Dialysis facility and patient characteristics associated with utilization of home dialysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nonmedical factors influencing utilization of home dialysis at the facility level are poorly quantified. Home dialysis is comparably effective and safe but less expensive to society and Medicare than in-center hemodialysis. Elimination of modifiable practice variation unrelated to medical factors could contribute to improvements in patient outcomes and use of scarce resources. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Prevalent dialysis patient data by facility were collected from the 2007 ESRD Network's annual reports. Facility characteristic data were collected from Medicare's Dialysis Facility Compare file. A multivariate regression model was used to evaluate associations between the use of home dialysis and facility characteristics. RESULTS: The utilization of home dialysis was positively associated with facility size, percent patients employed full- or part-time, younger population, and years a facility was Medicare certified. Variables negatively associated include an increased number of hemodialysis patients per hemodialysis station, chain association, rural location, more densely populated zip code, a late dialysis work shift, and greater percent of black patients within a zip code. CONCLUSIONS: Improved understanding of factors affecting the frequency of use of home dialysis may help explain practice variations across the United States that result in an imbalanced use of medical resources within the ESRD population. In turn, this may improve the delivery of healthcare and extend the ability of an increasingly overburdened medical financing system to survive.

Reimbursement and economic factors influencing dialysis modality choice around the world.

The worldwide incidence of kidney failure is on the rise and treatment is costly; thus, the global burden of illness is growing. Kidney failure patients require either a kidney transplant or dialysis to maintain life. This review focuses on the economics of dialysis. Alternative dialysis modalities are haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). Important economic factors influencing dialysis modality selection include financing, reimbursement and resource availability. In general, where there is little or no facility or physician reimbursement or payment for PD, the share of PD is very low. Regarding resource availability, when centre HD capacity is high, there is an incentive to use that capacity rather than place patients on home dialysis. In certain countries, there is interest in revising the reimbursement structure to favour home-based therapies, including PD and home HD. Modality selection is influenced by employment status, with an association between being employed and PD as the modality choice. Cost drivers differ for PD and HD. PD is driven mainly by variable costs such as solutions and tubing, while HD is driven mainly by fixed costs of facility space and staff. Many cost comparisons of dialysis modalities have been conducted. A key factor to consider in reviewing cost comparisons is the perspective of the analysis because different costs are relevant for different perspectives. In developed countries, HD is generally more expensive than PD to the payer. Additional research is needed in the developing world before conclusive statements may be made regarding the relative costs of HD and PD.

Increased utilization of peritoneal dialysis to cope with mounting demand for renal replacement therapy--perspectives from Asian countries.

With the number of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients growing, one of the crucial questions facing health care professionals and funding agencies in Asia is whether funding for dialysis will be sufficient to keep up with demand. During the ISPD's 2006 Congress, academic nephrologists and government officials from China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Macau, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam participated in a roundtable discussion on dialysis economics in Asia. The focus was policy and health care financing. The roundtable addressed ESRD growth in Asia and how to obtain enough funding to keep up with the growth in patient numbers. Various models were presented: the "peritoneal dialysis (PD) first" policy model, incentive programs, nongovernmental organizations providing PD, and PD reimbursement in a developing economy. This article summarizes the views of the participant nephrologists on how to increase the utilization of PD to improve on clinical and financial management of patients with ESRD.

Impact of initial dialysis modality and modality switches on Medicare expenditures of end-stage renal disease patients.

BACKGROUND: The number of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) enrollees and Medicare expenditures have increased dramatically. Pathways and associated Medicare expenditures in ESRD treatment need to be examined to potentially improve the efficiency of care. METHODS: This study examines the impact of initial dialysis modality choice and subsequent modality switches on Medicare expenditure in a 3-year period. The Dialysis Morbidity and Mortality Study Wave 2 data by the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) is used along with the USRDS Core CD and USRDS claims data. RESULTS: A total of 3423 incident dialysis patients (approximately equal number of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis) were included in the analysis. Unadjusted average annual Medicare expenditure (in 2004 dollars) for peritoneal dialysis as first modality was 53,277 dollars(95% CI 50,626 dollars-55,927 dollars), and 72,189 dollars (95% CI 67,513 dollars-76,865 dollars) for hemodialysis. Compared to "hemodialysis, no switch" subgroup, "peritoneal dialysis, no switch" had a significantly lower annual expenditure (44,111 dollars vs. 72,185 dollars) (P < 0.001). "Peritoneal dialysis, with at least one switch" and "hemodialysis, with at least one switch" had a lower or similar annual expenditure of 66,639 dollars and 72,335 dollars, respectively. After adjusting for patient characteristics, annual Medicare expenditure was still significantly lower for patients with peritoneal dialysis as the initial modality (56,807 dollars vs. 68,253 dollars) (P < 0.001). Similarly, compared to "hemdialysis, no switch" subgroup, "peritoneal dialysis, no switch" and "peritoneal dialysis, with at least one switch" had a significantly lower total expenditure. Further analysis showed that time-to-first switch also independently impacted total expenditure. CONCLUSION: Initial modality choice (peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis) and subsequent modality switches had significant implications for Medicare expenditure on ESRD treatments.

Economic impact of extended time on peritoneal dialysis as a result of using polyglucose: the application of a Markov chain model to forecast changes in the development of the ESRD programme over time.

BACKGROUND: The use of polyglucose as a peritoneal dialysis (PD) fluid extends time on PD treatment. It is anticipated, therefore, that the share of patients treated with PD will be positively influenced. The relationship between extension of PD treatment time and an increase of the PD treatment share, however, is complex and needs further investigation. In this paper, a Markov chain model was applied to investigate the impact of extended time on PD treatment for the PD share in all dialysis patients in The Netherlands. Furthermore, the economic impact of the extended time on treatment (ETOT) was explored. METHODS: Scenarios were forecast over a 10 year period using aggregate data from the End-Stage Renal Registry in The Netherlands (Renine). Three scenarios were simulated in which the median PD technique survival was extended by 8, 10 and 12 months. Two other scenarios explored the impact of the combined effect of ETOT of 10 months together with a 10% and 20% increase of PD inflow shares. Reductions of costs to society due to ETOT were estimated using Dutch cost data on renal replacement therapies. RESULTS: PD share increases from 30.0% in the null scenario to 34.5% in the scenario with an ETOT of 10 months and an increased PD inflow share of 20%. The reduction in total costs to society of the renal replacement therapies is 0.96%. The average societal costs per discounted patient year for haemodialysis (HD) are 84 100 euros. For PD, these costs are 60 300 euros. A shift from HD to PD results in average cost savings of 28% per patient year. CONCLUSIONS: In view of high dialysis costs to society, a reduction of 0.96% can be considered to be relevant for healthcare policy makers.