Home Dialysis in the Prospective Payment System Era

The way home: a scoping review of public health interventions to increase the utilization of home dialysis in chronic kidney disease patients

BACKGROUND

Home dialysis (HoD) remains underutilized, despite evidence showing it provides comparable mortality rates to in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) while offering advantages such as improved quality of life and lower overall costs. This scoping review comprehensively evaluates the effects of public health interventions on the uptake and retention of HoD utilization, including both Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) and Home Hemodialysis (HHD).

METHODS

Relevant studies were searched in the Web of Science, Medline, Embase, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and EconLit databases from their inception through May 2024. Studies were eligible for review if they assessed the effectiveness of public health interventions in terms of utilization and retention rates for general HoD, PD, and HHD.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included, with interventions categorized into three main types: educational programs, service provision improvements, and modifications to payment structures. Our findings indicate that educational interventions-aimed at enhancing knowledge about dialysis options and promoting shared decision-making among patients, families, and healthcare providers-and service provision improvements, such as assisted PD and nephrologist-performed catheter insertions, could significantly increase the initiation, utilization, and retention rates of HoD. However, the impact of payment interventions on HoD outcomes differed across different contexts.

CONCLUSION

Education and service provision enhancements may represent the most effective public health interventions for increasing initiation, utilization, and retention rates of HoD in dialysis-requiring patients. However, these findings are predominantly based on evidence from observational studies; further experimental studies with rigorous methodology are warranted to validate the effectiveness of these interventions in promoting HoD utilization.

Staying home when peritoneal dialysis ends: the integrated home dialysis approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Home dialysis has been promoted for several years for patients starting dialysis. Although incident use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) is increasing in several regions, patients on home dialysis remain at high risk of transfer to facility-hemodialysis (HD). The integrated home dialysis model, where patient start dialysis on PD and eventually transition to HHD when PD cannot be optimally continued has gain interest from dialysis stakeholders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Transfers from PD to HHD are infrequently used among patients ending PD, representing between 2% and 6% of transfers to HD in registry studies. Nonetheless, this approach is associated with several clinical benefits as well as favorable cost-effectiveness.

SUMMARY

In this review, we will present data pertaining to home dialysis and the integrated home dialysis model, with broad discussion of the implementation challenges, including identifying patients who could most benefit from this approach, timely planning of the transitions and challenges relating to unexpected PD endings.

Policy and Payment Decisions on Peritoneal Dialysis in the United States: A Review

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) accounts for a sizable proportion of Medicare spending. Peritoneal dialysis remains an underutilized treatment modality for ESKD despite its quality of life and cost-saving benefits. Medicare policy on reimbursements and patient eligibility for dialysis coverage has been amended numerous times since its inception in 1972. Over the last two decades, Medicare policy on ESKD reimbursements has evolved from a primarily fee-for-service model to a prospective payment system, and within the past few years, it has begun including more experimental payment structures. While prior work has explored the evolution of Medicare's ESKD policy as a whole, we specifically outline the impact of Medicare policy changes on peritoneal dialysis reimbursement rates, uptake by physicians and dialysis facilities, and accessibility to patients. This narrative review offers historical insights, an overview of modern ESKD policy, actionable strategies, and policy opportunities to increase the accessibility of this treatment modality.

Effect of End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System on Utilization of Peritoneal Dialysis in Patients with Kidney Allograft Failure

INTRODUCTION

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced an End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System (PPS) in 2011 to increase the utilization of home dialysis modalities, including peritoneal dialysis (PD). Several studies have shown a significant increase in PD utilization after PPS implementation. However, its impact on patients with kidney allograft failure remains unknown.

METHODS

We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using data from the US Renal Data System (USRDS) that include all adult kidney transplant recipients with allograft failure who started dialysis between 2005 and 2019. We compared the PD utilization in the pre-PPS period (2005–2010) to the fully implemented post-PPS period (2014–2019) for early (within 90 days) and late (91–365 days) PD experience.

RESULTS

A total of 27,507 adult recipients with allograft failure started dialysis during the study period. There was no difference in early PD utilization between the pre-PPS and the post-PPS period in either immediate change (0.3% increase; 95% CI: −1.95%, 2.54%; p = 0.79) or rate of change over time (0.28% increase per year; 95% CI: −0.16%, 0.72%; p = 0.18). Subgroup analyses revealed a trend toward higher PD utilization post-PPS in for-profit and large-volume dialysis units. There was a significant increase in PD utilization in the post-PPS period in units with low PD experience in the pre-PPS period. Similar findings were seen for the late PD experience.

CONCLUSION

PPS did not significantly increase the overall utilization of PD in patients initiating dialysis after allograft failure.

Integrated home dialysis model: facilitating home-to-home transition

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) are the two home dialysis modalities offered to patients. They promote patient autonomy, enhance independence, and are generally associated with better quality of life compared to facility hemodialysis. PD offers some advantages (enhanced flexibility, ability to travel, preservation of residual kidney function, and vascular access sites) but few patients remain on PD indefinitely due to peritonitis and other complications. By contrast, HHD incurs longer and more intensive training combined with increased upfront health costs compared to PD, but is easier to sustain in the long term. As a result, the integrated home dialysis model was proposed to combine the advantages of both home-based dialysis modalities. In this paradigm, patients are encouraged to initiate dialysis on PD and transfer to HHD after PD termination. Available evidence demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this approach and some observational studies have shown that patients who undergo the PD-to-HHD transition have clinical outcomes comparable to patients who initiate dialysis directly on HHD. Nevertheless, the prevalence of PD-to-HHD transfers remains low, reflecting the multiple barriers that prevent the full uptake of home-to-home transitions, notably a lack of awareness about the model, home-care "burnout," clinical inertia after a transfer to facility HD, suboptimal integration of PD and HHD centers, and insufficient funding for home dialysis programs. In this review, we will examine the conceptual advantages and disadvantages of integrated home dialysis, present the evidence that underlies it, identify challenges that prevent its success and finally, propose solutions to increase its adoption.

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.

Home Dialysis in North America: The Current State

There is widespread interest in expanding the uptake of home dialysis in North America. Although kidney transplantation should be the preferred option in eligible patients, home hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) offer cost-effective options for KRT. In this review, the motivation for promoting home dialysis is presented, and the literature supporting it is critically reviewed. Randomized comparisons of home HD and PD with in-center HD have been challenging to conduct and provide only limited information. Nonrandomized studies are heterogeneous in their design and have often yielded conflicting results. They are prone to bias, and this must be carefully considered when evaluating this literature. Home modalities seem to have equivalent clinical outcomes and quality of life when compared with in-center HD. However, the cost of providing home therapies, particularly PD, is lower than conventional, in-center HD. Measures of home dialysis utilization, the philosophy behind their measurement, and important factors to consider when interpreting them are discussed. The importance of understanding measures of home dialysis utilization in the context of rates of kidney failure, the proportion of individuals who opt for conservative care, and rates of kidney transplantation is highlighted, and a framework for proposing targets is presented, using PD as an example.

Hemodialysis Versus Peritoneal Dialysis Drug Expenditures: A Comparison Within the Private Insurance Market

Rationale and Objective

Recent initiatives aim to improve patient satisfaction and autonomy by increasing the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the United States. However, limited knowledge is available about the costs of different dialysis modalities, particularly those incurred by private insurers. In this study, we compared the costs of injectable dialysis drugs (and their oral equivalents) paid by insurers between privately insured patients receiving hemodialysis and PD.

Study Design

A retrospective cohort study.

Setting and Participants

From a private insurance claims database, we identified patients who started receiving PD or in-center hemodialysis between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020.

Exposure

Patients started receiving PD.

Outcomes

Average annual injectable drug and aggregate expenditures and expenditure subcategories.

Analytical Approach

Patients who started receiving PD were propensity matched to similar patients who started receiving hemodialysis based on the year of dialysis initiation, patient demographics, health, geography, and comorbidities. Cost ratios (CRs) were estimated from generalized linear models.

Results

We matched 284 privately insured patients who started receiving PD 1:1 with patients started receiving in-center hemodialysis. The average annual injectable drug expenditures for hemodialysis were 2-fold higher (CR: 1.99; 95% CI, 1.62-2.44) than that for PD. Compared those receiving PD, patients receiving hemodialysis incurred significantly lower nondrug dialysis-related expenditures (0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.94). The average annual expenditures for non-dialysis-dependent outpatient services were significantly higher among patients who underwent in-center hemodialysis (CR: 1.44; 95% CI, 1.10-1.90). Although aggregate and inpatient hospitalization expenditures were higher for in-center hemodialysis, these differences did not reach statistical significance.

Limitations

Small sample sizes may have restricted our ability to identify differences in some cost categories.

Conclusions

Compared with privately insured patients who started receiving PD, patients starting in-center hemodialysis incurred higher expenditures for injectable dialysis drugs, whereas differences in other expenditure categories varied. Recent increases in the use of PD may lead to reductions in injectable dialysis drug costs among privately insured patients.

Plain Language Summary

Recent initiatives aim to improve patient satisfaction and autonomy by increasing the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the United States. However, limited knowledge is available about the costs of different dialysis modalities, particularly those incurred by private insurers. In this study, we compared the costs of injectable dialysis drugs (and their oral equivalents) provided by insurers between privately insured patients receiving hemodialysis and PD. We found that the average annual injectable drug expenditures for hemodialysis were 2.0-fold higher compared with those for PD. These findings suggest that the recent increase in the use of PD may lead to reductions in injectable dialysis drug costs among privately insured patients.

Payment systems for dialysis and their effects: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

End stage renal disease (ESRD) is a major health concern and a large drain on healthcare resources. A wide range of payment methods are used for management of ESRD. The main aim of this study is to identify current payment methods for dialysis and their effects.

METHOD

In this scoping review Pubmed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched from 2000 until 2021 using appropriate search strategies. Retrieved articles were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria. Data about the study characteristics and study results were extracted by a pre-structured data extraction form; and were analyzed by a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine articles were included, the majority of them were published after 2011 (66%); all of them were from high and upper middle-income countries, especially USA (64% of papers). Fee for services, global budget, capitation (bundled) payments, and pay for performance (P4P) were the main reimbursement methods for dialysis centers; and FFS, salary, and capitation were the main methods to reimburse the nephrologists. Countries have usually used a combination of methods depending on their situations; and their methods have been further developed over time specially from the retrospective payment systems (RPS) towards the prospective payment systems (PPS) and pay for performance methods. The main effects of the RPS were undertreatment of unpaid and inexpensive services, and over treatment of payable services. The main effects of the PPS were cost saving, shifting the service cost outside the bundle, change in quality of care, risk of provider, and modality choice.

CONCLUSION

This study provides useful insights about the current payment systems for dialysis and the effects of each payment system; that might be helpful for improving the quality and efficiency of healthcare.

Association Between Nephrologist Ownership of Dialysis Facilities and Clinical Outcomes

Importance

Ownership of US dialysis facilities presents a financial conflict of interest for nephrologists, who may change their clinical practice to improve facility profitability.

Objective

To investigate the association between nephrologist ownership of freestanding dialysis facilities and clinical outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study was conducted using US Renal Data System data linked to a data set of freestanding nonpediatric dialysis facility owners. Participants were a sample of all adults with fee-for-service Medicare receiving dialysis for end-stage kidney disease from January 2017 to November 2017 at included facilities. Data were analyzed from April 2020 through August 2022.

Exposures

Outcomes associated with nephrologist ownership were assessed using a difference-in-differences analysis comparing the difference in outcomes between patients treated by nephrologist owners and patients treated by nonowners within facilities owned by nephrologists after accounting for differences in patient outcomes between nephrologist owners and nonowners in other facilities.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes plausibly associated with nephrologist ownership were evaluated: (1) treatment volumes (missed treatments and transplant waitlist status); (2) erythropoietin-stimulating agent (ESA) use and related outcomes (anemia, defined as hemoglobin level <10 g/dL, and blood transfusions), (3) quality metrics (mortality, hospitalizations, 30-day readmissions, hemodialysis adequacy, arteriovenous fistula use, and hemodialysis catheter use for ≥3 months), and (4) home dialysis use.

Results

A cohort of 251 651 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [46-85] years; 112 054 [44.5%] women; 9765 Asian [3.9%], 86 837 Black [34.5%], and 148 617 White [59.1%]; 38 938 Hispanic [15.5%]) receiving dialysis for end-stage kidney disease were included. Patient treatment by nephrologist owners at their owned facilities was associated with a 2.4 percentage point (95% CI, 1.1-3.8 percentage points) higher probability of home dialysis, a 2.2 percentage point (95% CI, 3.6-0.7 percentage points) lower probability of receiving an ESA, and no significant difference in anemia or blood transfusions. Patient treatment by nephrologist owners at their owned facilities was not associated with differences in missed treatments, transplant waitlisting, mortality, hospitalizations, 30-day readmissions, hemodialysis adequacy, or fistula or long-term dialysis catheter use.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional cohort study found that nephrologist ownership was associated with increased home dialysis use, decreased ESA use, and no change in anemia or blood transfusions.

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.

Financial Incentives to Facilities and Clinicians Treating Patients With End-stage Kidney Disease and Use of Home Dialysis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Home dialysis rates for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treatment are substantially lower in the US than in other high-income countries, yet there is limited knowledge on how to increase these rates.

Objective

To report results from the first year of a nationwide randomized clinical trial that provides financial incentives to ESKD facilities and managing clinicians to increase home dialysis rates.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Results were analyzed from the first year of the End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choice (ETC) model, a multiyear, mandatory-participation randomized clinical trial designed and implemented by the US Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation. Data were reported on Medicare patients with ESKD 66 years or older who initiated treatment with dialysis in 2021, with data collection through December 31, 2021; the study included all eligible ESKD facilities and managing clinicians. Eligible hospital referral regions (HRRs) were randomly assigned to the ETC (91 HRRs) or a control group (211 HRRs).

Interventions

The ESKD facilities and managing clinicians received financial incentives for home dialysis use.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with ESKD who received any home dialysis during the first 90 days of treatment. Secondary outcomes included other measures of home dialysis and patient volume and characteristics.

Results

Among the 302 HRRs eligible for randomization, 18 621 eligible patients initiated dialysis treatment during the study period (mean [SD] age, 74.8 [1.05] years; 7856 women [42.1%]; 10 765 men [57.9%]; 859 Asian [5.2%], 3280 [17.7%] Black, 730 [4.3%] Hispanic, 239 North American Native, and 12 394 managing clinicians. The mean (SD) share of patients with any home dialysis during the first 90 days was 20.6% (7.8%) in the control group and was 0.12 percentage points higher (95% CI, -1.42 to 1.65 percentage points; P = .88) in the ETC group, a statistically nonsignificant difference. None of the secondary outcomes differed significantly between groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

The trial results found that in the first year of the US Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation-designed ETC model, HRRs assigned to the model did not have statistically significantly different rates in home dialysis compared with control HRRs. This raises questions about the efficacy of the financial incentives provided, although further evaluation is needed, as the size of these incentives will increase in subsequent years.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05005572.

Cost Barriers to More Widespread Use of Peritoneal Dialysis in the United States

The United States Department of Health and Human Services launched the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative in 2019, which included a goal of transforming dialysis care from an in-center to a largely home-based dialysis program. A substantial motivator for this transition is the potential to reduce costs of ESKD care with peritoneal dialysis. Studies demonstrating that peritoneal dialysis is less costly than in-center hemodialysis have often focused on the perspective of the payer, whereas less consideration has been given to the costs of those who are more directly involved in treatment decision making, including patients, caregivers, physicians, and dialysis facilities. We review comparisons of peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis costs, focusing on costs incurred by the people and organizations making decisions about dialysis modality, to highlight the financial barriers toward increased adoption of peritoneal dialysis. We specifically address misaligned economic incentives, underappreciated costs for key stakeholders involved in peritoneal dialysis delivery, differences in provider costs, and transition costs. We conclude by offering policy suggestions that include improving data collection to better understand costs in peritoneal dialysis, and sharing potential savings among all stakeholders, to incentivize a transition to peritoneal dialysis.

Keys to Driving Implementation of the New Kidney Care Models

Contemporary nephrology practice is heavily weighted toward in-center hemodialysis, reflective of decisions on infrastructure and personnel in response to decades of policy. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative seeks to transform care for patients and providers. Under the initiative’s framework, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has launched two new care models that align patient choice with provider incentives. The mandatory ESRD Treatment Choices model requires participation by all nephrology practices in designated Hospital Referral Regions, randomly selecting 30% of all Hospital Referral Regions across the United States for participation, with the remaining Hospital Referral Regions serving as controls. The voluntary Kidney Care Choices model offers alternative payment programs open to nephrology practices throughout the country. To help organize implementation of the models, we developed Driver Diagrams that serve as blueprints to identify structures, processes, and norms, and generate intervention concepts. We focused on two goals that are directly applicable to nephrology practices and central to the incentive structure of the ESRD Treatment Choices and Kidney Care Choices: (1) increasing utilization of home dialysis, and (2) increasing the number of kidney transplants. Several recurring themes became apparent with implementation. Multiple stakeholders from assorted backgrounds are needed. Communication with primary care providers will facilitate timely referrals, education, and comanagement. Nephrology providers (nephrologists, nursing, dialysis organizations, others) must lead implementation. Patient engagement at nearly every step will help achieve the aims of the models. Advocacy with federal and state regulatory agencies will be crucial to expanding home dialysis and transplantation access. Although the models hold promise to improve choices and outcomes for many patients, we must be vigilant that they not do reinforce existing disparities in health care or widen known racial, socioeconomic, or geographic gaps. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative has the potential to usher in a new era of value-based care for nephrology.

Challenging Assumptions of Outcomes and Costs Comparing Peritoneal and Hemodialysis

OBJECTIVES

Policy makers have suggested increasing peritoneal dialysis (PD) would improve end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) outcomes and reduce Medicare spending compared with hemodialysis (HD). We compared mortality, hospitalizations, and Medicare spending between PD and HD among uninsured adults with incident ESKD.

METHODS

Using an instrumental variable design, we exploited a natural experiment encouraging PD among the uninsured. Uninsured patients usually receive Medicare at dialysis month 4. For those initiating PD, Medicare covers the first 3 dialysis months, including predialysis services in the calendar month when dialysis started. Starting dialysis later in a calendar month increases predialysis coverage that is essential for PD catheter placements. The policy encourages PD incrementally when ESKD develops later in the month. Dialysis start day appears to be unrelated to patient characteristics and effectively "randomizes patients" to dialysis modality, mitigating selection bias.

RESULTS

Starting dialysis later in the month was associated with an increased PD uptake: every week later in the month was associated with an absolute increase of 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6%-0.9%) at dialysis day 1 and 0.5% (95% CI 0.3%-0.7%) at dialysis month 12. We observed no significant absolute difference between PD and HD for 12-month mortality (-0.9%, 95% CI -3.3% to 0.8%), hospitalizations during months 7 to 12 (-0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.07), and Medicare spending during months 7 to 12 (-$702, 95% CI -$4004 to $2909).

CONCLUSIONS

In an instrumental variable analysis, PD did not result in improved outcomes or lower costs than HD.

Exploring stakeholders and their requirements in the process of home hemodialysis: A literature review

Providing home hemodialysis (HHD) therapy is a complex process that not only requires the use of a complex technology but also involves a diverse group of stakeholders, and each stakeholder has their requirements and may not share a common interest. Bringing them together will require the alignment of their interests. A process management perspective can help to accomplish the alignment of their interests. To align their interests, it is crucial to identify interest groups and understand their interests. The main objective of this paper is to identify the stakeholders and represents their interests as a list of requirements in the HHD process. An extensive literature review has been carried out and PubMed was used for literature extraction. In total, 1848 articles were retrieved of which 80 have fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A large array of actors is identified and their interests/requirements at different stages of the HHD process are represented in the form of a list. They have both common and conflicting requirements in the HHD process. If these requirements are aligned and balanced, a stakeholder's driven treatment process will be developed and a real improvement will be achieved in the treatment process.

Utilization of CMS pre-ESRD Kidney Disease Education services and its associations with the home dialysis therapies

BACKGROUND

Kidney Disease Education (KDE) has been shown to improve informed dialysis selection and home dialysis use, two long-held but underachieved goals of US nephrology community. In 2010, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched a policy of KDE reimbursements for all Medicare beneficiaries with advanced chronic kidney disease. However, the incorporation of KDE service in real-world practice and its association with the home dialysis utilization has not been examined.

METHODS

Using the 2016 US Renal Data System linked to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and pre-ESRD Medicare claim data, we identified all adult incident ESRD patients with active Medicare benefits at their first-ever dialysis during the study period (1 January 2010 to 31 December 2014). From these, we identified those who had at least one KDE service code before their dialysis initiation (KDE cohort) and compared them to a parsimoniously matched non-KDE control cohort in 1:4 proportions for age, gender, ESRD network, and the year of dialysis initiation. The primary outcome was home dialysis use at dialysis initiation, and secondary outcomes were home dialysis use at day 90 and anytime through the course of ESRD.

RESULTS

Of the 369,968 qualifying incident ESRD Medicare beneficiaries with their first-ever dialysis during the study period, 3469 (0.9%) received KDE services before dialysis initiation. African American race, Hispanic ethnicity, and the presence of congestive heart failure and hypoalbuminemia were associated with significantly lower odds of receiving KDE services. Multivariate analyses showed that KDE recipients had twice the odds of initiating dialysis with home modalities (15.0% vs. 6.9%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR):95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0:1.7-2.4) and had significantly higher odds using home dialysis throughout the course of ESRD (home dialysis use at day 90 (17.6% vs. 9.9%, aOR:CI 1.7:1.4-1.9) and cumulatively (24.7% vs. 15.1%, aOR:CI 1.7:1.5-1.9)).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of pre-ESRD KDE services is associated with significantly greater home dialysis utilization in the incident ESRD Medicare beneficiaries. The very low rates of utilization of these services suggest the need for focused systemic evaluations to identify and address the barriers and facilitators of this important patient-centered endeavor.

Continuation of Peritoneal Dialysis in Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients With Delayed Graft Function

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been used increasingly in past decade. Many of these patients undergo transplantation and may require dialysis for delayed graft function (DGF). The outcomes of DGF based on the post-transplantation dialysis modality are not well known.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all adult kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health who developed DGF between November 2015 and April 2019. Patients were divided into those who received hemodialysis (HD) or PD during the DGF period. Immediate graft explant, DGF among living donor KTRs, or those requiring just a single dialysis treatment were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 224 KTRs with DGF during the study period, 167 fulfilled our selection criteria. There were 16 patients in the PD and 151 in the HD group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except diabetes was more prevalent in the HD group. Five of 16 PD patients had to be transitioned to HD. There was no difference in DGF duration, hospital length of stay, infectious or surgical complications, rejection at various time periods, graft function at last follow-up, or graft failure. In multivariate analysis, only rejection within the first year of transplantation (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20-15.08; P = 0.02) and post-surgical complications (HR: 3.79; 95% CI: 1.03- 13.91; P = 0.04) were associated with death-censored graft failure (DCGF). The use of PD for treatment of DGF was not associated with DCGF.

CONCLUSIONS

In carefully selected patients, PD can be continued safely for DGF without any effect on short-term or long-term transplant outcomes.

Growing home dialysis: The Ontario Renal Network Home Dialysis Initiative 2012-2019

The Ontario Renal Network (ORN), a provincial government agency in Ontario, Canada, launched an initiative in 2012 to increase home dialysis use province-wide. The initiative included a new modality-based funding formula, a standard mandatory informatics system, targets for prevalent home dialysis rates, the development of a 'network' of renal programmes with commitment to home dialysis and a culture of accountability with frequent meetings between ORN and each renal programme leadership to review their results. It also included funding of home dialysis coordinators, encouragement and funding of assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD), and support for catheter insertion and urgent start PD. Between 2012 and 2017, home dialysis use rose from 21.9% to 26.5% and then between 2017 and 2019 stabilised at 26% to 26.5%. Over 7 years, the absolute number of people on home dialysis increased 40% from 2222 to 3105, while the number on facility haemodialysis grew 11% from 7935 to 8767. PD prevalence rose from 16.6% to 20.9%, a relative increase of 25%. The initiative showed that a sustained multifaceted approach can increase home dialysis utilisation.

Anemia management for home dialysis including the new US public policy initiative

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) requiring kidney replacement therapy are often treated in conventional dialysis centers at substantial cost and patient inconvenience. The recent United States Executive Order on Advancing American Kidney Health, in addition to focusing on ESKD prevention and reforming the kidney transplantation system, focuses on providing financial incentives to promote a shift toward home dialysis. In accordance with this order, a goal was set to have 80% of incident dialysis patients receiving home dialysis or a kidney transplant by 2025. Compared with conventional in-center therapy, home dialysis modalities, including both home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, appear to offer equivalent or improved mortality, clinical outcomes, hospitalization rates, and quality of life in patients with ESKD in addition to greater convenience, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness. Treatment of anemia, a common complication of chronic kidney disease, may be easier to manage at home with a new class of agents, hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors, which are orally administered in contrast to the current standard of care of i.v. iron and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. This review evaluates the clinical, quality-of-life, economic, and social aspects of dialysis modalities in patients with ESKD, including during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic; explores new therapeutics for the management of anemia in chronic kidney disease; and highlights how the proposed changes in Advancing American Kidney Health provide an opportunity to improve kidney health in the United States.

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.

Physical Infrastructure and Integrated Governance Structure for Home Hemodialysis

In view of the growing enthusiasm for home dialysis use, new dialysis centers may build or expend their home hemodialysis program in the next few years. This review will discuss the main challenges faced by small and large home hemodialysis programs in terms of physical spaces, human resource, training considerations, and overall governance. We will elaborate on the inclusion of home hemodialysis in the kidney replacement therapy care continuum, with a specific interest for collaboration and transition between peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis programs.

Changes in hemodialysis catheter management after introduction of the end-stage renal disease prospective payment system

Background

We investigated whether implementation of the end-stage renal disease prospective payment system (ESRD PPS) was associated with changes in thrombolytic therapy use and other aspects of catheter management in hemodialysis (HD) patients.

Methods

Using quarterly, period prevalent cohorts of patients undergoing maintenance HD with a catheter in the US Renal Data System (2008–2015), we studied rates of claims for within- and outside-HD-unit thrombolytic use, and thrombus/fibrin sheath removal, and rates of delayed HD treatment after ESRD PPS implementation, January 1, 2011. Associations between PPS implementation and change in trend of rates of each outcome were assessed using covariate-adjusted Poisson regression, using a piecewise linear function for quarter-time (with breakpoint at PPS implementation).

Results

Among an average of 69,428 quarterly catheter users, rates of claims for within-HD-unit thrombolytic use declined from 236.6 (Q1–2008) to 81.4 (Q4–2012) per 100 person-years (P < 0.0001, PPS association with change in trend); rates of claims for thrombus/fibrin sheath removal procedures increased from 3.9 (Q1–2008) to 8.8 (Q3–2015) per 100 person-years (P = 0.0001, PPS association with change in trend). Rates of delayed HD treatment increased from 1.6 (Q2–2008) to 2.3 (Q3–2015) per patient-quarter, although PPS implementation was associated with a decrease in this rising trend (1.6% increase per quarter pre-PPS, 1.2% post-PPS; P < 0.0001, change in trend).

Conclusions

After PPS implementation, thrombolytic use decreased and thrombus/fibrin sheath removal increased. The increasing trend in delayed HD treatment appeared to slow after PPS implementation, but delayed sessions continued to increase year over year for unclear reasons.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-020-02222-9.

KDOQI US Commentary on the 2020 ISPD Practice Recommendations for Prescribing High-Quality Goal-Directed Peritoneal Dialysis

The recently published 2020 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) practice recommendations regarding prescription of high-quality goal-directed peritoneal dialysis differ fundamentally from previous guidelines that focused on "adequacy" of dialysis. The new ISPD publication emphasizes the need for a person-centered approach with shared decision making between the individual performing peritoneal dialysis and the clinical care team while taking a broader view of the various issues faced by that individual. Cognizant of the lack of strong evidence for the recommendations made, they are labeled as "practice points" rather than being graded numerically. This commentary presents the views of a work group convened by the National Kidney Foundation's Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) to assess these recommendations and assist clinical providers in the United States in interpreting and implementing them. This will require changes to the current clinical paradigm, including greater resource allocation to allow for enhanced services that provide a more holistic and person-centered assessment of the quality of dialysis delivered.

The current and future landscape of dialysis

The development of dialysis by early pioneers such as Willem Kolff and Belding Scribner set in motion several dramatic changes in the epidemiology, economics and ethical frameworks for the treatment of kidney failure. However, despite a rapid expansion in the provision of dialysis — particularly haemodialysis and most notably in high-income countries (HICs) — the rate of true patient-centred innovation has slowed. Current trends are particularly concerning from a global perspective: current costs are not sustainable, even for HICs, and globally, most people who develop kidney failure forego treatment, resulting in millions of deaths every year. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop new approaches and dialysis modalities that are cost-effective, accessible and offer improved patient outcomes. Nephrology researchers are increasingly engaging with patients to determine their priorities for meaningful outcomes that should be used to measure progress. The overarching message from this engagement is that while patients value longevity, reducing symptom burden and achieving maximal functional and social rehabilitation are prioritized more highly. In response, patients, payors, regulators and health-care systems are increasingly demanding improved value, which can only come about through true patient-centred innovation that supports high-quality, high-value care. Substantial efforts are now underway to support requisite transformative changes. These efforts need to be catalysed, promoted and fostered through international collaboration and harmonization.

Dialysis is a life-saving therapy; however, costs of dialysis are high, access is inequitable and outcomes are inadequate. This Review describes the current landscape of dialysis therapy from an epidemiological, economic, ethical and patient-centred framework, and describes initiatives that are aimed at stimulating innovations in the field to one that supports high-quality, high-value care.

The global dialysis population is growing rapidly, especially in low-income and middle-income countries; however, worldwide, a substantial number of people lack access to kidney replacement therapy, and millions of people die of kidney failure each year, often without supportive care.

The costs of dialysis care are high and will likely continue to rise as a result of increased life expectancy and improved therapies for causes of kidney failure such as diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease.

Patients on dialysis continue to bear a high burden of disease, shortened life expectancy and report a high symptom burden and a low health-related quality of life.

Patient-focused research has identified fatigue, insomnia, cramps, depression, anxiety and frustration as key symptoms contributing to unsatisfactory outcomes for patients on dialysis.

Initiatives to transform dialysis outcomes for patients require both top-down efforts (that is, efforts that promote incentives based on systems level policy, regulations, macroeconomic and organizational changes) and bottom-up efforts (that is, patient-led and patient-centred advocacy efforts as well as efforts led by individual teams of innovators).

Patients, payors, regulators and health-care systems increasingly demand improved value in dialysis care, which can only come about through true patient-centred innovation that supports high-quality, high-value care.

Impact of initial dialysis modality on the survival of patients with ESRD in eastern China: a propensity-matched study

Background

There are conflicting research results about the survival differences between hemodialysis(HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). The present study estimated the survival and the relative mortality hazard for incident HD and PD patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) in eastern China.

Methods

This study examined a cohort of patients with ESRD who initiated dialysis therapy in Zhejiang province between Jan of 2010 and Dec of 2014, followed up until the end of 2015. PD patients were matched in a 1:1 fashion with HD patients, and Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to explore the survival of them. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was applied to identify the factors that predict survival by treatment modality. Subgroup analyses were conducted by stratifying patients according to gender, age, causes of ESRD and comorbidities.

Results

Among a total of 22,379 enrolled patients (17,029 HD patients and 5350 PD patients), 5350 matched pairs were identified, and followed for a median of 29 months (3 ~ 72 months). Kaplan-Meier survival curve revealed that overall mortality rate was significantly higher in HD patients than in PD patients (log-rank test, P < 0.001), after adjusting by gender, age, primary causes of ESRD and comorbidities. HD was consistently associated with an increased risk for morality compared with PD in the matched cohort (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 1.140, 95%CI: 1.023 ~ 1.271). In subgroup analyses, male, younger patients, or nondiabetic patients aged less than 65 years after adjustment of covariates, initiating with PD was associated with a significantly lower mortality compared with HD. In the multivariate Cox proportional risks model, age, diabetic nephropathy (DN), other/unknown causes of ESRD, and patients with a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer showed statistical significance in explaining survival of incident ESRD patients.

Conclusions

ESRD patients who initiated dialysis with PD yielded superior survival rates compared to HD. Increased use of PD as initial dialysis modality in ESRD patients could be encouraged in Chinese population.

Early Delays in Insurance Coverage and Long-term Use of Home-based Peritoneal Dialysis

BACKGROUND

Uninsured patients with end-stage renal disease face barriers to peritoneal dialysis (PD), a type of home dialysis that is associated with improved quality of life and reduced Medicare costs. Although uninsured patients using PD at dialysis start receive retroactive Medicare coverage for required predialysis services, coverage only applies for the calendar month of dialysis start. Thus, initiating dialysis later in the month yields longer retroactive coverage.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether differences in retroactive Medicare were associated with decreased long-term PD use.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We exploited the dialysis start date using a regression discontinuity design on a national cohort from the US Renal Data System.

SUBJECTS

36,256 uninsured adults starting dialysis between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2014.

MEASURES

PD use at dialysis days 1, 90, 180, and 360.

RESULTS

Starting dialysis on the first versus last day of the calendar month was associated with an absolute decrease in PD use of 2.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5%-3.9%], or a relative decrease of 20% (95% CI, 12%-27%) at dialysis day 360. The absolute decrease was 5.5% (95% CI, 3.5%-7.2%) after Medicare established provider incentives for PD in 2011 and 7.2% (95% CI, 2.5%-11.9%) after Medicaid expansion in 2014. Patients were unlikely to switch from hemodialysis to PD after the first month of dialysis (probability of 6.9% in month 1, 1.5% in month 2, and 0.9% in month 4).

CONCLUSIONS

Extending retroactive coverage for preparatory dialysis services could increase PD use and reduce overall Medicare spending in the uninsured.

Going Home: Access for Home Modalities

The cost and health burden of ESRD continues to increase globally. Total Medicare expenditure on dialysis has increased from 229 million USD in 1973 to 35.4 billion USD in 2016. Dialysis access can represent almost a tenth of these costs. Central venous catheters have been recognized as a significant factor driving costs and mortality in this population. Home dialysis, which includes peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis, is an effective way of reducing costs related to renal replacement therapy, reducing central venous catheter usage and in many cases improving the clinical and psychosocial aspects of patients' health. Addressing access-related issues for peritoneal dialysis, urgent-start peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis can have impact on the success of home dialysis. This article reviews issues related to dialysis access for home therapies.

Conflicts of interest in dialysis: A barrier to policy reforms

Conflicts of interest involving physicians are commonplace in the US, occurring across many different specialties and subspecialties in a variety of clinical settings. In nephrology, two important scenarios in which conflicts of interest arise are dialysis facility joint venture (JV) arrangements and financial participation in End-stage Kidney Disease Seamless Care Organizations (ESCOs). Whether conflicts of interest occurring in either of these settings influence decision-making or patient care outcomes is not known due to a lack of transparent, publicly available information, and opportunities to conduct independent study. We discuss possible benefits and risks of nephrologist's financial participation in JVs and ESCOs and possible mechanisms for disclosure and reporting of such arrangements as well as risk mitigation.

Achieving equity in dialysis care and outcomes: The role of policies

Socially disadvantaged persons, including racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with low incomes, homeless persons, and non-US citizens bear a disproportionate burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Inequities in nephrology referral, vascular access, use of home dialysis modalities, kidney transplantation, and mortality are prominent. Public policies, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, end-stage renal disease Quality Incentive Program, and the Prospective Payment System, were enacted to improve healthcare access and dialysis care. Here, we highlight inequities in dialysis care and outcomes, how current ESKD and other public policies may influence or exacerbate these inequities, and gaps in the literature needed to inform future policies toward achieving equity in ESKD. We give special attention to the 2019 Advancing American Kidney Health Executive Order, which has high potential to radically transform dialysis care.

Trends in Peritoneal Dialysis Use in the United States after Medicare Payment Reform

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) for ESKD is associated with similar mortality, higher quality of life, and lower costs compared with hemodialysis (HD), but has historically been underused. We assessed the effect of the 2011 Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for dialysis on PD initiation, modality switches, and stable PD use.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using US Renal Data System and Medicare data, we identified all United States patients with ESKD initiating dialysis before (2006-2010) and after (2011-2013) PPS implementation, and observed their modality for up to 2 years after dialysis initiation. Using logistic regression models, we examined the associations between PPS and early PD experience (any PD 1-90 days after initiation), late PD use (any PD 91-730 days after initiation), and modality switches (PD-to-HD or HD-to-PD 91-730 days after initiation). We adjusted for patient, dialysis facility, and regional characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 619,126 patients with incident ESKD received dialysis at Medicare-certified facilities, 2006-2013. Observed early PD experience increased from 9.4% before PPS to 12.6% after PPS. Observed late PD use increased from 12.1% to 16.1%. In adjusted analyses, PPS was associated with increased early PD experience (odds ratio [OR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.47 to 1.55; P<0.001) and late PD use (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.45 to 1.50; P<0.001). In subgroup analyses, late PD use increased in part due to an increase in HD-to-PD switches among those without early PD experience (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.52 to 1.66; P<0.001) and a decrease in PD-to-HD switches among those with early PD experience (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98; P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

More patients started, stayed on, and switched to PD after dialysis payment reform. This occurred without a substantial increase in transfers to HD.

Expanded Prospective Payment System and Use of and Outcomes with Home Dialysis by Race and Ethnicity in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether the recent growth in home dialysis use was proportional among all racial/ethnic groups and also whether there were changes in racial/ethnic differences in home dialysis outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This observational cohort study of US Renal Data System patients initiating dialysis from 2005 to 2013 used logistic regression to estimate racial/ethnic differences in home dialysis initiation over time, and used competing risk models to assess temporal changes in racial/ethnic differences in home dialysis outcomes, specifically: (1) transfer to in-center hemodialysis (HD), (2) mortality, and (3) transplantation.

RESULTS

Of the 523,526 patients initiating dialysis from 2005 to 2013, 55% were white, 28% black, 13% Hispanic, and 4% Asian. In the earliest era (2005-2007), 8.0% of white patients initiated dialysis with home modalities, as did a similar proportion of Asians (9.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.86 to 1.05), whereas lower proportions of black [5.2%; aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.76] and Hispanic (5.7%; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93) patients did so. Over time, home dialysis use increased in all groups and racial/ethnic differences decreased (2011-2013: 10.6% of whites, 8.3% of blacks [aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.85], 9.6% of Hispanics [aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.00], 14.2% of Asians [aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.12]). Compared with white patients, the risk of transferring to in-center HD was higher in blacks, similar in Hispanics, and lower in Asians; these differences remained stable over time. The mortality rate was lower for minority patients than for white patients; this difference increased over time. Transplantation rates were lower for blacks and similar for Hispanics and Asians; over time, the difference in transplantation rates between blacks and Hispanics versus whites increased.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2005 to 2013, as home dialysis use increased, racial/ethnic differences in initiating home dialysis narrowed, without worsening rates of death or transfer to in-center HD in minority patients, as compared with white patients.

Patient-reported advantages and disadvantages of peritoneal dialysis: results from the PDOPPS

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported measures are increasingly recognized as important predictors of clinical outcomes in peritoneal dialysis (PD). We sought to understand associations between patient-reported perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of PD and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

In this cohort study, 2760 PD patients in the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS) completed a questionnaire on their PD experience, between 2014 and 2017. In this questionnaire, PDOPPS patients rated 17 aspects of their PD experience on a 5-category ordinal scale, with responses scored from - 2 (major disadvantage) to + 2 (major advantage). An advantage/disadvantage score (ADS) was computed for each patient by averaging their response scores. The ADS, along with each of these 17 aspects, were used as exposures. Outcomes included mortality, transition to hemodialysis (HD), patient-reported quality of life (QOL), and depression. Cox regression was used to estimate associations between ADS and mortality, transition to HD, and a composite of the two. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to estimate cross-sectional associations of ADS with QOL and depression.

RESULTS

While 7% of PD patients had an ADS < 0 (negative perception of PD), 59% had an ADS between 0 and < 1 (positive perception), and 34% had an ADS ≥1 (very positive perception). Minimal association was observed between mortality and the ADS. Compared with a very positive perception, patients with a negative perception had a higher transition rate to HD (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21, 2.30). Among individual items, "space taken up by PD supplies" was commonly rated as a disadvantage and had the strongest association with transition to HD (HR = 1.28; 95% CI 1.07, 1.53). Lower ADS was strongly associated with worse QOL rating and greater depressive symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients reported a generally favorable perception of PD, patient-reported disadvantages were associated with transition to HD, lower QOL, and depression. Strategies addressing these disadvantages, in particular reducing solution storage space, may improve patient outcomes and the experience of PD.

Dialysis Reimbursement: What Impact Do Different Models Have on Clinical Choices?

Allowing patients to live for decades without the function of a vital organ is a medical miracle, but one that is not without cost both in terms of morbidity and quality of life and in economic terms. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) consumes between 2% and 5% of the overall health care expenditure in countries where dialysis is available without restrictions. While transplantation is the preferred treatment in patients without contraindications, old age and comorbidity limit its indications, and low organ availability may result in long waiting times. As a consequence, 30–70% of the patients depend on dialysis, which remains the main determinant of the cost of RRT. Costs of dialysis are differently defined, and its reimbursement follows different rules. There are three main ways of establishing dialysis reimbursement. The first involves dividing dialysis into a series of elements and reimbursing each one separately (dialysis itself, medications, drugs, transportation, hospitalisation, etc.). The second, known as the capitation system, consists of merging these elements in a per capita reimbursement, while the third, usually called the bundle system, entails identifying a core of procedures intrinsically linked to treatment (e.g., dialysis sessions, tests, intradialyitc drugs). Each one has advantages and drawbacks, and impacts differently on the organization and delivery of care: payment per session may favour fragmentation and make a global appraisal difficult; a correct capitation system needs a careful correction for comorbidity, and may exacerbate competition between public and private settings, the latter aiming at selecting the least complex cases; a bundle system, in which the main elements linked to the dialysis sessions are considered together, may be a good compromise but risks penalising complex patients, and requires a rapid adaptation to treatment changes. Retarding dialysis is a clinical and economical goal, but the incentives for predialysis care are not established and its development may be unfavourable for the provider. A closer cooperation between policymakers, economists and nephrologists is needed to ensure a high quality of dialysis care.

Medicare's New Prospective Payment System on Facility Provision of Peritoneal Dialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Peritoneal dialysis is a self-administered, home-based treatment for ESKD associated with equivalent mortality, higher quality of life, and lower costs compared with hemodialysis. In 2011, Medicare implemented a comprehensive prospective payment system that makes a single payment for all dialysis, medication, and ancillary services. We examined whether the prospective payment system increased dialysis facility provision of peritoneal dialysis services and whether changes in peritoneal dialysis provision were more common among dialysis facilities that are chain affiliated, located in nonurban areas, and in regions with high dialysis market competition.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a longitudinal retrospective cohort study of n=6433 United States nonfederal dialysis facilities before (2006-2010) and after (2011-2013) the prospective payment system using data from the US Renal Data System, Medicare, and Area Health Resource Files. The outcomes of interest were a dichotomous indicator of peritoneal dialysis service availability and a discrete count variable of dialysis facility peritoneal dialysis program size defined as the annual number of patients on peritoneal dialysis in a facility. We used general estimating equation models to examine changes in peritoneal dialysis service offerings and peritoneal dialysis program size by a pre- versus post-prospective payment system effect and whether changes differed by chain affiliation, urban location, facility size, or market competition, adjusting for 1-year lagged facility-, patient with ESKD-, and region-level demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

We found a modest increase in observed facility provision of peritoneal dialysis and peritoneal dialysis program size after the prospective payment system (36% and 5.7 patients in 2006 to 42% and 6.9 patients in 2013, respectively). There was a positive association of the prospective payment system with peritoneal dialysis provision (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.18) and PD program size (incidence rate ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 1.33). Post-prospective payment system change in peritoneal dialysis provision was greater among nonurban (P<0.001), chain-affiliated (P=0.002), and larger-sized facilities (P<0.001), and there were higher rates of peritoneal dialysis program size growth in nonurban facilities (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare's 2011 prospective payment system was associated with more facilities' availability of peritoneal dialysis and modest growth in facility peritoneal dialysis program size.

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2018_11_19_CJASNPodcast_18_12_.mp3.

Health Insurance and the Use of Peritoneal Dialysis in the United States

BACKGROUND

Many patients in the United States have limited or no health insurance at the time they develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We examined whether health insurance limitations affected the likelihood of peritoneal dialysis (PD) use.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis of patients from the US Renal Data System initiating dialysis therapy in 2006 through 2012.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

We identified socioeconomically similar groups of patients to examine the association between health insurance and PD use. Patients aged 60 to 64 years with "limited insurance" (defined as having Medicaid or no insurance) at ESRD onset were compared with patients aged 66 to 70 years who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid at ESRD onset.

PREDICTOR

Type of insurance coverage at ESRD onset.

OUTCOMES

The likelihoods of receiving PD before dialysis month 4, when all patients qualified for Medicare due to ESRD, and of switching to PD therapy following receipt of Medicare.

RESULTS

After adjusting for observable patient and geographic differences, patients with limited insurance had an absolute 2.4% (95% CI, 1.1%-3.7%) lower probability of PD use by dialysis month 4 compared with patients with Medicare at ESRD onset. The association between insurance and PD use reversed when patients became Medicare eligible; patients with limited insurance had a 3-fold higher rate of switching to PD therapy between months 4 and 12 of dialysis (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.8-4.6) compared with patients with Medicare at ESRD onset.

LIMITATIONS

Because this study was observational, there is a potential for bias from unmeasured patient-level factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite Medicare's policy of covering patients in the month that they initiate PD therapy, insurance limitations remain a barrier to PD use for many patients. Educating providers about Medicare reimbursement policy and expanding access to pre-ESRD education and training may help overcome these barriers.