approach when overall disease management costs were calculated,
but hospital-based hospice ($2,270) and home care hospice ($2,657) were less
expensive than conventional care ($6,100) in the last month of life. Not
surprisingly, when full-cost accounting is done, home care provided by relatives
is not much different ($4,563 for each 3-month period) than care in a nursing
home or similar setting. Costs were lowest when the patient and caregiver lived
in the same household.[20,21]
No cost savings have been associated with the use of either typical advance
directives or do not resuscitate (DNR) orders done in the hospital,[13,14,22] as
shown in Table 3.[22-24] In one randomized study of 204 patients with
life-threatening diseases, the execution of an advance directive had no
significant positive or negative effect on a patient’s well-being, health
status, medical treatments, or medical treatment charges.
For patients who had advanced directives prior to intervention in the SUPPORT
trial, there was a 23% reduction in cost associated with advance directives$21,284
with one, compared to $26,127 without onesuggesting that advance directives
may save money if executed early in the disease course. Nevertheless, Emmanuel
and Emmanuel[13,14] estimated that if all Medicare recipients had advance
directives and elected hospice, savings would only amount to 3%.
Role of the Nurse
Coordinated care with a nurse in charge of resource use has been shown to
preserve palliative care quality and lower cost. A randomized clinical trial of
a nurse coordinator for terminally ill patients in England maintained outcomes:
Most patients still had some unrelieved symptoms, but patient and family
satisfaction was helped slightly. Total per patient costs were reduced from
£8,814 to £4,414 (-41%), primarily as a result of decreased hospital
The US Medicare Hospice Benefit requires similar nurse coordination, team
management, easy access to low per diem hospital beds for respite or temporary
care, and expanded drug coverage,[12,27] but at present only 15% of the eligible
population uses it. (For the most recent statistics, see Basic Statistics About
Hospice on the National
Association of Hospice Care's website, http://www.nahc.org/Consumer/hpcstats.html.)
In a Canadian study, home nursing care was associated with more patients
dying at home. It is difficult to predict whether US physicians (or, for that
matter, patients) would accept mandatory nurse coordinationfor instance, the
nurse could direct the doctor to make a home visitand be willing to lose
patient control, reduce supportive care use, and lose income.
Increased Access to Care
The Regional Palliative Care Program (RPCP) in Alberta, Canada, increased
access of terminally ill patients to palliative care with an additional four
full-time physicians and nurse consult teams, 56 hospice beds at three different
sites, and greater availability of home nursing care. Fees for family physician
home and hospice visits were increased, and the palliative care team offered
extensive patient education.
On analysis, the RPCP significantly increased access to palliative care,
increased family practice physician participation in palliative care, and
reduced costs of care (Table 4). Approximately 85% of patients discharged
from the cancer center chose to continue care under the direction of their own
family physician, with the RPCP available as needed. The authors estimated that
the program saved the province a total of $2,500,000 as a result of decreased
use of acute care facilities.
Our own group developed the Rural Cancer Outreach Program (RCOP) between
rural hospitals and the Medical College of Virginia’s Massey Cancer Center to
bring state-of-the-art cancer care to medically underserved rural patients. The
key to the program is the coordination of all aspects of care by nurses at the
rural centers and at Massey Cancer Center. State-of-the-art care, clinical
trials, and palliative care have improved at the rural centers. Pre- and
post-RCOP financial data were collected on 1,745 cancer patients. The cost for
each rural patient admitted to the Medical College of Virginia fell from $12,268
to $7,370 (-40%), compared to only a 2% decrease for all other cancer patientsconsistent
with other coordinated programs.
Other Coordinated Care Approaches
The City of Hope changed the culture of pain management with enhanced
institutional education programs, a highly visible and respected consultative
team, and a pain resource center for nurses and families. This was associated
with a decrease in admissions for pain control with marked cost savings (Table
5). The study was not randomized and could not account for other significant
changes such as the growth of managed care with restricted admission policies.
However, a reasonable conclusion is that this program led to better pain
management and probably saved money.
Coordinated ethics and intensive care unit planning for patients who are
likely to die also matches resource use to care and save money. An ethicist in
the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) taught the staff about issues of patient
choices in dying and the ethics of futile care. For those who died, there was a
decrease in length of SICU stay from 28 to 16 days and a decrease in SICU days
from 2,028 to 1,003 days, far greater than was observed in other parts of the
hospital; savings were estimated at $1.8 million.
Similarly, Dowdy and colleagues conducted mandatory proactive ethics
consultations for all patients who had been mechanically ventilated beyond
4 days. They found a reduced use of the intensive care unitdue to either
the discontinuation of futile care or the transfer of patients to
lesser-intensity unitsand a decrease in costs.
Coordinated care that uses a less expensive setting reduces costs. Despite
higher costs for drug equipment and nursing, home narcotic infusions produced
lower total costs due to fewer hospital costs.
We recently started an inpatient palliative care program based on the
following principles: Only expert specialized caregivers are used, care is
standardized with algorithms, and a high-volume unit is employed. Preliminary
analysis supports the premise that the quality of care can be maintained and
that costs can be substantially reduced compared to conventional care
(unpublished data, T.J. Smith et al).
1. Finucane T: How gravely ill becomes dying: A key to end of life care. JAMA
2. Winslow R: Back in trouble: Health-care inflation revives in Minneapolis
despite cost-cutting: Failure of efforts to change actual medical practice gets
much of the blame. New treatments in demand. Wall Street Journal 5,19:1998.
3. Lubitz JD, Riley GF: Trends in Medicare payments in the last year of life.
N Engl J Med 328:1092-1096, 1993.
4. Lubitz J, Beebe J, Baker C: Longevity and medicare expenditures. N Engl J
Med 332:999-1003, 1995.
5. Hewitt M, Simons P: Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Institute of Medicine
National Research Council, 1999.
6. Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Desch CE: Hospital and physician volume or
specialization and outcomes in cancer treatment: Importance in quality of cancer
care. J Clin Oncol 18:2327-2340, 2000.
7. SUPPORT Principal Investigators: A controlled trial to improve care for
seriously ill hospitalized patients. The Study to Understand Prognoses and
Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). JAMA 274:1591-1598,
8. Cleeland CS, Gonin R, Hatfield AK, et al: Pain and its treatment in
outpatients with metastatic cancer. N Engl J Med 330:592-596, 1994.
9. Cleeland CS, Gonin R, Baez L, et al: Pain and treatment of pain in
minority patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 127(9):813-816, 1997.
10. Anonymous American Society of Clinical Oncology Outcomes Working Group
(core members): Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and
cancer treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol 14:671-679, 1995.
11. American Society of Clinical Oncology: Cancer care during the last phase
of life. J Clin Oncol 16(5):1986-1996, 1998.
12. Smith TJ: End of life care: Preserving quality and quantity of life in
managed care. ASCO Educational Book, pp 303-307, 1997.
13. Emanuel EJ: Cost savings at the end of life. What do the data show? JAMA
14. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL: The economics of dying. The illusion of cost
savings at the end of life. N Engl J Med 330:540-544, 1994.
15. Kane RL, Berstein L, Whales J, et al: A randomized control trial of
hospice care. Lancet 1:890-894, 1984.
16. National Hospice Organization: An Analysis of the Cost Savings of the
Medicare Hospice Benefit, Miami, Lewin-VHI Inc, 1997.
17. Kidder D: The effects of hospice coverage on Medicare expenditures.
Health Serv Res 27:195-217, 1992.
18. Brooks CH, Smyth-Staruch K: Hospice home care cost savings to third party
insurers. Med Care 22:691-703, 1984.
19. Aiken LH: Evaluation and research and public policy: Lessons learned from
the National Hospice study. J Chronic Dis 39:1-4, 1986.
20. Stommel M, Given CW, Given BA: The cost of cancer home care to families.
Cancer 71:1867-1874. 1993.
21. Given BA, Given CW, Stommel M: Family and out-of-pocket costs for women
with breast cancer. Cancer Pract 2:187-193, 1994.
22. Teno J, Lynn J, Connors AF, Jr, et al: The illusion of end-of-life
resource savings with advance directives. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to
Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment. J Am
Geriatr Soc 45(4):513-518, 1997.
23. Schneiderman LJ, Kronick R, Kaplan RM, et al: Effects of offering advance
directives on medical treatments and costs. Ann Intern Med 117(7):599-606, 1992.
24. Maksoud A, Jahnigen DW, Skibinski CI: Do not resuscitate orders and the
cost of death. Arch Intern Med 153(10):1249-1253, 1993.
25. Addington-Hall JM, MacDonald LD, Anderson HR, et al: Randomized
controlled trial of effects of coordinating care for terminally ill cancer
patients. Br Med J 305:1317-1322, 1992.
26. Raftery JP, Addington-Hall JM, MacDonald LD, et al: A randomized
controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of a district co-ordinating service
for terminally ill cancer patients. Palliat Med 10:151-161, 1996.
27. Harris NJ, Dunmore R, Tscheu MJ: The Medicare hospice benefit: Fiscal
implications for hospice program management. Cancer Manage 1(3):6-11, 1996.
28. McWhinney IR, Bass MJ, Orr V: Factors associated with location of death
(home or hospital) or patients referred to a palliative care team. Can Med Assoc
J 152(3):361-370, 1995.
29. Bruera E, Neumann C, Gagnon B, et al: The impact of a regional palliative
care program on the cost of palliative care delivery. J Palliat Med 3:181-186,
30. Smith TJ, Desch CE, Grasso MA, et al: The rural cancer outreach program:
Clinical and financial analysis of palliative and curative care for an
underserved population. Cancer Treat Rev 22:97-101, 1996.
31. Desch, CE, Grasso K, McCue M, et al: A rural cancer outreach program
lowers patient care costs and benefits both the rural hospitals and sponsoring
academic medical center. J Rural Health 15(2):157-167, 1999.
32. Grant M, Ferrell BR, Rivera LM, et al: Unscheduled readmissions for
uncontrolled symptoms. Nurs Clin North Am 30(4):673-682, 1995.
33. Holloran SD, Starkey GW, Burke PA, et al: An educational intervention in
the surgical intensive care unit to improve ethical decisions. Surgery
34. Dowdy MD, Robertson C, Bander JA: A study of proactive ethics
consultation for critically and terminally ill patients with extended lengths of
stay. Crit Care Med 26(2):252-259, 1998.
35. Ferris FD, Wodinsky HB, Kerr IG, et al: A cost-minimization study of
cancer patients requiring a narcotic infusion in hospital and at home. J Clin
Epidemiol 44:313-327, 1991.
36. Smith TJ, Hillner BE, Desch CE: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of cancer
treatment: Rational allocation of resources based on decision analysis. J Natl
Cancer Inst 85:1460-1474, 1993.
37. Earle CC, Chapman R, Baker C, et al: Systematic overview of cost-utility
assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol 18:3302-3317, 2000.
38. Jaakimainen L, Goodwin PJ, Pater J, et al: Counting the costs of
chemotherapy in a National Cancer Institute of Canada randomized trial in
non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 8:1301-1309, 1990.
39. Le Chevalier T, Brisgand D, Douillard JY, et al: Randomized study of
vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vindesine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine
alone in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Results of a European multicenter
trial including 612 patients. J Clin Oncol 12:360-367, 1994.
40. Smith TJ, Hillner BE, Neighbors DM, et al: An economic evaluation of a
randomized clinical trial comparing vinorelbine, vinorelbine plus cisplatin and
vindesine plus cisplatin for non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol
41. Evans WK, Will BP, Berthelot JM, et al: Cost of combined modality
interventions for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol
42. Glimelius B, Hoffman K, Graf W, et al: Cost-effectiveness of palliative
chemotherapy in advanced gastrointestinal cancer. Ann Oncol 6(3):267-274, 1995.
43. Tannock IF, Osoba D, Stockler MR, et al: Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone
plus prednisone or prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate
cancer: A Canadian randomized trial with palliative end points. J Clin Oncol
44. Bloomfield DJ, Krahn MD, Tannock IF, et al: Economic evaluation of
chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone for symptomatic hormone resistant
prostate cancer (HRPC) based on a Canadian randomized trial (RCT) with
palliative endpoints (abstract 1130). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:317a, 1997.
45. Hillner BE, Weeks JC, Desch CE, et al: Pamidronate in prevention of bone
complications in metastatic breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin
Oncol 18:72-79, 2000.
46. Evans WK, Will BP, Berthelot JM, et al: The economics of lung cancer
management in Canada. Lung Cancer 14(1):13-17, 1996.
47. Evans WK, Will BP: The cost of managing lung cancer in Canada. Oncology 9
(suppl 11):147-153, 1995.
48. Berger JT, Rosner F: The ethics of practice guidelines. Arch Intern Med
49. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al: How attractive does a new
technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines
for using clinical and economic evaluation. Can Med Assoc J 146:473-481, 1992.
50. Smith TJ: Which hat do I wear? JAMA 270:1657-1659, 1993.
Supported in part by grants from the Thomas Hospice Foundation, Richmond,
Virginia; the Jessie Ball duPont Foundation, Jacksonville, Florida; and the
Project on Death in America, Open Society Institute, New York.