Huang, Ro W.

Abstract Few studies have reliable estimates on costs of informal care following hospitalization, including health care use and out-of-pocket costs for family caregivers (FCGs) and their care recipients (CR). This presentation discusses results from a Transitional Palliative Care (TPC) intervention on healthcare use and out-of-pocket spending for both FCGs and CRs. The study used data from the Technology-Enhanced TPC study, a trial comparing the TPC intervention to support FCGs of seriously ill CRs to an attention control condition. TPC FCGs received teaching, guidance, and counseling via video calls for 8 weeks following CR hospital discharge. After discharge, a research assistant called FCGs once a month for up to 6 months or CR death to collect healthcare utilization (e.g. outpatient, emergency department, and hospital), out-of-pocket healthcare spending (e.g. deductibles and coinsurance), and health-related travel costs (e.g., transportation, lodging, food) for FCGs and CRs. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using negative binomial regressions. The study included 282 FCG-CR dyads across 3 US states. TPC reduced nights in the hospital for CR (IRR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.56 – 0. 99). Total out-of-pocket spending was not significantly different for TPC versus control; however, TPC dyads reported lower lodging costs (IRR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.56-0.89). Across groups, mean out-of-pocket spending for dyads was $1401.85, with healthcare payments contributing $1048.58 and transportation expenses contributing $136.79. This study contributes to evidence that palliative care interventions reduce unnecessary hospitalization for seriously ill patients, yet the financial costs to caregivers remain high.

Abstract Estimates of patient care costs often overlook the economic value of unpaid caregiving. This study aims to quantify the economic value of unpaid caregiving by rural FCGs. Using data from a multi-site randomized controlled trial evaluating Transitional Palliative Care (TPC) intervention for FCGs, this study quantifies the economic value of family caregiving in the six months following seriously ill care recipients’ hospital discharge using three valuation methods. Caregiving hours were self-reported by FCGs. The proxy cost approach assigned value to FCG hours using the national median home health aide wage. The unadjusted opportunity cost approach assigned value using the national median wage, by sex and education level. The adjusted opportunity cost approach assigned value by work force participation, using opportunity cost if employed and proxy cost otherwise. Of 282 FCGs, 94% were non-Hispanic White, 71% had a college degree, 56% were spouses, and 51% were in the workforce. FCG cost did not differ by treatment arm. FCGs of decedents compared to survivors reported significantly more hours per person-month (392 vs. 272, p< 0.001), resulting in higher median opportunity cost ($12,653 vs. $8,843, p< 0.001), proxy cost ($5,689 vs. $3,955, p< 0.001), and adjusted opportunity cost ($9,490 vs. $6,443, p< 0.001) per person-month. Proxy cost may undervalue FCG time, while opportunity cost may perpetuate labor market inequities. Policymakers must weigh trade-offs of different valuation methods. The high intensity of unpaid post-acute care, especially end-of-life, should be considered when designing policies and interventions to support unpaid FCG due to the economic impact on FCGs and employers.

Abstract Background Rural family caregivers (FCGs) in the United States often experience high economic costs. This randomized controlled trial compared a transitional palliative care intervention (TPC) to support FCGs of seriously ill care recipients (CRs) to an attention control condition. We evaluated the TPC's effect on healthcare use and out‐of‐pocket spending for both FCGs and CRs. Methods TPC FCGs received teaching, guidance, and counseling via video calls for 8 weeks following CR discharge from the hospital. After discharge, a research assistant called all FCGs once a month for up to 6 months or CR death to collect self‐reported healthcare utilization (e.g., outpatient, emergency department, and hospital), out‐of‐pocket healthcare spending (e.g., deductibles and coinsurance), and health‐related travel costs (e.g., transportation, lodging, food) for FCGs and CRs. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated using negative binomial regressions. Results The study included 282 FCG–CR dyads across three U.S. states. Follow‐up over the 6‐month period was shortened by high CR mortality rates across both arms (29%), but was similar across arms. TPC reduced nights in the hospital for CR (IRR = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56–0. 99). Total out‐of‐pocket spending was not significantly different for TPC versus control. Across both groups, mean out‐of‐pocket spending for dyads was $1401.85, with healthcare payments contributing $1048.58 and transportation expenses contributing $136.79. TPC dyads reported lower lodging costs (IRR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.56–0.89). Conclusions This study contributes to evidence that palliative care interventions reduce the number of nights in the hospital for seriously ill patients. Yet, overall rural FCGs and seriously ill CRs experience substantial out‐of‐pocket economic costs in the 6 months following hospitalization. Transitional care intervention design should consider impacts on patient and caregiver spending. Clinicaltrials.gov # is NCT03339271.