For-profit versus not-for-profit dialysis care for children with end stage renal disease

Privatization and Oligopolies of the Renal Replacement Therapy Sector on Contemporary Capitalism: A Systematic Review and the Brazilian Scenario

Worldwide the assistance on renal replacement therapy (RRT) is carried out mainly by private for-profit services and in a market with increase in mergers and acquisitions. The aim of this study was to conduct an integrative systematic review on privatization and oligopolies in the RRT sector in the context of contemporary capitalism. The inclusion criteria were scientific articles without language restrictions and that addressed the themes of oligopoly or privatization of RRT market. Studies published before 1990 were excluded. The exploratory search for publications was carried out on February 13, 2024 on the Virtual Health Library Regional Portal (VHL). Using the step-by-step of PRISMA flowchart, 34 articles were retrieved, of which 31 addressed the RRT sector in the United States and 26 compared for-profit dialysis units or those belonging to large organizations with non-profit or public ones. The main effects of privatization and oligopolies, evaluated by the studies, were: mortality, hospitalization, use of peritoneal dialysis and registration for kidney transplantation. When considering these outcomes, 19 (73%) articles showed worse results in private units or those belonging to large organizations, six (23%) studies were in favor of privatization or oligopolies and one study was neutral (4%). In summary, most of the articles included in this systematic review showed deleterious effects of oligopolization and privatization of the RRT sector on the patients served. Possible explanations for this result could be the presence of conflicts of interest in the RRT sector and the lack of incentive to implement the chronic kidney disease care line. The predominance of articles from a single nation may suggest that few countries have transparent mechanisms to monitor the quality of care and outcomes of patients on chronic dialysis.

The influence of facility ownership structure on individual responding to stress: a multilevel model

Few studies have investigated the effect of health-care facility ownership on the relationship between patient stressors and coping strategies. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether haemodialysis (HD) patient stressors and coping strategies differ by type of health-care facility ownership, and whether such ownership has a cross-level moderating effect between stressors and coping strategies. We used the Haemodialysis Stressor Scale and the Jalowiec Coping Scale; primary data were collected by interviewing 2642 HD patients 15 years or older on dialysis for at least three months from 27 HD centres. One-way analysis of variance and hierarchical linear modelling were used to attain the research purposes. HD patients from religious-based hospitals had higher stress related to their physical symptoms, dependency on medical staff, role ambiguity and blood vessel problems than those differently owned facilities. Patients in veterans and army (VA) hospitals had higher stress related to food and fluid restriction and dependency on medical staff than private centres. Patients in religious-based hospitals had significantly higher coping scores, followed by VA and private HD centres. Religion-based ownership might serve as a cross-level moderator for patients perceiving role ambiguity stress and using problem-oriented, support seeking and isolated thought-coping strategies.

Assessment of nutritional status among ESRD patients in Jordanian hospitals

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to assess nutritional status and compare quality of treatment among hemodialysis patients in public and private hospitals in Jordan.

DESIGN

We utilized a cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Our setting involved hospital hemodialysis units.

PATIENTS

This study was undertaken in five large Jordanian hospitals between 2004 and 2005. One hundred and eighty participants diagnosed with end-stage renal failure (ESRD) were enrolled. These participants (91 women and 89 men) who underwent hemodialysis treatment were recruited using a convenience sampling technique. Data from participants who received hemodialysis treatment in public hospital settings were compared with equivalent data from participants treated in private hospital settings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Subjective global assessment (SGA), anthropometry, and biochemical measurements were used as evaluative tools.

RESULTS

In the anthropometric measurement of triceps skinfold thickness (TSF), we found a statistically significant difference (P < .05) between participants treated in the two hospital settings. In addition, approximately 62% of all participants, regardless of treatment site, were found to be moderately to severely malnourished. Anthropometric measurements showed some significant increase between prehemodialysis and posthemodialysis weight and body mass index in private hospitals; this was not unexpected. There were no statistically significant differences in the measured mean levels of eight different biochemical parameters, with the exception of plasma phosphorus and sodium levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of malnutrition and the quality of treatment in our two groups of participants were similar.

Cost-quality trade-offs in dialysis care: a national survey of dialysis facility administrators

Dialysis facilities face important trade-offs between cost and quality under constrained capitated reimbursement. How management at dialysis facilities makes decisions affecting cost and quality of care and views opportunities and threats is unknown. We conducted a national survey of dialysis facility administrators. We asked administrators what changes they would make in response to increases or decreases in reimbursement, their views on linking dialysis care payment to quality-of-care measures, and their views on providing patients with treatment options and outcomes information. One hundred fifty-seven of 280 dialysis facility administrators (56%) responded. If dialysis reimbursement were to increase by 20%, the five most common responses were to: improve patient education programs (62% of respondents), improve facility amenities (42%), purchase new equipment (30%), provide more money for staff salaries (28%), and increase number of nursing staff (21%). Conversely, if dialysis reimbursement were to decrease by 20%, the most common responses were to: limit staff salary (45% of respondents), decrease nursing staff (41%), not replace dialysis equipment (43%), increase dialyzer reuse (37%), and return less to investors (36%). Differences in rank order of responses were observed according to professional training of the administrator and profit status of the facility. Administrators uniformly believe that it is very acceptable to provide facility-specific outcomes data to the public, as well as information on modalities of treatment provided by facilities. However, administrators varied in their views regarding whether reimbursement should be based on quality by using a process-of-care measure, such as the average dose of dialysis, or an outcome-of-care measure, such as case-mix-adjusted mortality rates. We conclude that increases in facility reimbursement generally would be used by dialysis facility administrators for the benefit of patients, whereas decreases (or inflation erosion) in payment rates might compromise staffing. US dialysis administrators support sharing treatment options and outcomes information with patients, but appear to be ambivalent with regard to linking reimbursement to adequacy of dialysis or patient outcomes. These results have important implications regarding proposed changes in the US capitated dialysis payment rate and current efforts to empower consumers of dialysis care.

Ownership type and community benefits of women's health centers

An important aspect of the changing health care system is the growth of women's health centers--organizations that design and deliver services to women. This growth has generated interest in the behavior of centers, especially because of increasing awareness of women's health issues. Using data from the 1994 National Survey of Women's Health Centers, the authors examined the association between ownership of centers and 12 measures of community benefits, and 296 nonprofit and 108 for-profit centers were compared. Overall, the nonprofits performed better than the for-profits in terms of serving underserved women, delivering comprehensive primary care services, providing training for health professionals and education services for clients and the community, and involving the community in center governance. Among women's health centers, the results show that ownership matters, and indicate the importance of supporting providers who serve the underserved and developing a standard of community benefits.