Comparing Mortality of Peritoneal and Hemodialysis Patients in an Era of Medicare Payment Reform

System-Level Strategies to Improve Home Dialysis: Policy Levers and Quality Initiatives

Advocacy and policy change are powerful levers to improve quality of care and better support patients on home dialysis. While the kidney community increasingly recognizes the value of home dialysis as an option for patients who prioritize independence and flexibility, only a minority of patients dialyze at home in the United States. Complex system-level factors have restricted further growth in home dialysis modalities, including limited infrastructure, insufficient staff for patient education and training, patient-specific barriers, and suboptimal physician expertise. In this article, we outline trends in home dialysis use, review our evolving understanding of what constitutes high-quality care for the home dialysis population (as well as how this can be measured), and discuss policy and advocacy efforts that continue to shape the care of US patients and compare them with experiences in other countries. We conclude by discussing future directions for quality and advocacy efforts.

An update on absolute and relative indications for dialysis treatment modalities

Background

Choosing a dialysis modality is an important decision for people to make as their kidney failure progresses. In doing so, their options should be informed by any absolute or relative indications that may favour one modality over another.

Methods

In creating this update, we reviewed literature using a framework that considered first, high-level outcomes (survival and modality transition) from large registry data and cohort studies when considering optimal patient pathways; second, factors at a dialysis provider level that might affect relative indications; and third, specific patient-level factors. Both main types of dialysis modality, peritoneal (PD) and haemodialysis (HD), and their subtypes were considered.

Results

For most people starting dialysis, survival is independent of modality, including those with diabetes. Better survival is seen in those with less comorbidity starting with PD or home HD, reflecting continued improvements over recent decades that have been greater than improvements seen for centre HD. There are provider-level differences in the perceived relative indications for home dialysis that appear to reflect variability in experience, prejudice, enthusiasm, and support for patients and carers. Absolute contraindications are uncommon and, in most cases, where modality prejudice exists, e.g. obesity, Adult Polycystic Kidney Disease, and social factors, this is not supported by reported outcomes.

Conclusion

Absolute contraindications to a particular dialysis modality are rare. Relative indications for or against particular modalities should be considered but are rarely more important than patient preferences.

A Comparison of US Medicare Expenditures for Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis

BACKGROUND

Observations that peritoneal dialysis (PD) may be an effective, lower-cost alternative to hemodialysis for the treatment of ESKD have led to policies encouraging PD and subsequent increases in its use in the United States.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort analysis of Medicare beneficiaries who started dialysis between 2008 and 2015, we ascertained average annual expenditures (for up to 3 years after initiation of dialysis) for patients ≥67 years receiving in-center hemodialysis or PD. We also determined whether differences in Medicare expenditures across dialysis modalities persisted as more patients were placed on PD. We used propensity scores to match 8305 patients initiating PD with 8305 similar patients initiating hemodialysis.

RESULTS

Overall average expenditures were US$108,656 (2017) for hemodialysis and US$91,716 for PD (proportionate difference, 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.13). This difference did not change over time (P for time interaction term=0.14). Hemodialysis had higher estimated intravenous (iv) dialysis drug costs (1.69; 95% CI, 1.64 to 1.73), rehabilitation expenditures (1.35; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.45), and other nondialysis expenditures (1.34; 95% CI, 1.30 to 1.37). Over time, initial differences in total dialysis expenditures disappeared and differences in iv dialysis drug utilization narrowed as nondialysis expenditures diverged. Estimated iv drug costs declined by US$2900 per patient-year in hemodialysis between 2008 and 2014 versus US$900 per patient-year in PD.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the Medicare program, savings associated with PD in patients ≥67 years have remained unchanged, despite rapid growth in the use of this dialysis modality. Total dialysis expenditures for the two modalities converged over time, whereas nondialysis expenditures diverged.

Intervening to eliminate the centre-effect variation in home dialysis use: protocol for Inter-CEPt-a sequential mixed-methods study designing an intervention bundle

INTRODUCTION

Use of home dialysis by centres in the UK varies considerably and is decreasing despite attempts to encourage greater use. Knowing what drives this unwarranted variation requires in-depth understanding of centre cultural and organisational factors and how these relate to quantifiable centre performance, accounting for competing treatment options. This knowledge will be used to identify components of a practical and feasible intervention bundle ensuring this is realistic and cost-effective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Underpinned by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread and sustainability framework, our research will use an exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach. Insights from multisited focused team ethnographic and qualitative research at four case study sites will inform development of a national survey of 52 centres. Survey results, linked to patient-level data from the UK Renal Registry, will populate a causal graph describing patient and centre-level factors, leading to uptake of home dialysis and multistate models incorporating patient-level treatment modality history and mortality. This will inform a contemporary economic evaluation of modality cost-effectiveness that will quantify how modification of factors facilitating home dialysis, identified from the ethnography and survey, might yield the greatest improvements in costs, quality of life and numbers on home therapies. Selected from these factors, using the capability, opportunity and motivation for behaviour change framework (COM-B) for intervention design, the optimal intervention bundle will be developed through workshops with patients and healthcare professionals to ensure acceptability and feasibility. Patient and public engagement and involvement is embedded throughout the project.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority reference 20-WA-0249. The intervention bundle will comprise components for all stake holder groups: commissioners, provider units, recipients of dialysis, their caregivers and families. To reache all these groups, a variety of knowledge exchange methods will be used: short guides, infographics, case studies, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, patient conferences, 'Getting it Right First Time' initiative, Clinical Reference Group (dialysis).