Filtering for the best policy: An economic evaluation of policy options for kidney replacement coverage in the Philippines.

AIM: Kidney failure patients in the Philippines have free choice on their kidney replacement therapy (KRT), with a majority choosing haemodialysis (HD) over peritoneal dialysis (PD) and transplantation despite the inadequate coverage of HD. Although national health insurance coverage is limited, KRT remains to be one of the top benefits pay-outs in the country. The study aims to identify the most cost-effective policy strategy for financing KRT in the Philippines, in the context of a universal healthcare policy. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate and compare the costs and benefits of different policy options with the comparator being partial HD coverage. Direct medical, non-medical and indirect costs were measured, while outcomes were reported through quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Parameters were derived from the kidney disease registry, hospital statistics from a tertiary hospital and a patient survey. RESULTS: The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis showed that shifting to a PD-First policy provides better value-for-money with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 570 029 Philippine Pesos (PHP) per QALY gained, compared with the ICER of the PD-First combined with pre-emptive transplant option of 577 989 PHP per QALY gained. Expanding existing HD coverage to 156 sessions was the least cost-effective policy (1 522 437 PHP per QALY gained). CONCLUSION: Government should consider shifting to a PD-First strategy and support policies that promote kidney transplants among existing PD and HD patients. This study also highlights the need for proper evaluation of partial coverage policies to ensure that government investments represent good value-for-money and patients receive optimal care.

Factors influencing dialysis modality for end-stage renal disease in developing countries: a survey of Filipino nephrologists.

BACKGROUND: In the Philippines, 86% of incident dialysis patients are started on hemodialysis (HD) and 14% are treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD), representing a decline over a 2-year period. One important factor which affects patients' choice of dialysis modality is the input of their physicians. Our objective was to identify the factors affecting attitudes and recommendations of Filipino nephrologists regarding HD and PD. METHODS: Attendees of the annual national nephrology meeting completed an anonymous self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Respondents were heavily involved in clinical dialysis work, and 86.7% had most/all of their patients on HD. Recommendations about dialysis modality were based most strongly on overall cost to patient (4.4 on a scale of 1 [not important] to 5 [most important], residual renal function (RRF) preservation (4.4), patient preference (4.3) availability of dialysis support staff (4.3), and comparative quality of life data (4.3). Least important was physician reimbursement (2.8). Patient-related factors favoring HD were: poor personal hygiene, impaired vision and manual dexterity; while favoring PD were: age <10 years, living far from HD unit, and the availability of trainable family members. When asked which modality they would recommend to an equally eligible patient, 49.2% responded they would not recommend either modality and would allow the patient to choose, while 40.7% would recommend HD and 10.2% would recommend PD. CONCLUSION: Respondents consider overall cost and RRF preservation as the most important factors in dialysis modality selection, yet only 10.2% would recommend PD as first choice. It is likely that factors other than those addressed in the survey are stronger determinants of the patient's final choice of modality.