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.

Using Patient Experience Survey Data to Improve In-Center Hemodialysis Care: A Practical Review.

Patient experience is an integral aspect of the care we deliver to our dialysis patients. Standardized evaluation of patient experience with in-center hemodialysis started in the United States in 2012 with the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) survey. Over time there have been a few changes to this survey, how it is administered, and how it fits within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program. Although the importance of this survey has been growing, knowledge of this survey among nephrologists has lagged. We provide a review of the survey development and how its use has evolved since 2012. We discuss in detail research done on this survey to date, including survey psychometric evaluation. We highlight gaps in our knowledge that need further research and end with general recommendations to improve patient experience within hemodialysis facilities, which we believe is a worthy goal for all members of the dialysis team.

Why are hospitalisations too long? A simple checklist for identifying the main social barriers to hospital discharge from a nephrology ward.

The present increase in life span has been accompanied by an even higher increase in the burden of comorbidity. The challenges to healthcare systems are enormous and performance measures have been introduced to make the provision of healthcare more cost-efficient. Performance of hospitalisation is basically defined by the relationship between hospital stay, use of hospital resources, and main diagnosis/diagnoses and complication(s), adjusted for case mix. These factors, combined in different indexes, are compared with the performance of similar hospitals in the same and other countries. The reasons why an approach like this is being employed are clear.Cutting costs cannot be the only criteria, in particular in elderly, high-comorbidity patients: in this population, although social issues are important determinants of hospital stay, they are rarely taken into account or quantified in evaluations. Quantifying the impact of the "social barriers" to care can serve as a marker of the overall quality of treatment a network provides, and point to specific out-of-hospital needs, necessary to improve in-hospital performance. We therefore propose a simple, empiric medico-social checklist that can be used in nephrology wards to assess the presence of social barriers to hospital discharge and quantify their weight.Using the checklist should allow: identifying patients with social frailty that could complicate hospitalisation and/or discharge; evaluating the social needs of patient and entourage at the beginning of hospitalisation, adopting timely procedures, within the partnership with out-of-hospital teams; facilitating prioritization of interventions by social workers.The following ten items were empirically identified: reason for hospitalisation; hospitalisation in relation to the caregiver's problems; recurrent unplanned hospitalisations or early re-hospitalisation; social/family isolation; presence of a dependent relative in the patient's household; lack of housing or unsuitable housing/accommodation; loss of autonomy; lack of economic resources; lack of a safe environment; evidence of physical or psychological abuse.The simple tool here described needs validation; the present proposal is aimed at raising attention on the importance of non-medical issues in medical organisation in our specialty, and is open to discussion, to allow its refinement.

[Conflicts of interest in nephrology]. / Conflictos de intereses en nefrología.

Since doctors disposed of effective tools to serve their patients, they had to worry about the proper management of available resources and how to deal with the relationship with the industry that provides such resources. In this relation-ship, health professionals may be involved in conflicts of interest that they need to acknowledge and learn how to handle. This article discusses the conflicts of interest in nephrology. Its objectives are to identify those areas where such conflicts could occur; to help to solve them, always considering the best interest of patients; and to help health workers to keep in mind that they have to preserve their autonomy and professional integrity. Conflicts of interest of professionals in the renal area and related scientific societies, with the industry producing equipment, supplies and drugs are reviewed. Dichotomy, payment for referral, self-referral of patients and incentives for cost control are analyzed. Finally, recommendations to help preserve a good practice in nephrology are made.

Medicare Program; Conditions for Coverage for End-Stage Renal Disease Facilities--Third Party Payment. Interim final rule with comment period.

This interim final rule with comment period implements new requirements for Medicare-certified dialysis facilities that make payments of premiums for individual market health plans. These requirements apply to dialysis facilities that make such payments directly, through a parent organization, or through a third party. These requirements are intended to protect patient health and safety; improve patient disclosure and transparency; ensure that health insurance coverage decisions are not inappropriately influenced by the financial interests of dialysis facilities rather than the health and financial interests of patients; and protect patients from mid-year interruptions in coverage.

The cost-effectiveness of contemporary home haemodialysis modalities compared with facility haemodialysis: a systematic review of full economic evaluations.

AIM: The financial burden of the increasing dialysis population challenges healthcare resources internationally. Home haemodialysis offers many benefits over conventional facility dialysis including superior clinical, patient-centred outcomes and reduced cost. This review updates a previous review, conducted a decade prior, incorporating contemporary home dialysis techniques of frequent and nocturnal dialysis. We sought comparative cost-effectiveness studies of home versus facility haemodialysis (HD) for people with end-stage kidney failure (ESKF). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of literature from January 2000-March 2014. Studies were included if they provided comparative information on the costs, health outcomes and cost-effectiveness ratios of home HD and facility HD. We searched medical and health economic databases using MeSH headings and text words for economic evaluation and haemodialysis. RESULTS: Six studies of economic evaluations that compared home to facility HD were identified. Two studies compared home nocturnal HD, one home nocturnal and daily home HD, and three compared contemporary home HD to facility HD. Overall these studies suggest that contemporary home HD modalities are less costly and more effective than facility HD. Home HD start-up costs tend to be higher in the short term, but these are offset by cost savings over the longer term. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporaneous dialysis modalities including nocturnal and daily home haemodialysis are cost-effective or cost-saving compared with facility-based haemodialysis. This result is largely driven by lower staff costs, and better health outcomes for survival and quality of life. Expanding the proportion of haemodialysis patients managed at home is likely to produce cost savings.

The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) Practice Monitor: rationale and methods for an initiative to monitor the new US bundled dialysis payment system.

A new initiative of the US Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS), the DOPPS Practice Monitor (DPM), provides up-to-date data and analyses to monitor trends in dialysis practice during implementation of the new Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) end-stage renal disease Prospective Payment System (PPS; 2011-2014). We review DPM rationale, design, sampling approach, analytic methods, and facility sample characteristics. Using stratified random sampling, the sample of ~145 US facilities provides results representative nationally and by facility type (dialysis organization size, rural/urban, free standing/hospital based), achieving coverage similar to the CMS sample frame at average values and tails of the distributions for key measures and patient characteristics. A publicly available web report (www.dopps.org/DPM) provides detailed trends, including demographic, comorbidity, and dialysis data; medications; vascular access; and quality of life. Findings are updated every 4 months with a lag of only 3-4 months. Baseline data are from mid-2010, before the new PPS. In sum, the DPM provides timely representative data to monitor effects of the expanded PPS on dialysis practice. Findings can serve as an early warning system for possible adverse effects on clinical care and as a basis for community outreach, editorial comment, and informed advocacy.

Impact of non-traditional phosphate binders and cinacalcet on haemodialysis patient biochemistry, pill burden and cost.

AIM: The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) commenced cost subsidization for haemodialysis patients of sevelamer in December 2007, cinacalcet in July 2008 and lanthanum in May 2009. To determine the impact of PBS listing of these medications, we performed a single centre cross-sectional, longitudinal study. METHODS: Dialysis parameters and biochemistry were prospectively collected at 6 monthly intervals for all prevalent haemodialysis patients from October 2007 to April 2010. Medications prescribed to manage chronic kidney disease mineral and bone disorder were recorded. Univariate regression analysis was undertaken for each variable against time. RESULTS: Patient numbers ranged from 87 to 114 in each period. At baseline, mean age was 68.8 ± 14.3 years, 71% male, 15.1 ± 3.5 haemodialysis hours/week and urea reduction ratio 71.9 ± 9.8%. These variables were unchanged over time. The use of sevelamer, cinacalcet and lanthanum increased (P < 0.001). There was a decrease in the use of aluminium- and calcium-based phosphate binders (P < 0.001) but no change in the use of magnesium based phosphate binders (P = 0.09) or calcitriol (P = 0.11). Serum phosphate (P = 0.13) and parathyroid hormone (PTH) (P = 0.87) were unchanged. Mean 'bone pill' burden fell from 60.3/week to 51.9/week (P = 0.02). Mean pill cost increased from Australian dollars (AUD) 12.85/patient per week to AUD 59.85/patient per week (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The PBS subsidization of sevelamer, cinacalcet and lanthanum has changed prescribing patterns, although serum phosphate and PTH remain unchanged. These changes have been at an additional cost of AUD 2444/patient per year. Data to address clinical end-points of mortality and hospitalization is needed to determine if the cost of these newer agents is warranted.

The costs in provision of haemodialysis in a developing country: a multi-centered study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic Kidney Disease is a major public health problem worldwide with enormous cost burdens on health care systems in developing countries. We aimed to provide a detailed analysis of the processes and costs of haemodialysis in Sri Lanka and provide a framework for modeling similar financial audits. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at haemodialysis units of three public and two private hospitals in Sri Lanka for two months in June and July 2010. Cost of drugs and consumables for the three public hospitals were obtained from the price list issued by the Medical Supplies Division of the Department of Health Services, while for the two private hospitals they were obtained from financial departments of the respective hospitals. Staff wages were obtained from the hospital chief accountant/chief financial officers. The cost of electricity and water per month was calculated directly with the assistance of expert engineers. An apportion was done from the total hospital costs of administration, cleaning services, security, waste disposal and, laundry and sterilization for each unit. RESULTS: The total number of dialysis sessions (hours) at the five hospitals for June and July were 3341 (12959) and 3386 (13301) respectively. Drug and consumables costs accounted for 70.4-84.9% of the total costs, followed by the wages of the nursing staff at each unit (7.8-19.7%). The mean cost of a dialysis session in Sri Lanka was LKR 6,377 (US$ 56). The annual cost of haemodialysis for a patient with chronic renal failure undergoing 2-3 dialysis session of four hours duration per week was LKR 663,208-994,812 (US$ 5,869-8,804). At one hospital where facilities are available for the re-use of dialyzers (although not done during study period) the cost of consumables would have come down from LKR 5,940,705 to LKR 3,368,785 (43% reduction) if the method was adopted, reducing costs of haemodialysis per hour from LKR 1,327 at present to LKR 892 (33% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-centered study demonstrated that the costs of haemodialysis in a developing country remained significantly lower compared to developed countries. However, it still places a significant burden on the health care sector, whilst possibility of further cost reduction exists.

Medicare program; end-stage renal disease quality incentive program. Final rule.

This final rule will implement a quality incentive program (QIP) for Medicare outpatient end-stage renal disease (ESRD) dialysis providers and facilities with payment consequences beginning January 1, 2012, in accordance with section 1881(h) of the Act (added on July 15, 2008 by section 153(c) of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA)). Under the ESRD QIP, ESRD payments made to dialysis providers and facilities under section 1881(b)(14) of the Social Security Act will be reduced by up to two percent if the providers/facilities fail to meet or exceed a total performance score with respect to performance standards established with respect to certain specified measures.

The cost of starting and maintaining a large home hemodialysis program.

Home extended hours hemodialysis improves some measurable biological and quality-of-life parameters over conventional renal replacement therapies in patients with end-stage renal disease. Published small studies evaluating costs have shown savings in terms of ongoing operating costs with this modality. However, all estimates need to include the total costs, including infrastructure, patient training, and maintenance; patient attrition by death, transplantation, technique failure; and the necessity of in-center dialysis. We describe a comprehensive funding model for a large centrally administered but locally delivered home hemodialysis program in British Columbia, Canada that covered 122 patients, of which 113 were still in the program at study end. The majority of patients performed home nocturnal hemodialysis in this 2-year retrospective study. All training periods, both in-center and in-home dialysis, medications, hospitalizations, and deaths were captured using our provincial renal database and vital statistics. Comparative data from the provincial database and pricing models were used for costing purposes. The total comprehensive costs per patient-incorporating startup, home, and in-center dialysis; medications; home remodeling; and consumables-was $59,179 for years 2004-2005 and $48,648 for 2005-2006. The home dialysis patients required multiple in-center dialysis runs, significantly contributing to the overall costs. Our study describes a valid, comprehensive funding model delineating reliable cost estimates of starting and maintaining a large home-based hemodialysis program. Consideration of hidden costs is important for administrators and planners to take into account when designing budgets for home hemodialysis.

Economic consequences of an increased number of patients on outgoing dialysis.

OBJECTIVE: During the past 10 years the number of prevalent patients on dialysis treatment has doubled in Denmark and the number is expected to increase further. The majority of Danish patients on dialysis receive haemodialysis at a hospital-based centre, and increasing patient numbers will put pressure on these dialysis centres. In order to reduce this pressure, more patients will need to be offered dialysis as outgoing treatment. The aim of this study was to analyse the economic consequences of an increased number of patients on outgoing dialysis in a Danish setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model using Danish cost estimates and clinical parameters from the Danish National Registry was developed and used to simulate changes of dialysis modalities, exits to transplantation or death as well as entry of new incident patients over a period of 10 years. RESULTS: The development in total annual costs over a 10-year period showed that an increased number of patients on outgoing dialysis will lead to total savings of approximately €9.6 million. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated savings of approximately €9.6 million only constitute 0.6% of the total cost of dialysis. In terms of cost over time, therefore, an increased number of patients on outgoing treatment will not lead to an increase in costs; the total cost of treatment will probably be unchanged or slightly reduced. The results were sensitive to inclusion of capital costs and exclusion of costs associated with complications or comorbidity.

[The best place for the hospitalized kidney patient: internal medicine or nephrology? Comment]. / Ci sono differenze nel trattamento del nefropatico se il paziente è ricoverato in medicina o in nefrologia? Commento agli interventi di Giuseppe Quintaliani et al e Raffaele Laureano.

Proposals of new organizational models and awareness of the limits of the available resources are leading to certain changes in the hospital organization in some Italian regions. These changes consist mainly of the creation of large departments of internal medicine divided into sections according to the different levels of care, and the abolishment of specialty divisions like nephrology. When this happens, it can be hypothesized that specialists will become mere consultants and will no longer take direct care of the patient. This already happens in many countries but is a novelty in the Italian medical system. This paper comments on the pros and cons of the new model as seen by an internist and a nephrologist in two papers in this issue of the journal. When addressing this subject, the main factors to be taken into consideration should be 1) long-term care for patients with chronic disease; 2) coordination of admissions for acute and chronic disease; 3) hospital size. It is to be hoped that the efficacy of the new models will be judged not only by managerial and economic criteria, but also using indicators of clinical outcome.

Projected impact of the proposed "bundled" ESRD payment system on a small dialysis organization.

Payment for outpatient hemodialysis services is currently made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on a per-treatment basis using a partially "bundled" composite rate adjusted for geographic and patient characteristics, plus a separately billable portion for medications and services not included in the bundle. In response to concerns over rising costs of the End-Stage Renal Disease Program, and specifically the increasing use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, Congress has mandated a new, more inclusive prospective payment system, in which current composite rate services, separately billable medications, and dialysis-related laboratory services will be included in a single payment. It is expected that the so-called bundle will apply a geographic wage adjuster and patient-specific case-mix factors to a base rate to calculate a per-patient, per treatment payment unit. We have modeled the proposed bundle and entered clinical and financial data for 118 Medicare patients dialyzed at a suburban dialysis center in New York State during 2006. Under the proposed bundled system, we stand to lose as much as $118,000 per year in revenue, and we find the case-mix adjusters appear to be poor predictors of our actual costs. We conclude that the proposed bundle places the small dialysis provider at significant financial risk.

The cost of renal dialysis in a UK setting--a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Health Service (NHS) will fund renal services using Payment by Results (PbR), from 2009. Central to the success of PbR will be the creation of tariffs that reflect the true cost of medical services. We have therefore estimated the cost of different dialysis modalities in the Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust and six other hospitals in the UK. METHODS: We used semi-structured interviews with nephrologists, head nurses and business managers to identify the steps involved in delivering the different dialysis modalities. We assigned costs to these using published figures or suppliers' published price lists. The study used mixed costing methods. Dialysis costs were estimated by a combination of microcosting and a top-down approach. Where we did not have access to detailed accounts, we applied values for Cardiff. RESULTS: The most efficient modalities were automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), the mean annual costs of which were pound21 655 and pound15 570, respectively. Hospital-based haemodialysis (HD) cost pound35 023 per annum and satellite-unit-based HD cost pound32 669. The cost of home-based HD was pound20 764 per year (based on data from only one unit). The main cost drivers for PD were the costs of solutions and management of anaemia. For HD they were costs of disposables, nursing, the overheads associated with running the unit and management of anaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Renal tariffs for PbR need to reflect the true cost of dialysis provision if choices about modalities are not to be influenced by erroneous estimates of cost. Knowledge of the true costs of modalities will also maximize the number of established renal failure patients treated by dialysis within the limited funds available from the NHS.

Survey of hidden costs of dialysis in Italian for-profit and not-for-profit centers.

BACKGROUND: Chronic dialysis exposes patients to several procedures that may influence lifestyle and quality of life. These hidden costs, however, have never been evaluated. AIM AND METHODS: To compare the costs related to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures between not-for-profit (nFP) and for-profit (FP) dialysis care systems, we mailed to Italian nephrology units a questionnaire on modalities of medical prescriptions and reservations, waiting time for tests and modalities of drugs distribution. RESULTS: 247 centers (42%) replied to the questionnaire: 177 nFP (72%) and 70 FP (28%). The response rate was 54% of nFP and 26% of FP centers. All centers provided hemodialysis (in satellite units, 42% nFP and 14% FP, p<0.001; at home, 23% nFP and 1% FP, p<0.001). Peritoneal dialysis was offered by 60% nFP and 6% FP (p<0.001). Centers provided dialysis care for 15,294 patients, 85% in nFP and 15% in FP. At least 1 general practitioner prescription for dialysis, diagnostic tests, specialist consultations and drugs, was requested to patients in 50% of nFP and 95% of FP centers (p<0.001). Reservations for tests and specialist visits were made by patients in 6% of nFP and 20% of FP centers (p<0.001). In nFP and FP centers, waiting time for tests was 2 vs. 4 days for lung x-ray (p<0.01), 7 vs. 11 days for gastroscopy (p<0.05) and 14 vs. 13 days for echocardiography (NS). Erythropoietin, phosphate binders and nutritional supplements, were supplied by patients in 7%, 46% and 37% of nFP centers, and 86%, 86% and 90% of FP centers (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The dialysis care system charges patients a high hidden cost, represented by procedures related to dialysis. Higher costs and reduced choice of treatment modalities may characterize the for-profit dialysis system.

Direct costs of integrated procedures of conventional hemodialysis performed by nursing professionals.

OBJECTIVE: to analyze the mean direct cost of the constituent procedures of conventional hemodialysis, performed in three public teaching and research hospitals. METHOD: quantitative, exploratory-descriptive study, of the multiple case study type. The mean direct cost was calculated by multiplying the time (timed) spent by nursing professionals, on the execution of procedures, by the unit cost of direct labor, added to the cost of materials and solutions/medications. RESULTS: the total mean direct cost, in patients with an arteriovenous fistula corresponded to US$25.10 in hospital A, US$37.34 in hospital B and US$25.01 in hospital C, and in patients with a dual lumen catheter, US$32.07 in hospital A, US$40.58 in hospital B and US$30.35 in hospital C. The weighted mean values obtained were US$26.59 for hospital A, US$38.96 for hospital B and US$27.68 for hospital C. It was noted that the "installation and removal of hemodialysis fistula access" caused a significantly lower economic impact compared to "installation and removal of hemodialysis catheter access". CONCLUSION: with the knowledge developed it will be possible to support hospital managers, technical managers and nursing professionals in the decision making process, with a view to the rational allocation of the necessary inputs for the performance of conventional hemodialysis.

Persistent Variation in Medicare Payment Authorization for Home Hemodialysis Treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze variation in medical care use attributable to Medicare's decentralized claims adjudication process as exemplified in home hemodialysis (HHD) therapy. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Secondary data analysis using 2009-2012 paid Medicare claims for HHD and in-center hemodialysis (IHD). STUDY DESIGN: We compared variation across Medicare administrative contractors (MACs) in predicted paid treatments per standardized patient-month for HHD and IHD patients. We used ordinary least-squares regression to determine whether higher paid HHD treatment counts expanded HHD programs' presence among dialysis facilities. DATA COLLECTION: We identified HHD and IHD treatments using procedure, revenue center, and claim condition codes on type 72x claims. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: MACs varied persistently in predicted HHD treatments per patient-month, ranging from 14.3 to 21.9 treatments versus 10.9 to 12.4 IHD treatments. The presence of facilities' HHD programs was uncorrelated with average HHD payment counts. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare's claims adjudication process promotes variation in medical care use, as we observe among HHD patients. MACs' discretionary decision making, while potentially facilitating innovation, may admit inefficiency in care practice as well as inequitable access to health care services. Regulators should weigh the benefits of flexibility in local coverage decisions against those of national standards for medical necessity.