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

Janne C. Mewes; Lotte M.G. Steuten; Iris F. Groeneveld; Angela G.E.M. de Boer; Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen; Maarten J. IJzerman; Wim H. van Harten

doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1912-7

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

Janne C. Mewes
, Lotte M.G. Steuten
, Iris F. Groeneveld
, Angela G.E.M. de Boer
, Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen
, Maarten J. IJzerman
, Wim H. van Harten^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

University of Twente
University of Washington
Rijnlands Rehabilitation Centre
Sophia Rehabilitation Center (The Hague)
University of Amsterdam
Netherlands Cancer Institute

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

19 Citations (Scopus)

6 Downloads (Pure)

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 €-14.7m in 2015, rising to €-71.1m in 2020, thus the intervention is cost-saving as the productivity benefits outweigh the intervention costs. For cancer centres the BI amounts to €293k in 2015, increasing to €1.1m 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.

Original language	English
Article number	899
Journal	BMC Cancer
Volume	15
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1912-7
Publication status	Published - 12 Nov 2015
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This study is part of the A-CaRe Program, www.a-care.org. The authors acknowledge the A-CaRe2Move Research Group. This study is funded by Alpe d’HuZes, a foundation which is part of the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding). The work of Angela de Boer is supported by EUCost IS1211. The authors are thankful to the following cancer centres for filling in the survey: Oncology Centre UZ Brussels, Belgium; Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; University Cancer Center Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany; Regina Elena Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy; Azienda Ospedaliera Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy; Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS “Fondazione G.Pascale”, Naples, Italy; Karolinska University Hospital and Institute, Department of Oncology, Sweden; Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK.

Funding Information:
This study was funded by Alpe d’HuZes, a foundation which is part of the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding). Alpe d’HuZes did not have any role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit this paper for publication.

Funding Information:
Lotte M.G. Steuten reports grants from Roche Diagnostics, ThermoFisher Scientific, and Nucletron/Elektra, outside of the submitted work. Janne C. Mewes, Iris F. Groeneveld, Angela G.E.M. de Boer, Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen, Maarten J. IJzerman and Wim H. van Harten have nothing to disclose.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Mewes et al.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Access to Document

10.1186/s12885-015-1912-7Licence: CC BY

Return-to-work intervention for cancer survivors, budget impact and allocation of costs and returns in the Netherlands and six major EU-countriesFinal published version, 1.05 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{17756ff2122d4a058723115934882245,

title = "Return-to-work intervention for cancer survivors: Budget impact and allocation of costs and returns in the Netherlands and six major EU-countries",

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 €-14.7m in 2015, rising to €-71.1m in 2020, thus the intervention is cost-saving as the productivity benefits outweigh the intervention costs. For cancer centres the BI amounts to €293k in 2015, increasing to €1.1m 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.",

author = "Mewes, \{Janne C.\} and Steuten, \{Lotte M.G.\} and Groeneveld, \{Iris F.\} and \{de Boer\}, \{Angela G.E.M.\} and Frings-Dresen, \{Monique H.W.\} and IJzerman, \{Maarten J.\} and \{van Harten\}, \{Wim H.\}",

note = "Funding Information: This study is part of the A-CaRe Program, www.a-care.org. The authors acknowledge the A-CaRe2Move Research Group. This study is funded by Alpe d{\textquoteright}HuZes, a foundation which is part of the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding). The work of Angela de Boer is supported by EUCost IS1211. The authors are thankful to the following cancer centres for filling in the survey: Oncology Centre UZ Brussels, Belgium; Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; University Cancer Center Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany; Regina Elena Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy; Azienda Ospedaliera Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy; Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS “Fondazione G.Pascale”, Naples, Italy; Karolinska University Hospital and Institute, Department of Oncology, Sweden; Guy{\textquoteright}s and St Thomas{\textquoteright} NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK. Funding Information: This study was funded by Alpe d{\textquoteright}HuZes, a foundation which is part of the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding). Alpe d{\textquoteright}HuZes did not have any role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit this paper for publication. Funding Information: Lotte M.G. Steuten reports grants from Roche Diagnostics, ThermoFisher Scientific, and Nucletron/Elektra, outside of the submitted work. Janne C. Mewes, Iris F. Groeneveld, Angela G.E.M. de Boer, Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen, Maarten J. IJzerman and Wim H. van Harten have nothing to disclose. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2015 Mewes et al.",

year = "2015",

month = nov,

day = "12",

doi = "10.1186/s12885-015-1912-7",

language = "English",

volume = "15",

journal = "BMC Cancer",

issn = "1471-2407",

publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Return-to-work intervention for cancer survivors

T2 - Budget impact and allocation of costs and returns in the Netherlands and six major EU-countries

AU - Mewes, Janne C.

AU - Steuten, Lotte M.G.

AU - Groeneveld, Iris F.

AU - de Boer, Angela G.E.M.

AU - Frings-Dresen, Monique H.W.

AU - IJzerman, Maarten J.

AU - van Harten, Wim H.

N1 - Funding Information: This study is part of the A-CaRe Program, www.a-care.org. The authors acknowledge the A-CaRe2Move Research Group. This study is funded by Alpe d’HuZes, a foundation which is part of the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding). The work of Angela de Boer is supported by EUCost IS1211. The authors are thankful to the following cancer centres for filling in the survey: Oncology Centre UZ Brussels, Belgium; Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; University Cancer Center Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany; Regina Elena Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy; Azienda Ospedaliera Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy; Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS “Fondazione G.Pascale”, Naples, Italy; Karolinska University Hospital and Institute, Department of Oncology, Sweden; Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK. Funding Information: This study was funded by Alpe d’HuZes, a foundation which is part of the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding). Alpe d’HuZes did not have any role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit this paper for publication. Funding Information: Lotte M.G. Steuten reports grants from Roche Diagnostics, ThermoFisher Scientific, and Nucletron/Elektra, outside of the submitted work. Janne C. Mewes, Iris F. Groeneveld, Angela G.E.M. de Boer, Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen, Maarten J. IJzerman and Wim H. van Harten have nothing to disclose. Publisher Copyright: © 2015 Mewes et al.

PY - 2015/11/12

Y1 - 2015/11/12

N2 - 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 €-14.7m in 2015, rising to €-71.1m in 2020, thus the intervention is cost-saving as the productivity benefits outweigh the intervention costs. For cancer centres the BI amounts to €293k in 2015, increasing to €1.1m 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.

AB - 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 €-14.7m in 2015, rising to €-71.1m in 2020, thus the intervention is cost-saving as the productivity benefits outweigh the intervention costs. For cancer centres the BI amounts to €293k in 2015, increasing to €1.1m 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.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84946739775

U2 - 10.1186/s12885-015-1912-7

DO - 10.1186/s12885-015-1912-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 26560707

AN - SCOPUS:84946739775

SN - 1471-2407

VL - 15

JO - BMC Cancer

JF - BMC Cancer

IS - 1

M1 - 899

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this