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.

Keys to Driving Implementation of the New Kidney Care Models.

Contemporary nephrology practice is heavily weighted toward in-center hemodialysis, reflective of decisions on infrastructure and personnel in response to decades of policy. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative seeks to transform care for patients and providers. Under the initiative's framework, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has launched two new care models that align patient choice with provider incentives. The mandatory ESRD Treatment Choices model requires participation by all nephrology practices in designated Hospital Referral Regions, randomly selecting 30% of all Hospital Referral Regions across the United States for participation, with the remaining Hospital Referral Regions serving as controls. The voluntary Kidney Care Choices model offers alternative payment programs open to nephrology practices throughout the country. To help organize implementation of the models, we developed Driver Diagrams that serve as blueprints to identify structures, processes, and norms and generate intervention concepts. We focused on two goals that are directly applicable to nephrology practices and central to the incentive structure of the ESRD Treatment Choices and Kidney Care Choices: (1) increasing utilization of home dialysis, and (2) increasing the number of kidney transplants. Several recurring themes became apparent with implementation. Multiple stakeholders from assorted backgrounds are needed. Communication with primary care providers will facilitate timely referrals, education, and comanagement. Nephrology providers (nephrologists, nursing, dialysis organizations, others) must lead implementation. Patient engagement at nearly every step will help achieve the aims of the models. Advocacy with federal and state regulatory agencies will be crucial to expanding home dialysis and transplantation access. Although the models hold promise to improve choices and outcomes for many patients, we must be vigilant that they not do reinforce existing disparities in health care or widen known racial, socioeconomic, or geographic gaps. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative has the potential to usher in a new era of value-based care for nephrology.

Nephrologist Performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the largest quality payment program administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Little is known about predictors of nephrologist performance in MIPS. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Nephrologists participating in MIPS in performance year 2018. PREDICTORS: Nephrologist characteristics: (1) participation type (individual, group, or MIPS alternative payment model [APM]), (2) practice size, (3) practice setting (rural, Health Professional Shortage Area [HPSA], or hospital based), and (4) geography (Census Division). OUTCOMES: MIPS Final, Quality, Promoting Interoperability, Improvement Activities, and Cost scores. Using published consensus ratings, we also examined the validity of MIPS Quality measures selected by nephrologists. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted linear regression models assessing the associations between nephrologist characteristics and MIPS Final scores. RESULTS: Among 6,117 nephrologists participating in MIPS in 2018, the median MIPS Final score was 100 (interquartile range, 94-100). In multivariable-adjusted analyses, MIPS APM participation was associated with a 12.5-point (95% CI, 10.6-14.4) higher score compared with individual participation. Nephrologists in large (355-4,294 members) and medium (15-354 members) practices scored higher than those in small practices (1-14 members). In analyses adjusted for practice size, practice setting, and geography, among individual and group participants, HPSA nephrologists scored 1.9 (95% CI, -3.6 to -0.1) points lower than non-HPSA nephrologists, and hospital-based nephrologists scored 6.0 (95% CI, -8.3 to -3.7) points lower than non-hospital-based nephrologists. The most frequently reported quality measures by individual and group participants had medium to high validity and were relevant to nephrology care, whereas MIPS APM measures had little relevance to nephrology. LIMITATIONS: Lack of adjustment for patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: MIPS APM participation, larger practice size, non-HPSA setting, and non-hospital-based setting were associated with higher MIPS scores among nephrologists. Our results inform strategies to improve MIPS program design and generate meaningful distinctions between practices that will drive improvements in care.

Home Hemodialysis: Core Curriculum 2021.

In the early days of dialysis, because of a lack of existing in-center infrastructure, home hemodialysis (HHD) was frequently used to expand dialysis programs. Recently, HHD has been thrust into the spotlight of kidney care programs once again. Patients and policymakers are demanding more choices for the management of kidney failure while controlling for cost. Perhaps it is not surprising that the kidney community's interest in HHD has been revived, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. To meet this increased interest and demand, nephrologists and dialysis providers must embrace new technologies and improve their understanding of HHD systems. This installment of AJKD's Core Curriculum in Nephrology seeks to inform the reader about factors that can improve success in the training and retention of HHD patients. Benefits, pitfalls, and challenges of HHD are outlined. The features of novel and commonly used HHD equipment are also summarized. Examples of prescriptions and prescription adjustments to meet the needs of patients will also be reviewed. Finally, considerations related to medical management of HHD patients and their dialysis access at home are also included. HHD is an important tool for the management and rehabilitation of patients with kidney failure, which allows for patient-centered care and increased patient choice.

A Case of Roseomonas gilardii Peritonitis Associated with a Flooded Peritoneal Dialysis Treatment Space.

Bacterial peritonitis is a key complication of Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) and a preventable cause of withdrawal from PD treatment. Infection generally arises from contamination with skin commensals during handling of the dialysis delivery system or from translocation of gastrointestinal organisms and more rarely from an environmental organism. Herein, we report the case of a 73-year-old admitted for PD-related peritonitis due to Roseomonas gilardii with an associated environmental exposure from a domestic plumbing issue. We describe the presentation, case, and antibiotic regimen progression from empiric therapy of ceftazidime and vancomycin IP to ciprofloxacin. We acknowledge the importance of performing laboratory sensitivities given the high antibiotic resistance of the Roseomonas genus. We offer that nephrologists should consider Roseomonas as a potential causative organism of peritonitis, especially when initial or further history reveals exposure to potentially contaminated water.

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.

Four years into MACRA: What has changed?

In 2015, Congress passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA), a policy intended to transition Medicare away from pure fee-for-service care to value-based care. MACRA does this by evaluating the cost and quality of providers, resulting in financial bonuses and penalties in Medicare reimbursement. MACRA offers two tracks for participation, the Merit-based Incentive Payment System and the Advanced Alternative Payment Models. Although the payment rules are different for each of the tracks, common to both is an emphasis on holding providers accountable for high-quality, cost-efficient care. Early data suggest that the End-stage renal disease Seamless Care Organizations, an Advanced Alternative Payment Model, resulted in cost-savings concurrent with improved care quality. Additionally, on July 10th 2019, the President signed an executive order that further attempts to improve kidney disease care by shifting its focus away from in-center hemodialysis toward chronic kidney disease care, home-based dialysis, kidney transplantation, and innovating new therapies for kidney disease. These changes to nephrology reimbursement present a unique opportunity to improve patient outcomes in a cost-effective way. A multidisciplinary effort among policy makers, nephrology providers, and patient advocacy groups is critical to ensure these changes in care delivery safeguard and improve patient health.

Patient and Technique Survival of Older Adults with ESRD Treated with Peritoneal Dialysis.

The number of older adults worldwide is increasing as societies gain success in improving the health and lifespan of their citizens. As a result, increasing numbers of older adults are presenting to the medical community with advanced kidney failure. Historically, dialysis treatments were withheld from older adults particularly those with severe co-existing illnesses. This has changed in most parts of the world, and there is now an increasing emphasis on shared decision-making to determine whether dialysis is appropriate and to determine which modality meets the needs, expectations, and desire of patients. Evidence examining the difference in risk for death of older adults treated with hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD), and the probability of those treated with PD to transfer to HD among older compared to younger adults, is largely derived from prospective cohort studies or analyses of data from national registries. In such studies, it is difficult to distinguish whether differences in outcomes reflect the effect of dialysis modality or differences in health status of different groups of patients. Longevity and technique survival are important, albeit not the only or most important consideration in such decision-making. Given the risk for bias in observational studies and the profound effect of dialysis modality on patients' lifestyle, the selection of dialysis modality should remain a decision made by the patient, caregivers, and his/her physician after thorough education and review of the available data.

Comparative outcomes between continuous ambulatory and automated peritoneal dialysis: a narrative review.

Automated methods for delivering peritoneal dialysis (PD) to persons with end-stage renal disease continue to gain popularity worldwide, particularly in developed countries. However, the endeavor to automate the PD process has not been advanced on the strength of high-level evidence for superiority of automated over manual methods. This article summarizes available studies that have shed light on the evidence that compares the association of treatment with continuous ambulatory PD or automated PD (APD) with clinically meaningful outcomes. Published evidence, primarily from observational studies, has been unable to demonstrate a consistent difference in residual kidney function loss rate, peritonitis rate, maintenance of euvolemia, technique survival, mortality, or health-related quality of life in individuals undergoing continuous ambulatory PD versus APD. At the same time, the future of APD technology appears ripe for further improvement, such as the incorporation of voice commands and expanded use of telemedicine. Given these considerations, it appears that patient choice should drive the decision about PD modality.

Migration of an intrauterine device and peritonitis in a peritoneal dialysis patient.

Peritonitis is a frequent complication of peritoneal dialysis. Infection is most commonly introduced into the peritoneal cavity through the indwelling catheter during the dialysis procedure. Occasionally peritonitis is associated with underlying abdominal pathology rather than secondary to the dialysis procedure itself. Here we present a case of polymicrobial peritonitis in a patient on automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) in the setting of uterine perforation by an intrauterine device (IUD). Clinicians involved in the care of patients on peritoneal dialysis should remain vigilant for underlying abdominal pathology in cases of complicated peritonitis.