Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early integration of palliative care into the management of patients with serious disease has the potential to both improve quality of life of patients and families and reduce healthcare costs. Despite these benefits, significant barriers exist in the United States to the early integration of palliative care in the disease trajectory of individuals with serious illness. Aim: To provide an overview of the barriers to more widespread palliative care integration in the United States. Design and data sources: A literature review using PubMed from 2005 to March 2015 augmented by primary data collected from 405 hospitals included in the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s National Palliative Care Registry for years 2012 and 2013. We use the World Health Organization’s Public Health Strategy for Palliative Care as a framework for analyzing barriers to palliative care integration. Results: We identified key barriers to palliative care integration across three World Health Organization domains: (1) education domain: lack of adequate education/training and perception of palliative care as end-of-life care; (2) implementation domain: inadequate size of palliative medicine–trained workforce, challenge of identifying patients appropriate for palliative care referral, and need for culture change across settings; (3) policy domain: fragmented healthcare system, need for greater funding for research, lack of adequate reimbursement for palliative care, and regulatory barriers. Conclusion: We describe the key policy and educational opportunities in the United States to address and potentially overcome the barriers to greater integration of palliative care into the healthcare of Americans with serious illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) endorses integrated palliative care which has a significant impact on quality of life and satisfaction with care. Effective integration between hospices, palliative care services, hospitals and primary care services are required to support patients with palliative care needs. Studies have indicated that little is known about which aspects are regarded as most important and should be priorities for international implementation. The Integrated Palliative Care in cancer and chronic conditions (InSup-C) project, aimed to investigate integrated practices in Europe and to formulate requirements for effective palliative care integration. It aimed to develop recommendations, and to agree priorities, for integrated palliative care linked to the InSuP-C project. Methods: Transparent expert consultation was adopted at the approach used. Data were collected in two phases: 1) international transparent expert consultation using face-to-face roundtable discussions at a one day workshop in Brussels, and 2) via subsequent online cross-sectional survey where items were rated to indicate degree of agreement on their importance and ranked to indicate priority for implementation. Workshop discussions used content analysis to develop a list of 23 recommendations, which formed the survey questionnaire. Survey analysis used descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis of open responses. Results: Thirty-six international experts in palliative care and cancer care, including senior clinicians, researchers, leaders of relevant international organisations and funders, were invited to a face-to-face workshop. Data were collected from 33 (19 men, 14 women), 3 declined. They mostly came from European countries (31), USA (1) and Australia (1). Twenty one of them also completed the subsequent online survey (response rate 63%). We generated 23 written statements that were grouped into the organisational constructs: macro (10), meso (6) and micro (7) levels of integration of palliative care. Highest priority recommendations refer to education, leadership and policy-making, medium priority recommendations focused on funding and relationship-building, and lower priority recommendations related to improving systems and infrastructure. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that amongst a group of international experts there was overall good agreement on the importance of recommendations for integrated palliative care. Understanding expert's priorities is important and can guide practice, policymaking and future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]