Limits...
Return-to-work intervention for cancer survivors: budget impact and allocation of costs and returns in the Netherlands and six major EU-countries.

Mewes JC, Steuten LM, Groeneveld IF, de Boer AG, Frings-Dresen MH, IJzerman MJ, van Harten WH - BMC Cancer (2015)

Bottom Line: The allocation of the expected costs and financial benefits for each of the stakeholders involved was compared between the Netherlands, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden.The BI for the Netherlands was €-14.7 m in 2015, rising to €-71.1 m in 2020, thus the intervention is cost-saving as the productivity benefits outweigh the intervention costs.Across European countries, we observed differences regarding the extent to which stakeholders either invest or receive a share of the benefits from offering a RTW-intervention.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands. j.c.mewes@utwente.nl.

ABSTRACT

Background: Return-to-work (RTW)-interventions support cancer survivors in resuming work, but come at additional healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to assess the budget impact of a RTW-intervention, consisting of counselling sessions with an occupational physician and an exercise-programme. The secondary objective was to explore how the costs of RTW-interventions and its financial revenues are allocated among the involved stakeholders in several EU-countries.

Methods: The budget impact (BI) of a RTW-intervention versus usual care was analysed yearly for 2015-2020 from a Dutch societal- and from the perspective of a large cancer centre. The allocation of the expected costs and financial benefits for each of the stakeholders involved was compared between the Netherlands, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden.

Results: The average intervention costs in this case were €1,519/patient. The BI for the Netherlands was €-14.7 m in 2015, rising to €-71.1 m in 2020, thus the intervention is cost-saving as the productivity benefits outweigh the intervention costs. For cancer centres the BI amounts to €293 k in 2015, increasing to €1.1 m in 2020. Across European countries, we observed differences regarding the extent to which stakeholders either invest or receive a share of the benefits from offering a RTW-intervention.

Conclusion: The RTW-intervention is cost-saving from a societal perspective. Yet, the total intervention costs are considerable and, in many European countries, mainly covered by care providers that are not sufficiently reimbursed.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Results of the base case analysis. A negative budget impact indicates that the intervention is cost-saving. The positive budget impact for the cancer centre results from the situation that in the Netherlands, the costs for RTW are not reimbursed for most patients. Thus, if a hospital is offering the intervention they need to finance it themselves
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4642612&req=5

Fig2: Results of the base case analysis. A negative budget impact indicates that the intervention is cost-saving. The positive budget impact for the cancer centre results from the situation that in the Netherlands, the costs for RTW are not reimbursed for most patients. Thus, if a hospital is offering the intervention they need to finance it themselves

Mentions: For analysing the budget impact, a spreadsheet model (Fig. 1) was created in Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA). The budget impact equals the total cost of the RTW-intervention minus the productivity gains that accrue from RTW, in the new situation vs. current practice [7]. In the model, the number of patients following the intervention was identified by multiplying cancer incidence with the percentage of eligible patients and the capacity of hospitals to provide the intervention. The number of patients was then multiplied with the intervention costs, which resulted in the total costs of the RTW-intervention. For the Dutch societal perspective, the productivity gains equal the number of patients who follow the intervention multiplied with the additional yearly working time generated and with the hourly productivity costs. For the cancer centre’s perspective, the benefit consists of receiving reimbursed from the health insurer for delivering RTW to the 10 % of the patients indicated for multidisciplinary rehabilitation Fig. 2.Fig. 1


Return-to-work intervention for cancer survivors: budget impact and allocation of costs and returns in the Netherlands and six major EU-countries.

Mewes JC, Steuten LM, Groeneveld IF, de Boer AG, Frings-Dresen MH, IJzerman MJ, van Harten WH - BMC Cancer (2015)

Results of the base case analysis. A negative budget impact indicates that the intervention is cost-saving. The positive budget impact for the cancer centre results from the situation that in the Netherlands, the costs for RTW are not reimbursed for most patients. Thus, if a hospital is offering the intervention they need to finance it themselves
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4642612&req=5

Fig2: Results of the base case analysis. A negative budget impact indicates that the intervention is cost-saving. The positive budget impact for the cancer centre results from the situation that in the Netherlands, the costs for RTW are not reimbursed for most patients. Thus, if a hospital is offering the intervention they need to finance it themselves
Mentions: For analysing the budget impact, a spreadsheet model (Fig. 1) was created in Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA). The budget impact equals the total cost of the RTW-intervention minus the productivity gains that accrue from RTW, in the new situation vs. current practice [7]. In the model, the number of patients following the intervention was identified by multiplying cancer incidence with the percentage of eligible patients and the capacity of hospitals to provide the intervention. The number of patients was then multiplied with the intervention costs, which resulted in the total costs of the RTW-intervention. For the Dutch societal perspective, the productivity gains equal the number of patients who follow the intervention multiplied with the additional yearly working time generated and with the hourly productivity costs. For the cancer centre’s perspective, the benefit consists of receiving reimbursed from the health insurer for delivering RTW to the 10 % of the patients indicated for multidisciplinary rehabilitation Fig. 2.Fig. 1

Bottom Line: The allocation of the expected costs and financial benefits for each of the stakeholders involved was compared between the Netherlands, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden.The BI for the Netherlands was €-14.7 m in 2015, rising to €-71.1 m in 2020, thus the intervention is cost-saving as the productivity benefits outweigh the intervention costs.Across European countries, we observed differences regarding the extent to which stakeholders either invest or receive a share of the benefits from offering a RTW-intervention.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands. j.c.mewes@utwente.nl.

ABSTRACT

Background: Return-to-work (RTW)-interventions support cancer survivors in resuming work, but come at additional healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to assess the budget impact of a RTW-intervention, consisting of counselling sessions with an occupational physician and an exercise-programme. The secondary objective was to explore how the costs of RTW-interventions and its financial revenues are allocated among the involved stakeholders in several EU-countries.

Methods: The budget impact (BI) of a RTW-intervention versus usual care was analysed yearly for 2015-2020 from a Dutch societal- and from the perspective of a large cancer centre. The allocation of the expected costs and financial benefits for each of the stakeholders involved was compared between the Netherlands, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden.

Results: The average intervention costs in this case were €1,519/patient. The BI for the Netherlands was €-14.7 m in 2015, rising to €-71.1 m in 2020, thus the intervention is cost-saving as the productivity benefits outweigh the intervention costs. For cancer centres the BI amounts to €293 k in 2015, increasing to €1.1 m in 2020. Across European countries, we observed differences regarding the extent to which stakeholders either invest or receive a share of the benefits from offering a RTW-intervention.

Conclusion: The RTW-intervention is cost-saving from a societal perspective. Yet, the total intervention costs are considerable and, in many European countries, mainly covered by care providers that are not sufficiently reimbursed.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus