Forearm Versus Upper Arm Location of Arteriovenous Access Used at Hemodialysis Initiation: Temporal Trends and Racial Disparities.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Racial and ethnic differences exist in the type of arteriovenous access (AVA, including fistulas and grafts) used at hemodialysis (HD) initiation. The preferred anatomic location for the creation of an initial HD AVA is typically in the forearm We evaluated racial and ethnic differences in the use of an AVA in the forearm location at HD initiation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Using records from DaVita Kidney Care linked to the United States Renal Data System (USRDS), we evaluated patients aged ≥16 years who initiated in-center HD with an AVA between 2006 and 2019. PREDICTOR: Race/ethnicity, categorized as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or Other. OUTCOME: Forearm vs. upper arm AVA location. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Multivariable modified Poisson regression to estimate adjusted trends in AVA location over time and racial/ethnic differences in AVA location. Nested models helped assess the relative confounding by groups of variables on estimates of racial/ethnic differences. RESULTS: Among 70,147 patients (51.7% White, 28.8% Black, 12.6% Hispanic, 6.9% Other), White patients were older and more likely to have peripheral vascular disease, but less likely to have diabetes compared to the other groups. The proportion initiating HD using a forearm AVA decreased from 49% in 2006 to 29% in 2019 and by 3.6% (95% CI, 3.3%-3.9%) annually, with no difference in this trend among groups (race/ethnicity by calendar year interaction P=0.32). Black patients were 13% (95% CI, 10%-15%) less likely and Hispanic patients were 5% (95% CI, 1%-9%) less likely than White patients to initiate HD with a forearm AVA. LIMITATIONS: Findings may not apply to home HD. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a forearm AVA for HD initiation has declined and racial differences have persisted, with Black and Hispanic patients being less likely than White patients to have an AVA in the forearm location. Research towards understanding the causes and consequences of these trends and disparities is warranted.

Optimal Care for Kidney Health: Development of a Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Value Pathway.

The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a mandatory pay-for-performance program through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that aims to incentivize high-quality care, promote continuous improvement, facilitate electronic exchange of information, and lower health care costs. Previous research has highlighted several limitations of the MIPS program in assessing nephrology care delivery, including administrative complexity, limited relevance to nephrology care, and inability to compare performance across nephrology practices, emphasizing the need for a more valid and meaningful quality assessment program. This article details the iterative consensus-building process used by the American Society of Nephrology Quality Committee from May 2020 to July 2022 to develop the Optimal Care for Kidney Health MIPS Value Pathway (MVP). Two rounds of ranked-choice voting among Quality Committee members were used to select among nine quality metrics, 43 improvement activities, and three cost measures considered for inclusion in the MVP. Measure selection was iteratively refined in collaboration with the CMS MVP Development Team, and new MIPS measures were submitted through CMS's Measures Under Consideration process. The Optimal Care for Kidney Health MVP was published in the 2023 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule and includes measures related to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker use, hypertension control, readmissions, acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, and advance care planning. The nephrology MVP aims to streamline measure selection in MIPS and serves as a case study of collaborative policymaking between a subspecialty professional organization and national regulatory agencies.

Market Competition and Anemia Management in the United States Following Dialysis Payment Reform.

BACKGROUND: Whether market competition influences health care provider responses to national reimbursement reforms is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We examined whether changes in anemia management after the expansion of Medicare's dialysis payment bundle varied with market competition. RESEARCH DESIGN: With data from the US dialysis registry, we used a difference-in-differences (DID) design to estimate the independent associations of market competition with changes in anemia management after dialysis reimbursement reform. SUBJECTS: A total of 326,150 patients underwent in-center hemodialysis in 2009 and 2012, representing periods before and after reimbursement reform. MEASURES: Outcomes were erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) and intravenous iron dosage, the probability of hemoglobin <9 g/dL, hospitalizations, and mortality. We also examined serum ferritin concentration, an indicator of body iron stores. We used a dichotomous market competition index, with less competitive areas defined as effectively having <2 competing dialysis providers. RESULTS: Compared with areas with more competition, patients in less competitive areas had slightly more pronounced declines in ESA dose (60% vs. 57%) following reimbursement reform (DID estimate: -3%; 95% CI, -5% to -1%) and less pronounced declines in intravenous iron dose (-14% vs. -19%; DID estimate: 5%; 95% CI, 1%-9%). The likelihoods of hemoglobin <9 g/dL, hospitalization, and mortality did not vary with market competition. Serum ferritin concentrations in 2012 were 4% (95% CI, 3%-6%) higher in less competitive areas. CONCLUSIONS: After the expansion of Medicare's dialysis payment bundle, ESA use declined by more, and intravenous iron use declined by less in concentrated markets. More aggressive cost-reduction strategies may be implemented in less competitive markets.

Barriers to Implementing the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative End-Stage Kidney Disease Life Plan Guideline.

OBJECTIVE: The updated 2019 National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative vascular access guidelines recommend patient-centered, multi-disciplinary construction and regular update of an individualized end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) Life-Plan (LP) for each patient, a dramatic shift from previous recommendations and policy. The objective of this study was to examine barriers and facilitators to implementing the LP among key stakeholders. METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews were analyzed using inductive and deductive coding. Codes were mapped to relevant domains in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: We interviewed 34 participants: 11 patients with end-stage kidney disease, 2 care partners, and 21 clinicians who care for patients with end-stage kidney disease. In both the clinician and the patient/care partner categories, saturation (where no new themes were identified) was reached at 8 participants. We identified significant barriers and facilitators to implementation of the ESKD LP across three CFIR domains: Innovation, Outer setting, and Inner setting. Regarding the Innovation domain, patients and care partners valued the concept of shared decision-making with their care team (CFIR construct: innovation design). However, both clinicians and patients had significant concerns about the complexity of decision-making around kidney substitutes and the ability of patients to digest the overwhelming amount of information needed to effectively participate in creating the LP (innovation complexity). Clinicians expressed concerns regarding the lack of existing evidence base which limits their ability to effectively counsel patients (innovation evidence base) and the implementation costs (innovation cost). Within the Outer Setting, both clinicians and patients were concerned about performance measurement pressure under the existing "Fistula First" policies and had concerns about reimbursement (financing). In the Inner Setting, clinicians and patients stressed the lack of available resources and access to knowledge and information. CONCLUSION: Given the complexity of decision-making around kidney substitutes and vascular access, our findings point to the need for implementation strategies, infrastructure development, and policy change to facilitate ESKD LP development.

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.

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.

Patient Health Outcomes following Dialysis Facility Closures in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing changes to reimbursement of United States dialysis care may increase the risk of dialysis facility closures. Closures may be particularly detrimental to the health of patients receiving dialysis, who are medically complex and clinically tenuous. METHODS: We used two separate analytic strategies-one using facility-based matching and the other using propensity score matching-to compare health outcomes of patients receiving in-center hemodialysis at United States facilities that closed with outcomes of similar patients who were unaffected. We used negative binomial and Cox regression models to estimate associations of facility closure with hospitalization and mortality in the subsequent 180 days. RESULTS: We identified 8386 patients affected by 521 facility closures from January 2001 through April 2014. In the facility-matched model, closures were associated with 9% higher rates of hospitalization (relative rate ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.03 to 1.16), yielding an absolute annual rate difference of 1.69 hospital days per patient-year (95% CI, 0.45 to 2.93). Similarly, in a propensity-matched model, closures were associated with 7% higher rates of hospitalization (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.13; P=0.04), yielding an absolute rate difference of 1.08 hospital days per year (95% CI, 0.04 to 2.12). Closures were associated with nonsignificant increases in mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.18; P=0.05 for the facility-matched comparison; HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.17; P=0.08 for the propensity-matched comparison). CONCLUSIONS: Patients affected by dialysis facility closures experienced increased rates of hospitalization in the subsequent 180 days and may be at increased risk of death. This highlights the need for effective policies that continue to mitigate risk of facility closures.

The beneficial effect of providing kidney transplantation information on transplantation status differs between for-profit and nonprofit dialysis centers.

Informing end-stage kidney disease patients about kidney transplantation options increases the likelihood of kidney transplant waiting list (WL) enrollment and live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) receipt. Patients in for-profit dialysis centers have lower rates of WL enrollment and LDKT receipt. This study examined if the ownership status of dialysis centers modified the association between informing patients about transplantation options and patients' transplantation status. Multilevel analysis using mixed-effect multinomial logistic regression was performed using the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data (January 2005 to December 2017). The study showed that informing patients improved the odds of WL enrollment and LDKT receipt. However, the effect of informing patients on transplantation status was less pronounced at for-profit as compared with nonprofit centers (Nonprofit: WL enrollment OR: 2.23 [95% CI: 2.07-2.40], and LDKT receipt OR: 3.35 [95% CI: 2.65-4.25]. For-profit: WL enrollment OR: 1.73 [95% CI: 1.66-1.79], and LDKT receipt OR: 2.35 [95% CI: 2.08-2.66]), although the odds of informing patients was higher for for-profit centers, and type of patients informed were similar across both types of centers. Information provided by for-profit centers was potentially less effective than those provided by nonprofit centers. Standardized guidelines for transplantation information provision are needed in order to ensure similar informational quality across centers.

Bundled Payment Reform and Dialysis Facility Closures in ESKD.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, inclusion of injectable medications into an expanded ESKD payment bundle prompted concerns that dialysis facilities facing higher costs might close, disrupting care delivery and access to care. Whether this policy change influenced dialysis facility closures is unknown. METHODS: To examine whether facility closures increased after 2011 and whether factors influencing closures changed, we analyzed US Renal Data System registry data to identify all patients receiving in-center hemodialysis from 2006 through 2015 and to track dialysis facility closures. We used interrupted time series logistic regression models and estimated marginal effects to examine immediate and longer-term changes in the likelihood of being affected by facility closures following payment reform. We also examined whether associations between selected predictors of closures indicating populations at "high risk" of closure (patient characteristics, facility characteristics, and geography-related characteristics) and closures changed after payment reform. RESULTS: Dialysis facility closures were uncommon over the study period. In adjusted models, the relative odds of experiencing a closure declined by 37% (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.59 to 0.67) immediately after payment reform and declined by an additional 6% (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) annually thereafter, corresponding to a 0.3% lower absolute probability of closure in 2015 in association with payment reform. Patients who were black and who dialyzed at small, hospital-based facilities experienced slight increases in closures following payment reform, whereas Hispanic and Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible patients experienced slight decreases in closures. CONCLUSIONS: Expansion of the ESKD payment bundle was not associated with increased closure of dialysis facilities, although the likelihood of closures changed slightly for some higher-risk populations.

Safety-Net Care for Maintenance Dialysis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although most American patients with ESKD become eligible for Medicare by their fourth month of dialysis, some never do. Information about where patients with limited health insurance receive maintenance dialysis has been lacking. METHODS: We identified patients initiating maintenance dialysis (2008-2015) from the US Renal Data System, defining patients as "safety-net reliant" if they were uninsured or had only Medicaid coverage at dialysis onset and had not qualified for Medicare by the fourth dialysis month. We examined four dialysis facility ownership categories according to for-profit/nonprofit status and ownership (chain versus independent). We assessed whether patients who were safety-net reliant were more likely to initiate dialysis at certain facility types. We also examined hospital-based affiliation. RESULTS: The proportion of patients <65 years initiating dialysis who were safety-net reliant increased significantly over time, from 11% to 14%; 73% of such patients started dialysis at for-profit/chain-owned facilities compared to 76% of all patients starting dialysis. Patients who were safety-net reliant had a 30% higher relative risk of initiating dialysis at nonprofit/independently owned versus for-profit/independently owned facilities (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.36); they had slightly lower relative risks of initiating dialysis at for-profit and non-profit chain-owned facilities, and were more likely to receive dialysis at hospital-based facilities. These findings primarily reflect increased likelihood of dialysis among patients without insurance at certain facility types. CONCLUSIONS: Although most patients who were safety-net reliant received care at for-profit/chain-owned facilities, they were disproportionately cared for at nonprofit/independently owned and hospital-based facilities. Ongoing loss of market share of nonprofit/independently owned outpatient dialysis facilities may affect safety net-reliant populations.

Measuring Quality in Kidney Care: An Evaluation of Existing Quality Metrics and Approach to Facilitating Improvements in Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Leveraging quality metrics can be a powerful approach to identify substantial performance gaps in kidney disease care that affect patient outcomes. However, metrics must be meaningful, evidence-based, attributable, and feasible to improve care delivery. As members of the American Society of Nephrology Quality Committee, we evaluated existing kidney quality metrics and provide a framework for quality measurement to guide clinicians and policy makers. METHODS: We compiled a comprehensive list of national kidney quality metrics from multiple established kidney and quality organizations. To assess the measures' validity, we conducted two rounds of structured metric evaluation, on the basis of the American College of Physicians criteria: importance, appropriate care, clinical evidence base, clarity of measure specifications, and feasibility and applicability. RESULTS: We included 60 quality metrics, including seven for CKD prevention, two for slowing CKD progression, two for CKD management, one for advanced CKD and kidney replacement planning, 28 for dialysis management, 18 for broad measures, and two patient-reported outcome measures. We determined that on the basis of defined criteria, 29 (49%) of the metrics have high validity, 23 (38%) have medium validity, and eight (13%) have low validity. CONCLUSIONS: We rated less than half of kidney disease quality metrics as highly valid; the others fell short because of unclear attribution, inadequate definitions and risk adjustment, or discordance with recent evidence. Nearly half of the metrics were related to dialysis management, compared with only one metric related to kidney replacement planning and two related to patient-reported outcomes. We advocate refining existing measures and developing new metrics that better reflect the spectrum of kidney care delivery.

Physician reimbursement for outpatient dialysis care: Past, present, and future.

Ever since Medicare began covering nearly every patient with end-stage renal disease in the United States, reimbursement for dialysis services has deviated from traditional fee-for-service. The method of reimbursing physicians for outpatient dialysis care has undergone a series of reforms in an effort to improve the overall quality of dialysis care and to control healthcare costs-changes that we are still seeing today. In 2004, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) changed the Monthly Capitation Payment (MCP) for physician reimbursement to the tiered fee-for-service system that is used today. This most recent reform encouraged more frequent face-to-face visits to patients receiving dialysis. While the quantity of visits increased in response to the change in reimbursement, the quality of care did not meaningfully improve, the policy may have had unintended negative health consequences and may have led to increases in wasteful physician and advanced practitioner effort. There are several promising opportunities to reform economic incentives around physician dialysis care that could improve the quality and value of care. These include new pay-for-performance initiatives, implementing incentives for high-quality care within fully capitated payment models, and reforming the MCP itself to link payment to high-value dialysis services.

Consolidation in dialysis Markets-Causes, consequences, and the role of policy.

The dialysis industry is one of the most highly concentrated healthcare sectors in the United States. Despite decades of growth in the number of patients with end-stage renal disease and in the size of dialysis markets, two large dialysis organizations currently care for more than two-thirds of the dialysis population. Economies of scale, bargaining leverage with suppliers and private insurers, barriers to entry, and government regulations have contributed to highly concentrated dialysis markets by conferring advantages to larger organizations. Consolidated dialysis markets have coincided with both positive and negative trends in healthcare costs and outcomes. Costs per patient receiving dialysis have grown at a slower rate than per capita Medicare costs, while access to dialysis care remains available across a wide socioeconomic range. Mortality rates have declined despite a sicker dialysis patient population. Yet, concerns remain about the cost and quality of dialysis care. Evidence suggests that chain ownership, for profit status, and less market competition may negatively impact health outcomes. Future policies and innovations involving kidney health may temporarily disrupt consolidation. However, if the underlying mechanisms that contributed to past consolidation persist, dialysis markets may remain highly concentrated over the long term.

The cost-effectiveness of lipid lowering for primary cardiovascular prevention in chronic kidney disease: moving beyond statins.

Because of high risk of cardiovascular disease, patients with chronic kidney disease may benefit from cholesterol-lowering therapy beyond statins. A cost-effectiveness analysis of adding ezetimibe to high-dose statins for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease found treatment with ezetimibe to be cost-effective for many patients with chronic kidney disease. We describe the importance of this topic and explain key assumptions necessary for the investigators to arrive at their conclusions.

Market Consolidation and Mortality in Patients Initiating Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether consolidation in health care markets affects the quality of care provided and health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether changes in market competition resulting from acquisitions by two large national for-profit dialysis chains were associated with patient mortality. METHODS: We identified patients initiating in-center hemodialysis between 2001 and 2009 from a registry of patients with end-stage renal disease in the United States. We considered two scenarios when evaluating consolidation from dialysis facility acquisitions: one in which we considered only those patients receiving dialysis in markets that became substantially more concentrated to have been affected by consolidation, and the other in which all patients living in hospital service areas where a facility was acquired were potentially affected. We used a difference-in-differences study design to examine the associations between market consolidation and changes in mortality rates. RESULTS: When we considered the 12,065 patients living in areas that became substantially more consolidated to have been affected by consolidation, we found a nominally significant (8%; 95% confidence interval 0%-17%) increase in likelihood of death after consolidation. Nevertheless, when we considered all 186,158 patients living in areas where an acquisition occurred to have been affected by consolidation, there was no observable effect of market consolidation on mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased market competition may have led to increased mortality among a relatively small subset of patients initiating in-center hemodialysis in areas that became substantially more concentrated after two large dialysis acquisitions, but not for most of the patients living in affected areas.

The Role of Big Data in the Development and Evaluation of US Dialysis Care.

Rapid growth in electronic communications and digitalization, combined with advances in data management, analysis, and storage, have led to an era of "Big Data." The Social Security Amendments of 1972 turned end-stage renal disease (ESRD) care into a single-payer system for most patients requiring dialysis in the United States. As a result, there are few areas of medicine that have been as influenced by Big Data as dialysis care, for which Medicare's large administrative data sets have had a central role in the evaluation and development of public policy for several decades. In the 1970/1980s, Medicare data helped identify concerning trends in costs, access to dialysis care, and quality of care delivered. As the research community and policymakers made Medicare's administrative data increasingly accessible for investigation, analyses of Medicare claims have had a large role in facilitating policy synthesis and refinement. Efforts to address the skyrocketing cost of injectable drugs in the 1990s and 2000s exemplify this expanded role of Big Data. Although there are opportunities for large government and nongovernmental administrative data sets to continue serving a critical role in the evaluation and development of ESRD policies, it is important to understand challenges and limitations associated with their use.

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.

Trends in the Causes of Death among Kidney Transplant Recipients in the United States (1996-2014).

BACKGROUND: Death with graft function remains an important cause of graft loss among kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Little is known about the trend of specific causes of death in KTRs in recent years. METHODS: We analyzed United States Renal Data System data (1996-2014) to determine 1- and 10-year all-cause and cause-specific mortality in adult KTRs who died with a functioning allograft. We also studied 1- and 10-year trends in the various causes of mortality. RESULTS: Of 210,327 KTRs who received their first kidney transplant from 1996 to 2014, 3.2% died within 1 year after transplant. Cardiovascular deaths constituted the majority (24.7%), followed by infectious (15.2%) and malignant (2.9%) causes; 40.1% of deaths had no reported cause. Using 1996 as the referent year, all-cause as well as cardiovascular mortality declined, whereas mortality due to malignancy did not. For analyses of 10-year mortality, we studied 94,384 patients who received a first kidney transplant from 1996 to 2005. Of those, 22.1% died over 10 years and the causative patterns of their causes of death were similar to those associated with 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the downtrend in mortality over the last 2 decades, a significant percentage of KTRs die in 10-years with a functioning graft, and cardiovascular mortality remains the leading cause of death. These data also highlight the need for diligent collection of mortality data in KTRs.

Fifty Years of a National Program for the Treatment of Kidney Failure.

This Viewpoint examines the first 50 years of the US End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program, including technological updates and continuing challenges to update cost and quality.

Hemodialysis Hospitalizations and Readmissions: The Effects of Payment Reform.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services changed reimbursement for physicians and advanced practitioners caring for patients receiving hemodialysis from a capitated to a tiered fee-for-service system, encouraging increased face-to-face visits. This early version of a pay-for-performance initiative targeted a care process: more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis. Although more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis are associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations, it is unknown whether encouraging more frequent visits through reimbursement policy also yielded these benefits. STUDY DESIGN: We used a retrospective cohort interrupted time-series study design to examine whether the 2004 nephrologist reimbursement reform led to reduced hospitalizations and rehospitalizations. We also used published data to estimate a range of annual economic costs associated with more frequent visits. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries in the United States receiving hemodialysis in the 2 years prior to and following reimbursement reform. PREDICTOR: The 2 years following nephrologist reimbursement reform. OUTCOMES: Odds of hospitalization and 30-day hospital readmission for all causes and fluid overload; US dollars. RESULTS: We found no significant change in all-cause hospitalization or rehospitalization and slight reductions in fluid overload hospitalization and rehospitalization following reimbursement reform; the estimated economic cost associated with additional visits ranged from $13 to $87 million per year, depending on who (physicians or advanced practitioners) spent additional time visiting patients and how much additional effort was involved. LIMITATIONS: Due to limited information about how much additional time providers spent seeing patients after reimbursement reform, we could only examine a range of potential economic costs associated with the reform. CONCLUSIONS: A Medicare reimbursement policy designed to encourage more frequent visits during outpatient hemodialysis may have been costly. The policy was associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations for fluid overload, but had no effect on all-cause hospitalizations or rehospitalizations.