{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01920860545524395, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.382352941176471, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Resource allocation issues concerning early palliative care.

BACKGROUND
The concept of early palliative care (ePC) has received enormous recognition in the field of cancer care. Increasing evidence supports this approach, but outside the research arena, the implementation of sustainable clinical concepts rely on solutions for practical problems such as funding issues. Therefore, the article presented here discusses economic considerations associated with different concepts of ePC.


MAIN POINTS
The specialist approach: the most frequently cited ePC trials assessing examine the concurrent provision of specialist palliative care in addition to routine care. Most of this specialist palliative care has been provided by multiprofessional teams in an outpatient setting of tertiary care centers. A number of the research groups have also provided data about the resource utilizations of this approach. From this, a rough estimate of the cost of early specialist palliative care can be derived. Yet, in many parts of North-America, Europe and other regions, funding modes for such outpatient specialist palliative care is non-existent. Recent studies have pointed out that ePC for inpatients is associated with cost-savings. These cost savings are even more pronounced the earlyer specialist palliative care is integrated in the care for the patients. Strengthening of general palliative care: most institutions recommend that palliative care as an approach should be strengthened as a part of standard care. To accomplish this, different measures such as teaching of general palliative care competencies of oncology teams, routine symptom assessment or the mandatory implementation of advanced care planning in care trajectories are being promoted. Due to the heterogeneity of these approaches, cost calculations are difficult, but can be weight against cost-saving estimated associated with for example less utilization of futile diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.


CONCLUSIONS
Researchers, health care providers and policy makers need to distinguish the different concepts behind ePC before providing cost estimates. Detailed information is provided in this article. From our view, it is evident that neither of the two approaches (general vs. specialist) can be a one-or-the-other choice. Successful ePC will most likely rely on a joint effort of all medical disciplines and profession in close cooperation and early integration of specialist PC services. For such an approach, additional resources may be necessary, but from the public health perspective, cost-savings can also be assumed.