Funding models in palliative care: Lessons from international experience.

BACKGROUND: Funding models influence provision and development of palliative care services. As palliative care integrates into mainstream health care provision, opportunities to develop funding mechanisms arise. However, little has been reported on what funding models exist or how we can learn from them. AIM: To assess national models and methods for financing and reimbursing palliative care. DESIGN: Initial literature scoping yielded limited evidence on the subject as national policy documents are difficult to identify, access and interpret. We undertook expert consultations to appraise national models of palliative care financing in England, Germany, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and Wales. These represent different levels of service development and a variety of funding mechanisms. RESULTS: Funding mechanisms reflect country-specific context and local variations in care provision. Patterns emerging include the following: Provider payment is rarely linked to population need and often perpetuates existing inequitable patterns in service provision. Funding is frequently characterised as a mixed system of charitable, public and private payers. The basis on which providers are paid for services rarely reflects individual care input or patient needs. CONCLUSION: Funding mechanisms need to be well understood and used with caution to ensure best practice and minimise perverse incentives. Before we can conduct cross-national comparisons of costs and impact of palliative care, we need to understand the funding and policy context for palliative care in each country of interest.

Discovering the hidden benefits of cognitive interviewing in two languages: The first phase of a validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale.

BACKGROUND: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a newly developed advancement of the Palliative care Outcome Scale. It assesses patient-reported symptoms and other concerns. Cognitive interviewing is recommended for questionnaire refinement but not adopted widely in palliative care research. AIM: To explore German- and English-speaking patients' views on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale with a focus on comprehensibility and acceptability, and subsequently refine the questionnaire. METHODS: Bi-national (United Kingdom/Germany) cognitive interview study using 'think aloud' and verbal probing techniques. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis and pre-defined categories. Results from both countries were collated and discussed. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale was then refined by consensus. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Purposely sampled patients from four palliative care teams in palliative care units, general hospital wards and in the community. RESULTS: A total of 15 German and 10 UK interviews were conducted. Overall, comprehension and acceptability of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were good. Identified difficulties comprised the following: (1) comprehension problems with specific terms (e.g. 'mouth problems') and length of answer options; (2) judgement difficulties, for example, due to the 3-day recall for questions; and (3) layout problems. Combining the results from both countries (e.g. regarding 'felt good about yourself') and discussing them from both languages' perspectives resulted in wider consideration of the items' meaning, enabling more detailed refinement. CONCLUSION: Cognitive interviewing proved valuable to increase face and content validity of the questionnaire. The concurrent approach in two languages - to our knowledge the first such approach in palliative care - benefited the refinement. Psychometric validation of the refined Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is now underway.

How many people need palliative care? A study developing and comparing methods for population-based estimates.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the need for palliative care is essential in planning services. AIM: To refine existing methods of estimating population-based need for palliative care and to compare these methods to better inform their use. DESIGN: (1) Refinement of existing population-based methods, based on the views of an expert panel, and (2) application/comparison of existing and refined approaches in an example dataset. Existing methods vary in approach and in data sources. (a) Higginson used cause of death/symptom prevalence, and using pain prevalence, estimates that 60.28% (95% confidence interval = 60.20%-60.36%) of all deaths need palliative care, (b) Rosenwax used the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10th Revision (ICD-10) causes of death/hospital-use data, and estimates that 37.01% (95% confidence interval = 36.94%-37.07%) to 96.61% (95% confidence interval = 96.58%-96.64%) of deaths need palliative care, and (c) Gómez-Batiste used percentage of deaths plus chronic disease data, and estimates that 75% of deaths need palliative care. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: All deaths in England, January 2006-December 2008, using linked mortality and hospital episode data. RESULTS: Expert panel review identified changing practice (e.g. extension of palliative care to more non-cancer conditions), changing patterns of hospital/home care and multiple, rather than single, causes of death as important. We therefore refined methods (using updated ICD-10 causes of death, underlying/contributory causes, and hospital use) to estimate a minimum of 63.03% (95% confidence interval = 62.95%-63.11%) of all deaths needing palliative care, with lower and upper mid-range estimates between 69.10% (95% confidence interval = 69.02%-69.17%) and 81.87% (95% confidence interval = 81.81%-81.93%). CONCLUSIONS: Death registration data using both underlying and contributory causes can give reliable estimates of the population-based need for palliative care, without needing symptom or hospital activity data. In high-income countries, 69%-82% of those who die need palliative care.