Onco@home: comparing the costs and reimbursement of cancer treatment at home with the standard of care

• Main Authors: Sarah Misplon (Author), Wim Marneffe (Author), Jana Missiaen (Author), Dries Myny (Author), Inge Decock (Author), Steve Lervant (Author), Koen Vaneygen (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2024-06-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s13690-024-01317-1; 2049-3258
• Keywords: Cost analysis; Micro-costing; Health insurance; Home Hospitalization; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: Archives of Public Health, Vol 82, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2024)

Abstract Background Oncological home hospitalization (HH) was implemented in a Belgian context to evaluate the feasibility of oncological HH. In a first HH model (HH1), implemented by three Belgian hospitals, two home nursing organizations and a grouping of independent nurses, the blood draw and monitoring prior to intravenous therapy was performed by a trained home nurse at the patient's home the day before the visit to the day hospital. In a second HH model (HH2), implemented in one hospital, the administration of two subcutaneous treatments (Azacitidine and Bortezomib) for myelodysplastic syndrome and multiple myeloma were provided at home instead of in the hospital. A previous study on this pilot showed that oncological HH is feasible and safe and improves the Quality of Life. The aim of this study is to investigate the cost and reimbursement of cancer treatment in these two HH models compared to the Standard of Care (SOC). Methods A bottom-up micro-costing study was conducted to compare the costs and revenues for the providers (hospitals and home care organizations) of the SOC and the HH models. Results Costs associated to HH were higher than the SOC in the hospital. Comparing revenues with costs, the research revealed that the reimbursement from the National Health Insurance of HH for oncological patients is insufficient. In HH1, costs were higher than in the SOC (+ €50.4). There was a reduction in costs in the hospital by moving the blood draw to the home setting (-€23.9), but the costs in home care were higher (+ €74.3). The extra revenues in home care (+ €33.6) were insufficient to cover the costs. The cost difference between the SOC and HH2 (+ €9.5 for Azacetidine) was smaller than in HH1. But, there was almost no funding for subcutaneous administration in home care. If the product is administered in a day hospital, the hospital receives a revenue of €124 per administration, while in home care the funding is €5 per visit. Conclusion Costs of HH are higher and the reimbursement from Belgian NHI is insufficient to organize HH. As a result, HH for oncology patient is still limited in Belgium.