Persistent Variation in Medicare Payment Authorization for Home Hemodialysis Treatments

Claim Denials for Cancer-Related Next-Generation Sequencing in Medicare

Importance

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented a National Coverage Determination (NCD) for genetic testing using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in March 2018 and amended it in January 2020. Little is known about how often NGS insurance claims are denied and what factors are associated with these denials.

Objective

To examine the prevalence of and factors associated with claim denials for NGS testing among Medicare enrollees.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used a 20% random sample of Medicare claims data from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021. Statistical analysis took place from June to October 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Claim denials were measured based on payment and denial data. Multivariable logistic regression models were estimated with patient and claim characteristics, including testing type, testing site, and time period indicators reflecting the presence and scope of the NCD: no NCD (period 1), first NCD (period 2), and amended NCD (period 3).

Results

The study sample included 29 919 cancer-related NGS claims among 24 443 unique Medicare beneficiaries (51.8% males; 44.7% aged >75 years). The number of cancer-related NGS testing claims increased from 1912 in 2016 to 9177 in 2021. Claim denial occurred among 23.3% of the NGS claims in the sample. The claim denial rate was 16.8% before the NCD, 20.3% after the implementation of the NCD in 2018, and 27.4% after the amended NCD in 2020. Claims for NGS testing were more likely to be denied if they were performed in independent laboratories (odds ratio [OR], 2.76 [95% CI, 2.58-2.95]; P < .001) or other nonhospital sites (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 2.12-3.07]; P < .001) vs a hospital or if they were for 50 or more genes vs 50 or fewer genes for solid tumors (OR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.23-1.43]; P < .001). The likelihood of a claim denial was higher in both time periods after the original 2018 NCD compared with before the NCD (period 2: OR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.10-1.36]; P < .001; period 3: OR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.49-1.80]; P < .001). The claim denial likelihood for period 3 was significantly higher than period 2 (OR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.24-1.44]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of cancer-related NGS testing claims among Medicare enrollees, denial rates varied by testing type and testing site and increased over time. The findings suggest the continued existence of uncertainty regarding coverage for NGS, despite the NCD. Policy approaches to further reduce uncertainty regarding NGS coverage and raise awareness of potential financial liability warrant consideration.

Economic Impact of Home Hemodialysis

Home hemodialysis (HD) is growing in the United States, but the economics of the modality are largely unknown, especially considering the unique aspects of home HD in the United States . In this review, I focus on details of Medicare coverage, which directly applies to most patients on dialysis and influences the policies of private insurers. Key details in Medicare comprise the relationship between home dialysis training and initial Medicare eligibility, reimbursement for home HD training, coverage of additional HD treatments (ie., in excess of 3 treatments per week), and monthly capitated payments to nephrologists. The overarching narrative is that frequent home HD directly increases Medicare costs for outpatient dialysis, but these added costs can be mitigated by lower inpatient expenditures if increased HD treatment frequency lowers the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and infection control is emphasized. I also review recent international literature; conventional home HD exhibits a superior cost profile, whereas frequent home HD is generally cost-effective over multiple treatment years (ie, if early technique failure is avoided). Out-of-pocket expenses for patients should be considered. The future economics of home HD in the United States will be determined by new equipment, new adaptations of the modality, and new payment models.

Paying for Frequent Dialysis

In late 2017, the 7 regional contractors responsible for paying dialysis claims in Medicare proposed new payment rules that would restrict payment for hemodialysis treatments in excess of 3 weekly to exceptional acute-care circumstances. Frequent hemodialysis is performed more frequently than the traditional thrice-weekly pattern, and many stakeholders-patients, providers, dialysis machine manufacturers, and others-have expressed concern that these payment rules will inhibit the growth of this treatment modality's use among US dialysis patients. In this Perspective, we explain the role of these contractors in the context of Medicare's in-center hemodialysis-centric dialysis payment system and assess how well this system accommodates the higher treatment frequencies of both peritoneal dialysis and frequent hemodialysis. Then, given the available evidence concerning the relative effectiveness of these modalities versus thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis and trends in their use, we discuss options for modifying Medicare's payment system to support frequent dialysis.