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 The Food and Drug Administration has issued draft guidance recommending hospitals implement secondary testing or transfuse PLTs that have been treated with pathogen reduction technology (PRT).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.

Economic Value of Prosthetic Services Among Medicare Beneficiaries: A Claims-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.

CONTEXT: There are few studies of the economic impact or value of lower extremity prosthetic services. Results from this study can inform the value proposition concerning prosthetic services within military health, where over 40,000 Veterans with limb-loss receive care for their amputations through the Veterans Administration health care system. PURPOSE: To determine the extent to which Medicare patients who received selected prosthetic services had less health care utilization, lower Medicare payments, and/or fewer negative outcomes compared to matched patients not receiving these services. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis using Medicare claims data (2007-2010) and propensity score matching techniques to control for observable selection bias based on etiological diagnosis, comorbidities, patient characteristics, and historical health care utilization one year before the etiological diagnosis. FINDINGS: Patients who received lower extremity prostheses had comparable Medicare episode payments ($6,099 per-member-per-month for study group, $6,015 per-member-per-month for comparison group) and better outcomes than patients who did not receive prostheses. Study group patients were more likely to receive extensive outpatient therapy than comparison group patients (p < 0.05). Receiving physical therapy is associated with fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits, and less facility-based care (p < 0.05), essentially offsetting the cost of the prosthetic over a 12-month time frame.

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.

A retrospective comparison of clinical outcomes and Medicare expenditures in skilled nursing facility residents with chronic wounds.

Medicare skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents with chronic wounds require more resources and have relatively high healthcare expenditures compared to Medicare patients without wounds. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 2006 Medicare Chronic Condition Warehouse claims data for SNF, inpatient, outpatient hospital, and physician supplier settings along with 2006 Long-Term Care Minimum Data Set (MDS) information to compare Medicare expenditures between two groups of SNF residents with a diagnosis of pressure, venous, ischemic, or diabetic ulcers whose wounds healed during the 10-month study period. The study group (n = 372) was managed using a structured, comprehensive wound management protocol provided by an external wound management team. The matched comparison group consisted of 311 SNF residents who did not receive care from the wound management team. Regression analyses indicate that after controlling for resident comorbidities and wound severity, study group residents experienced lower rates of wound-related hospitalization per day (0.08% versus 0.21%, P < 0.01) and shorter wound episodes (94 days versus 115 days, P < 0.01) than comparison group patients. Total Medicare costs were $21,449.64 for the study group and $40,678.83 for the comparison group (P < 0.01) or $229.07 versus $354.26 (P < 0.01) per resident episode day. Additional studies including wounds that do not heal are warranted. Increasing the number of SNF residents receiving the care described in this study could lead to significant Medicare cost savings. Incorporating wound clinical outcomes into a pay-for-performance measures for SNFs could increase broader SNF adoption of comprehensive wound care programs to treat chronic wounds.

How a new 'public plan' could affect hospitals' finances and private insurance premiums.

Two key health reform bills in the House of Representatives and Senate include the option of a "public plan" as an additional source of health coverage. At least initially, the plan would primarily be structured to cover many of the uninsured and those who now have individual coverage. Because it is possible, and perhaps even likely, that this new public payer would pay less than private payers for the same services, such a plan could negatively affect hospital margins. Hospitals may attempt to recoup losses by shifting costs to private payers. We outline the financial pressures that hospitals and private payers could experience under various assumptions. High uninsured enrollment in a public plan would bolster hospital margins; however, this effect is reversed if the privately insured enter a public plan in large proportions, potentially stressing the hospital industry and increasing private insurance premiums.