Is case-mix adjustment necessary for an expanded dialysis bundle?

Congress has required CMS to expand the Medicare outpatient prospective payment system (PPS) for dialysis services to include as many drugs and diagnostic procedures provided to end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients as possible. One important implementation question is whether dialysis facility case mix should be reflected in payment. We use fiscal year (FY) 2000 cost report and patient billing and clinical data to determine the relationship between costs and case mix, as represented by several patient demographic, diagnostic, and clinical characteristics. Results indicate considerable variability in costs and case mix across facilities and a significant and substantial relationship between case mix and facility cost, suggesting case mix payment adjustment may be important.

ESRD managed care demonstration: financial implications

In 1996, CMS launched the end stage renal disease (ESRD) managed care demonstration to study the experience of offering managed care to ESRD patients. This article analyzes the financial impact of the demonstration, which sought to assess its economic impact on the Federal Government, the sites, and the ESRD Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare's costs for demonstration enrollees were greater than they would have been if these enrollees had remained in the fee-for-service (FFS) system. This loss was driven by the lower than average predicted Medicare spending given the demonstration patients' conditions. The sites experienced losses or only modest gains, primarily because they provided a larger benefit package than traditional Medicare coverage, including no patient obligations and other benefits, especially prescription drugs. Patient financial benefits were approximately $9,000 annually.

The cost effectiveness of tacrolimus versus microemulsified cyclosporin: a 10-year model of renal transplantation outcomes

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

In 1983, the launch of cyclosporin was a significant clinical advance for organ transplant recipients. Subsequent drug research led to further advances with the introduction of cyclosporin microemulsion (cyclosporin ME) and tacrolimus. This paper presents the results from a long-term model comparing the clinical and economic outcomes associated with cyclosporin ME and tacrolimus immunosuppression for the prevention of graft rejection following renal transplantation.

STUDY DESIGN

A model was developed to project the costs and outcomes over a 10-year period following transplantation. The model was based on the results of a prospective, randomised study of 179 renal transplantation recipients receiving either cyclosporin ME or tacrolimus, which was conducted by the Welsh Transplantation Research Group (median follow-up: 2.7 years).

METHODS

The short-term costs and outcomes were the averages from the actual head-to-head trial data. From this, the long-term costs and outcomes were extrapolated based on the rate of change in patient and graft survival at 3, 5 and 10 years post transplant, as reported in the 1995 United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority Renal Transplant Audit. PERSPECTIVE AND YEAR OF COST DATA: The analysis was conducted from the perspective of a UK transplant unit. Costs were at 1999 prices (pounds sterling 1 = dollars US 1.42 = Euro 1.5) and costs and outcomes were discounted at 6% and 1.5%, respectively.

RESULTS

The model estimated that 10 years after transplantation, the proportion of patients surviving was 56% of the cyclosporin ME cohort and 64% of the tacrolimus cohort. The cumulative cost of maintenance therapy at 10 years was pounds sterling 23204 per patient maintained on cyclosporin ME versus pounds sterling 23803 per patient on tacrolimus. The cost per survivor at 10 years was pounds sterling 37000 (tacrolimus) versus pounds sterling 41000 (cyclosporin ME) and the cost per patient with a functioning graft was pounds sterling 39000 versus pounds sterling 45000. A Monte Carlo simulation of the model (10000 simulations) gave an average cost at 10 years of pounds sterling 23279 (SD pounds sterling 3457) for cyclosporin ME and pounds sterling 22841 (SD pounds sterling 3590) for tacrolimus. A (second order) probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also performed. The average cost at 10 years from a simulated cohort of 1000 was pounds sterling 23473 (SD pounds sterling 2154) for cyclosporin ME and pounds sterling 24087 (SD pounds sterling 2025) for tacrolimus.

CONCLUSION

Renal transplant recipients maintained on tacrolimus have better short- and long-term outcomes than patients maintained on cyclosporin ME. The long-term use of tacrolimus is a more cost-effective solution in terms of the number of survivors, patients with a functioning graft and rejection-free patients.

Losartan reduces the burden and cost of ESRD: public health implications from the RENAAL study for the European Union

Type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in most industrialized countries in Europe. The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) Study evaluated the renal protective effects of losartan versus placebo on a background of non-ACE-I/non-AIIA conventional antihypertensive therapy in 1513 patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. Losartan reduced the incidence of doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), or death by 16% (P=0.022) and reduced the risk of progression to ESRD, defined as the initiation of dialysis or transplantation, by 29% (P=0.002). We set out to estimate the potential effect of losartan on the burden and costs associated with ESRD over 3.5 years in the European Union (EU). The risk reduction in new cases of ESRD was calculated by combining type 2 diabetes population estimates for the EU with the percent absolute risk reduction of ESRD in patients treated with losartan as observed in RENAAL. The number of days each patient experienced ESRD was defined as the length of time from onset of ESRD until the minimum of death or 3.5 years. ESRD-free person-years avoided with losartan treatment were calculated by combining the population estimate with the ESRD days avoided divided by number of days in a year. ESRD costs from Germany were used to approximate the potential cost savings from reduced time with ESRD and fewer ESRD cases on a EU wide basis. There are approximately 700,000 diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients with proteinuria (urine albumin/creatinine >or=300 mg/g) in the EU. The addition of losartan to the treatment regimen of these patients is expected to lead to a reduction of 44,100 cases of ESRD, 64,400 fewer person-years with ESRD, and reduce ESRD-related costs by euro 2.6 billion over 3.5 years based on RENAAL data. Treatment with losartan not only reduced the incidence of ESRD, but also can result in substantial cost savings in the European Union.

Cost savings of home nocturnal versus conventional in-center hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Home nocturnal hemodialysis (HNHD) can improve clinical and biochemical factors in people with renal failure, but its cost-effectiveness relative to conventional in-center hemodialysis (IHD) is uncertain. We hypothesized that HNHD would provide more dialysis treatments at a lower total cost than IHD.

METHODS

A prospective one-year descriptive costing study was performed at two centers in Toronto, Canada, involving patients enrolled from a HNHD program (N = 33), and a matched cohort from an IHD program (N = 23). All costs are expressed as mean weekly amount in Canadian year 2000 dollars. A projected mean annual cost (PMA) was calculated also.

RESULTS

The mean number of treatments per week was much higher with HNHD (5.7 vs. 3.0, P = 0.004). Cost categories found to be less expensive for HNHD were staffing (weekly $210 vs. $423, P < 0.001, PMA $10,932 vs. $22,056) and overhead and support (weekly $80 vs. $238, P < 0.001, PMA $4179 vs. $12,393). There was a trend toward lower costs for hospital admissions and procedures (weekly $23 vs. $134, P = 0.355, PMA $1173 vs. $6997) and for medications ($172 vs. $231, P = 0.082, PMA $8989 vs. $12,029). Costs found to be more expensive for HNHD were the cost of direct hemodialysis materials (weekly $318 vs. $126, P < 0.001, PMA $16,587 vs. $6575) and capital costs (weekly $118 vs. $17, P < 0.001, PMA $6139 vs. $871), with a trend toward higher cost for laboratory tests (weekly $33 vs. $26, P = 0.094, PMA $1744 vs. $1364). Physician costs were the same at $128 per week (PMA $6650). The weekly mean total cost for health care delivery was 20% less for HNHD ($1082 vs. $1322, P = 0.006), with projected mean annual costs more than $10,000 lower ($56,394 vs. $68,935).

CONCLUSIONS

HNHD provides about three times as many treatment hours at nearly a one-fifth lower cost, with savings evident even when only program and funding-specific costs are considered.

[Empirical therapy of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients--it is reasonable to use a new therapeutic schedule?]

The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Peritonitis Management recommended in the year 2000 a new protocol of empirical peritonitis therapy in patients on peritoneal dialysis with preserved residual renal function (RRF). This protocol comprises 1st and 3rd generation cephalosporins. According to these recommendations the old protocol of therapy, comprising 1st generation cephalosporin and aminoglycoside may be used only in patients with diuresis lower than 100 ml/day. The aim of the study was a retrospective assessment of the efficacy and cost of peritonitis therapy using "old" and "new" protocols. The analysed episodes of peritonitis were divided into two groups. Group 1 included 22 episodes of peritonitis in 13 patients treated with the old protocol, in whom RRF was lower than 100 ml/day. Group 2 included 6 episodes of peritonitis in 4 patients with preserved RRF treated with the new protocol. The efficacy of the treatment according to the old protocol was 64% and according to the new protocol--33%. The average cost of 14-day therapy with the old and new schedule was 67.1 and 247.2 Euro, respectively. In our studied population a considerably lower efficacy and higher cost were revealed of the new empirical schedule of peritonitis treatment in comparison to the old schedule. The results of the study indicate the need of further estimation of the usefulness of the new peritonitis empirical treatment protocol.

Preventing & dealing with ESRD claim denials

Nephrology practices and dialysis clinics should structure their billing procedures and specifically designate staff for tracking claims and appealing denials. Timeliness are careful navigation of denial process procedures are keys to optimizing reimbursement. Clearly, the dynamic nature of health care reimbursement demands that facilities become even more savvy in managing challenging reimbursement issues. Billing staff who know how to prevent denials whenever possible and confidently manage appeals when denials occur are instrumental to ensuring appropriate payment for medical services.

Cost analysis of ongoing care of patients with end-stage renal disease: the impact of dialysis modality and dialysis access

BACKGROUND

Care of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is important and resource intense. To enable ESRD programs to develop strategies for more cost-efficient care, an accurate estimate of the cost of caring for patients with ESRD is needed.

METHODS

The objective of our study is to develop an updated and accurate itemized description of costs and resources required to treat patients with ESRD on dialysis therapy and contrast differences in resources required for various dialysis modalities. One hundred sixty-six patients who had been on dialysis therapy for longer than 6 months and agreed to enrollment were followed up prospectively for 1 year. Detailed information on baseline patient characteristics, including comorbidity, was collected. Costs considered included those related to outpatient dialysis care, inpatient care, outpatient nondialysis care, and physician claims. We also estimated separately the cost of maintaining the dialysis access.

RESULTS

Overall annual cost of care for in-center, satellite, and home/self-care hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis were US $51,252 (95% confidence interval [CI], 47,680 to 54,824), $42,057 (95% CI, 39,523 to 44,592), $29,961 (95% CI, 21,252 to 38,670), and $26,959 (95% CI, 23,500 to 30,416), respectively (P < 0.001). After adjustment for the effect of other important predictors of cost, such as comorbidity, these differences persisted. Among patients treated with hemodialysis, the cost of vascular access-related care was lower by more than fivefold for patients who began the study period with a functioning native arteriovenous fistula compared with those treated with a permanent catheter or synthetic graft (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

To maximize the efficiency with which care is provided to patients with ESRD, dialysis programs should encourage the use of home/self-care hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.

Health economic evaluations: the special case of end-stage renal disease treatment

This article synthesizes the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of renal replacement therapy and discusses the findings in light of the frequent practice of using the cost-effectiveness of hemodialysis as a benchmark of societal willingness to pay. The authors conducted a meta-analytic review of the medical and economic literature for economic evaluations of hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplantation. Cost-effectiveness ratios were translated into 2000 U.S. dollars per life-year (LY) saved. Thirteen studies published between 1968 and 1998 provided such information. The cost effectiveness of center hemodialysis remained within a narrow range of $55,000 to $80,000/LY in most studies despite considerable variation in methodology and imputed costs. The cost-effectiveness of home hemodialysis was found to be between $33,000 and $50,000/LY. Kidney transplantation, however, has become more cost-effective over time, approaching $10,000/LY. Estimates of the cost per life-year gained from hemodialysis have been remarkably stable over the past 3 decades, after adjusting for price levels. Uses of the cost-effectiveness ratio of $55,000/LY for center hemodialysis as a lower boundary of society's willingness to pay for an additional life-year can be supported under certain assumptions.

Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin in renal transplantation in Italy: cost-minimisation and cost-effectiveness analyses

BACKGROUND

The economic impact of therapies has increasingly become part of the clinical decision-making process. Costs associated with kidney transplantation are substantial and economic evaluations are useful in identifying immunosuppressive regimens that yield optimal clinical and economic benefits.

METHODS

Utilisation of health care resources during the first 6-months after renal transplantation was examined in 557 kidney transplant recipients participating in a European, multicentre, randomised, parallel group study that compared the efficacy and safety of a tacrolimus-based regimen versus a cyclosporin-microemulsion-based regimen. Cost-minimisation and cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from an Italian hospital perspective, including direct medical costs only (e.g. medication, hospitalisation).

RESULTS

The incidence of acute rejection was significantly lower in the tacrolimus group than in the cyclosporin microemulsion (ME) group (32.5% versus 51.3%; p<0.001). Patient and graft survival were similar in both treatment groups. Renal transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus-based immunosuppression had lower utilisation of health care resources and lower total costs per patient than cyclosporin-ME treated patients. When surviving patients with a rejection-free graft were analysed, tacrolimus therapy was cost-saving, since it was both more effective (18.8% difference in the incidence of acute rejection; 95%CI 10.7%-26.8%; p<0.001) and less costly than cyclosporin-ME based therapy (cost difference euro9918). The costs per patient with a functioning graft were euro2305, the costs per surviving patient were euro1892 lower in tacrolimus treated patients. Sensitivity analyses using the key cost-drivers (hospitalisation, study drug, and concomitant medication) found the cost advantage of tacrolimus was maintained.

CONCLUSION

In the first 6 months after renal transplantation, tacrolimus-based therapy was less costly than cyclosporin-ME based therapy. When surviving patients with a rejection-free graft were considered, tacrolimus was the dominant therapy.

Overview: end-stage renal disease in the developing world

Although the vast majority of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) worldwide live in what is called the developing world, little is known about its epidemiology and management. With the current paucity of credible and adequately representative registries, it is justified to resort to innovative means of obtaining information. In this attempt, world-renowned leading nephrologists in 10 developing countries collaborated in filling a 103-item questionnaire addressing epidemiology, etiology, and management of ESRD in their respective countries on the basis of integrating available data from different sources. Through this joint effort, it was possible to identify a number of important trends. These include the expected high prevalence of ESRD, despite the limited access to renal replacement therapy, and the dependence of prevalence on wealth. Glomerulonephritis, rather than diabetes, remains as the main cause of ESRD with significant geographical variations in the prevailing histopathological types. The implementation of different modalities of renal replacement therapy (RRT) is inhibited by the lack of funding, although governments, insurance companies, and donations usually constitute the major sponsors. Hemodialysis is the preferred modality in most countries with the exception of Mexico where chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) takes the lead. In several other countries, dialysis is available only for those on the transplant waiting list. Dialysis is associated with a high frequency of complications particularly HBV and HCV infections. Data on HIV are lacking. Aluminum intoxication remains as a major problem in a number of countries. Treatment withdrawal is common for socioeconomic reasons. Transplantation is offered to an average of 4 per million population (pmp). Recipient exclusion criteria are minimal. Donor selection criteria are generally loose regarding tissue typing, remote viral infection, and, in some countries, blood-relation to the recipient in live-donor transplants. Cadaver donors are accepted in many countries participating in this survey. Treatment outcomes with different RRT modalities are, on the average, inferior to the internationally acknowledged standards largely due to infective and cardiovascular complications.

Recruiting the community for supporting end-stage renal disease management in the developing world

Although the incidence of new end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients in Pakistan is estimated at 100 patients per million (ppm), the prevalence of those alive on renal replacement therapy (RRT) is around 40 ppm, reflecting the severe shortage of facilities. A national program was launched in 1998 to provide free RRT, but the funds were extremely limited, leading to the flourishing of suboptimal treatment in private dialysis and transplant centers. The Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT), started as a small unit in 1975, took the lead in recruiting nongovernmental funds for RRT. Through the devotion of several groups, it was possible to raise funds from individuals, pharmaceutical firms, and other organizations, which permitted the development of SIUT into an independent, large, and fully equipped institution that provides free RRT including dialysis and transplantation to many thousands of patients. This prompted the government to increase its contributions to encourage SIUT to pursue its unique path.

Delayed nephrologist referral and inadequate vascular access in patients with advanced chronic kidney failure

We sought to determine whether late referral to a nephrologist in patients with chronic renal failure influences the adequacy of vascular access for hemodialysis. We analyzed data describing all health care encounters for all Medicare and Medicaid patients with end-stage renal failure in New Jersey between January 1991 and June 1996. Patients were required to have been diagnosed with renal disease at least 1 year prior to onset of hemodialysis. In the resulting cohort of 2,398 incident hemodialysis patients, 35% had their first nephrologist consultation < or =90 days prior to initiation of dialysis. After controlling for demographic characteristics, socio-economic status and underlying renal disease, we found that patients who were referred to a nephrologist >90 days prior to onset of hemodialysis were 38% more likely to have undergone predialysis vascular access surgery than those who were referred to a nephrologist < or =90 days before dialysis [OR: 1.38; 95% CI (1.15; 1.64)]. Similarly, patients referred late were 42% more likely to require central venous access for hemodialysis compared to those seen by a nephrologist early [OR: 1.42; 95% CI (1.17; 1.71)]. Inadequate development of vascular access for renal replacement therapy in patients with late nephrologist referral unnecessarily contributes to the burden of disease experienced by this vulnerable patient population.

The emergency department care of hemodialysis patients

AIMS

To describe the emergency department (ED) presentation, evaluation and disposition of maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of adult HD patients seen 1/1-12/31/97. The following was collected: demographics, mode of arrival, chief complaint, etiology of renal failure, evaluation, treatment, disposition, length of stay and facility charges. During the study period, this tertiary care ED had an annual adult census of 45,000. No clinical pathways were in place.

RESULTS

143 patients made 355 visits: 351 charts were available. Mean patient age was 51 (range 20-86), 62% were male, 51% were white. 70% presented from home, 26% from dialysis. EMS transported 32%. Medicare insured 78%. Etiologies of renal failure included hypertension (33%), diabetes (27%), HIV (7%) and glomerulonephritis (8%). Complaints were related to infection (18%), dyspnea (17%), vascular access (16%). chest pain or dysrhythmia (15%) and gastrointestinal complaints (12%). ED evaluation included CBC (79%), electrolytes (75%), CXR (57%) and EKG (48%). Antibiotics were administered to 21%. HD was performed earlier than scheduled in 14%. Two hundred and eighteen patients (62%) were admitted (ICU 11%, telemetry 22%), 19 (5%) refused admission and 2 expired in the ED. The average hospital length of stay was 7.8 days (range 1-59), with 29% hospitalized more than 1 week, compared to 6.54 days for non-HD patients. The mean facility charge for admitted subjects was $14,758, while the average cost for non-HD admissions was $7,152. Of the 133 patients (38%) who were discharged directly from the ED, the mean length stay was 223 minutes (range 30 to 750) and the mean charge was $658. The mean length of stay for non-HD patients was 124 minutes.

CONCLUSION

The ED evaluation of adult HD patients involves multiple diagnostic modalities, and patients are usually admitted. The admit rate, ED length of stay for discharged patients and hospital charges for care were substantially higher in the HD patients than in the general population. Further research in the ED care of these complex patients should be undertaken.

Disease management: what have we learned so far?

Disease management (DM) is becoming an increasingly important tool for use in end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The goal of a DM program is to offer a continuum of care that uses guidelines and case management protocols to prevent acute care episodes, achieve improved outcomes and reduce health care costs. This article reviews the theory behind DM, describes key components of DM programs and explains the financial incentives for DM in ESRD. Of key importance in the increasing role of DM for ESRD has been the development of nationally recognized guidelines, the effects of which are now beginning to emerge. At the same time, recent studies have identified targeted opportunities for DM programs to improve outcomes and costs, including anemia management, dialysis dose, and vascular access. DM, through the use of guidelines and targeted toward these and other areas, has the potential to significantly impact the quality of care provided to ESRD patients.

To reuse or not to reuse? An economic evaluation of hemodialyzer reuse versus conventional single-use hemodialysis for chronic hemodialysis patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reusing hemodialyzers for patients with kidney failure on dialysis employing either a heated citric acid or formaldehyde sterilization method, in comparison to the standard practice of single-use dialysis.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of all relevant studies was performed to determine whether hemodialyzer reuse was associated with an increased relative risk of mortality or hospitalization. A decision tree was constructed to model the effect of three different dialysis strategies (single-use dialysis, heated citric acid, and formaldehyde dialyzer reuse) on the costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy of "typical" hemodialysis patients. The cost of heated citric acid reuse was estimated from a center experienced with the technique. The cost of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) care, survival data, and patient utilities were estimated from published sources.

RESULTS

There was evidence of a higher relative risk of hospitalization (but not mortality) for hemodialyzer reuse compared with single-use dialysis. Depending on the assumptions used, the cost savings that could be expected by switching from single-use dialysis to heated citric acid reuse were small, ranging from CAN $0-739 per patient per year.

CONCLUSIONS

ESRD programs can incorporate the results of this study based on their individual situations to determine whether hemodialyzer reuse is appropriate in their setting.

End-stage renal disease in the Northern Territory: current and future treatment costs

OBJECTIVE

To compare hospital costs of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal patients having haemodialysis treatment and forecast the future treatment cost.

METHODS

The costs of patients with HD in the "Top End" of Australia's Northern Territory were estimated for the financial years 1996/97 and 1997/98 using a hospital costing model. We used an Autoregression Integrated Moving Average model to predict future demand.

RESULTS

165 patients (101 Aboriginal and 64 non-Aboriginal) were treated at a total cost of $12.4 million in this two-year period. These 165 patients represented 0.7% of inpatients, 8.8% of total inpatient costs and 31.6% of total inpatient episodes of care in the Top End region. $9.5 million (77%) was spent on routine haemodialysis treatment and $2.9m (23%) on other hospitalisations. The average cost per routine haemodialysis treatment over the two-year period was $527, or $78 600 per patient treatment year. Hospitalisations for comorbidities occurred in 86% of Aboriginal and 39% of non-Aboriginal patients. Average cost per patient, number of admissions and length of hospital stays were all significantly greater for Aboriginals. We predict an average increase in the number of treatments of 12% each year over the next five years and a five-year cost of $49.8m.

CONCLUSIONS

A multipronged strategy designed to reduce the prevalence and costs of renal failure is required.