Association of a Lay Health Worker Intervention With Symptom Burden, Survival, Health Care Use, and Total Costs Among Medicare Enrollees With Cancer

Abstract

Importance: Undertreated patient symptoms require approaches that improve symptom burden.

Objective: To determine the association of a lay health worker-led symptom screening and referral intervention with symptom burden, survival, health care use, and total costs among Medicare Advantage enrollees with a new diagnosis of solid or hematologic malignant neoplasms.

Design, setting, and participants: This quality improvement study conducted at 9 community oncology practices from November 1, 2016, to October 31, 2018, compared newly diagnosed Medicare Advantage enrollees with solid or hematologic malignant neoplasms with patients diagnosed and treated 1 year prior. Analysis was conducted from August 1, 2019, to January 11, 2020.

Interventions: Usual care augmented by a lay health worker trained to screen symptoms and refer patients to palliative care and behavioral medicine.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was change in symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire at baseline and 6 and 12 months after enrollment. Secondary outcomes were between-group comparison of survival, 12-month health care use, and costs.

Results: Among 425 patients in the intervention group and 407 patients in the control group, the mean (SD) age was 78.8 (8.3) years, 345 (41.5%) were female, and 407 (48.9%) were non-Hispanic white. Patients in the intervention group experienced a lower symptom burden as measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale score over time compared with patients in the control group (mean [SD] difference, -1.9 [14.2]; 95% CI, -3.77 to -0.19; P = .01 for the intervention group and 2.32 [17.7]; 95% CI, 0.47 to 4.19; P = .02 for the control group). Similar findings were noted in 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scores (mean [SD] difference, -0.63 [3.99]; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.028; P = .04 for the intervention group and 1.67 [5.49]; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P = .01 for the control group). Patients in the intervention group compared with patients in the control group had fewer mean (SD) inpatient visits (0.54 [0.77]; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61 vs 0.72 [1.12]; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83; P = .04) and emergency department visits (0.43 [0.76]; 95% CI, 0.36-0.50 vs 0.57 [1.00]; 95% CI, 0.48-0.67; P = .002) per 1000 patients per year and lower total costs (median, $17 869 [interquartile range, $6865-$32 540] vs median, $18 473 [interquartile range, $6415-$37 910]; P = .02). A total of 180 patients in the intervention group and 189 patients in the control group died within 12 months. Among those who died, patients in the intervention group had greater hospice use (125 of 180 [69.4%] vs 79 of 189 [41.8%]; odds ratio, 3.16; 95% CI, 2.13-4.69; P < .001), fewer mean (SD) emergency department and hospital visits (emergency department: 0.10 [0.30]; 95% CI, 0.06-0.14 vs 0.30 [0.46]; 95% CI, 0.24-0.38; P = .001; hospital: 0.27 [0.44]; 95% CI, 0.21-0.34 vs 0.43 [0.82]; 95% CI, 0.32-0.55; P = .02), and lower costs (median, $3602 [interquartile range, $1076-$9436] vs median, $12 726 [interquartile range, $5259-$22 170]; P = .002), but there was no significant difference in inpatient deaths (18 of 180 [10.0%] vs 30 of 189 [15.9%]; P = .14).

Conclusions and relevance: This study suggests that a lay health worker-led intervention may be one way to improve burdensome and costly care.

Figure 1.. Assessment for Eligibility and Follow-up

Flow diagram of patient flow through the study.

Figure 2.. Mean Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) Scores and Mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) Scores

A, Mean ESAS scores are measured on a numerical scale of 0 (absent) to 10 (worse). B, Mean PHQ-9 scores are measured on a numerical scale of 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day) and scored from 0 to 27 where a score of 5 is a cutpoint for mild depression, a score of 10 is a cutpoint for moderate depression, a score of 15 is a cutpoint for moderately severe depression, and a score of 20 is a cutpoint for severe depression. P < .001 for difference in change in mean symptom scores between groups from baseline to 12-month follow-up.