What is the best setting for receiving dialysis vascular access repair and maintenance services?

INTRODUCTION: Advances in dialysis vascular access (DVA) management have changed where beneficiaries receive this care. The effectiveness, safety, quality, and economy of different care settings have been questioned. This study compares patient outcomes of receiving DVA services in the freestanding office-based center (FOC) to those of the hospital outpatient department (HOPD). It also examines whether outcomes differ for a centrally managed system of FOCs (CMFOC) compared to all other FOCs (AOFOC). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of clinically and demographically similar patients within Medicare claims available through United States Renal Data System (USRDS) (2010-2013) who received at least 80% of DVA services in an FOC (n = 80,831) or HOPD (n = 133,965). Separately, FOC population is divided into CMFOC (n = 20,802) and AOFOC (n = 80,267). Propensity matching was used to control for clinical, demographic, and functional characteristics across populations. RESULTS: FOC patients experienced significantly better outcomes, including lower annual mortality (14.6% vs. 17.2%, p<0.001) and DVA-related infections (0.16 vs. 0.20, p<0.001), fewer hospitalizations (1.65 vs. 1.91, p<0.001), and lower total per-member-per-month (PMPM) payments ($5042 vs. $5361, p<0.001) than HOPD patients. CMFOC patients had lower annual mortality (12.5% vs. 13.8%, p<0.001), PMPM payments (DVA services) ($1486 vs. $1533, p<0.001) and hospitalizations ($1752 vs. $1816, p<0.001) than AOFOC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Where nephrologists send patients for DVA services can impact patient clinical and economic outcomes. This research confirmed that patients who received DVA care in the FOC had better outcomes than those treated in the HOPD. The organizational culture and clinical oversight of the CMFOC may result in more favorable outcomes than receiving care in AOFOC.

Addressing the risk of bacterial contamination in platelets: a hospital economic perspective.

BACKGROUND: Bacterially contaminated platelets (PLTs) remain a serious risk. The Food and Drug Administration has issued draft guidance recommending hospitals implement secondary testing or transfuse PLTs that have been treated with pathogen reduction technology (PRT). The cost implications of these approaches are not well understood. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We modeled incurred costs when hospitals acquire, process, and transfuse PLTs that are PRT treated with INTERCEPT (Cerus Corp.) or secondary tested with the PLT PGD Test (Verax Biomedical). RESULTS: Hospitals will spend $221.27 (30.0%) more per PRT-treated apheresis PLT unit administered compared to a Zika-tested apheresis PLT unit that is irradiated and PGD tested in hospital. This difference is reflected in PRT PLT units having: 1) a higher hospital purchase price ($100.00 additional charge compared to an untreated PLT); 2) lower therapeutic effectiveness than untreated PLTs among hematologic-oncologic patients, which contributes to additional transfusions ($96.05); or 3) fewer PLT storage days, which contributes to higher outdating cost from expired PLTs ($67.87). Only a small portion of the incremental costs for PRT-treated PLTs are offset by costs that may be avoided, including primary bacterial culture, secondary bacterial testing ($26.65), hospital irradiation ($8.50), Zika testing ($4.47), and other costs ($3.03). CONCLUSION: The significantly higher cost of PRT-treated PLTs over PGD-tested PLTs should interest stakeholders. For hospitals that outdate PLTs, savings associated with expiration extension to 7 days by adding PGD testing will likely be substantially greater than the cost of implementing PGD-testing. Our findings might usefully inform a hospital's decision to select a particular blood safety approach.

Clinical and economic value of performing dialysis vascular access procedures in a freestanding office-based center as compared with the hospital outpatient department among Medicare ESRD beneficiaries.

Dialysis vascular access (DVA) care is being increasingly provided in freestanding office-based centers (FOC). Small-scale studies have suggested that DVA care in a FOC results in favorable patient outcomes and lower costs. To further evaluate this issue, data were drawn from incident and prevalent ESRD patients within a 4-year sample (2006-2009) of Medicare claims (USRDS) on cases who receive at least 80% of their DVA care in a FOC or a hospital outpatient department (HOPD). Using propensity score matching techniques, cases with a similar clinical and demographic profile from these two sites of service were matched. Medicare utilization, payments, and patient outcomes were compared across the matched cohorts (n = 27,613). Patients treated in the FOC had significantly better outcomes (p < 0.001), including fewer related or unrelated hospitalizations (3.8 vs. 4.4), vascular access-related infections (0.18 vs. 0.29), and septicemia-related hospitalizations (0.15 vs. 0.18). Mortality rate was lower (47.9% vs. 53.5%) as were PMPM payments ($4,982 vs. $5,566). This study shows that DVA management provided in a FOC has multiple advantages over that provided in a HOPD.