Association of the End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choices Payment Model With Home Dialysis Use at Kidney Failure Onset From 2016 to 2022

Pay-for-Performance Incentives for Home Dialysis Use and Kidney Transplant

Importance

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' mandatory End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choices (ETC) model, launched on January 1, 2021, randomly assigned approximately 30% of US dialysis facilities and managing clinicians to financial incentives to increase the use of home dialysis and kidney transplant.

Objective

To assess the ETC's association with use of home dialysis and kidney transplant during the model's first 2 years and examine changes in these outcomes by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cross-sectional study used claims and enrollment data for traditional Medicare beneficiaries with kidney failure from 2017 to 2022 linked to same-period transplant data from the United Network for Organ Sharing. The study data span 4 years (2017-2020) before the implementation of the ETC model on January 1, 2021, and 2 years (2021-2022) following the model's implementation.

Exposure

Receiving dialysis treatment in a region randomly assigned to the ETC model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were use of home dialysis and kidney transplant. A difference-in-differences (DiD) approach was used to estimate changes in outcomes among patients treated in regions randomly selected for ETC participation compared with concurrent changes among patients treated in control regions.

Results

The study population included 724 406 persons with kidney failure (mean [IQR] age, 62.2 [53-72] years; 42.5% female). The proportion of patients receiving home dialysis increased from 12.1% to 14.3% in ETC regions and from 12.9% to 15.1% in control regions, yielding an adjusted DiD estimate of -0.2 percentage points (pp; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.3 pp). Similar analysis for transplant yielded an adjusted DiD estimate of 0.02 pp (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.04 pp). When further stratified by sociodemographic measures, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollment, and poverty quartile, there was not a statistically significant difference in home dialysis use across joint strata of characteristics and ETC participation.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, the first 2 years of the ETC model were not associated with increased use of home dialysis or kidney transplant, nor changes in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in these outcomes.

Effect of End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System on Utilization of Peritoneal Dialysis in Patients with Kidney Allograft Failure

INTRODUCTION

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced an End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System (PPS) in 2011 to increase the utilization of home dialysis modalities, including peritoneal dialysis (PD). Several studies have shown a significant increase in PD utilization after PPS implementation. However, its impact on patients with kidney allograft failure remains unknown.

METHODS

We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using data from the US Renal Data System (USRDS) that include all adult kidney transplant recipients with allograft failure who started dialysis between 2005 and 2019. We compared the PD utilization in the pre-PPS period (2005-2010) to the fully implemented post-PPS period (2014-2019) for early (within 90 days) and late (91-365 days) PD experience.

RESULTS

A total of 27,507 adult recipients with allograft failure started dialysis during the study period. There was no difference in early PD utilization between the pre-PPS and the post-PPS period in either immediate change (0.3% increase; 95% CI: -1.95%, 2.54%; p = 0.79) or rate of change over time (0.28% increase per year; 95% CI: -0.16%, 0.72%; p = 0.18). Subgroup analyses revealed a trend toward higher PD utilization post-PPS in for-profit and large-volume dialysis units. There was a significant increase in PD utilization in the post-PPS period in units with low PD experience in the pre-PPS period. Similar findings were seen for the late PD experience.

CONCLUSION

PPS did not significantly increase the overall utilization of PD in patients initiating dialysis after allograft failure.

The impact of the Starting dialysis on Time, At home on the Right Therapy (START) project on the use of peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is actively promoted, but increasing PD utilisation is difficult. The objective of this study was to determine if the Starting dialysis on Time, At Home, on the Right Therapy (START) project was associated with an increase in the proportion of dialysis patients receiving PD within 6 months of starting therapy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients over age 18, with end-stage kidney failure, who started dialysis between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2018 in the province of Alberta, Canada. Programmes were provided with high-quality data about the individual steps in the process of care that drive PD utilisation that were used to identify problem areas, design and implement interventions to address them, and then evaluate whether those interventions had impact. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving PD within 6 months of starting dialysis. Secondary outcomes included hospitalisation, death or probability of transfer to haemodialysis (HD). Interrupted time series methodology was used to evaluate the impact of the quality improvement initiative on the primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1962 patients started dialysis during the study period. Twenty-seven per cent of incident patients received PD at baseline, and there was a 5.4% (95% confidence interval: 1.5-9.2) increase in the use of PD in the province immediately after implementation. There were no changes in the rates of hospitalisation, death or probability of transfer to HD after the introduction of START.

CONCLUSIONS

The approach used in the START project was associated with an increase in the use of PD in a setting with high baseline utilisation.

Social Risk and Dialysis Facility Performance in the First Year of the ESRD Treatment Choices Model

Importance

The End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choices (ETC) model randomly selected 30% of US dialysis facilities to receive financial incentives based on their use of home dialysis, kidney transplant waitlisting, or transplant receipt. Facilities that disproportionately serve populations with high social risk have a lower use of home dialysis and kidney transplant raising concerns that these sites may fare poorly in the payment model.

Objective

To examine first-year ETC model performance scores and financial penalties across dialysis facilities, stratified by their incident patients' social risk.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional study of 2191 US dialysis facilities that participated in the ETC model from January 1 through December 31, 2021.

Exposure

Composition of incident patient population, characterized by the proportion of patients who were non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, living in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood, uninsured, or covered by Medicaid at dialysis initiation. A facility-level composite social risk score assessed whether each facility was in the highest quintile of having 0, 1, or at least 2 of these characteristics.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Use of home dialysis, waitlisting, or transplant; model performance score; and financial penalization.

Results

Using data from 125 984 incident patients (median age, 65 years [IQR, 54-74]; 41.8% female; 28.6% Black; 11.7% Hispanic), 1071 dialysis facilities (48.9%) had no social risk features, and 491 (22.4%) had 2 or more. In the first year of the ETC model, compared with those with no social risk features, dialysis facilities with 2 or more had lower mean performance scores (3.4 vs 3.6, P = .002) and lower use of home dialysis (14.1% vs 16.0%, P < .001). These facilities had higher receipt of financial penalties (18.5% vs 11.5%, P < .001), more frequently had the highest payment cut of 5% (2.4% vs 0.7%; P = .003), and were less likely to achieve the highest bonus of 4% (0% vs 2.7%; P < .001). Compared with all other facilities, those in the highest quintile of treating uninsured patients or those covered by Medicaid experienced more financial penalties (17.4% vs 12.9%, P = .01) as did those in the highest quintile in the proportion of patients who were Black (18.5% vs 12.6%, P = .001).

Conclusions

In the first year of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' ETC model, dialysis facilities serving higher proportions of patients with social risk features had lower performance scores and experienced markedly higher receipt of financial penalties.

Chronic kidney disease and value-based care: Lessons from innovation, iteration, and ideation in primary care

Value-based primary care has reduced health care costs, improved the quality of rendered care, and enhanced the patient experience. Value-based care emphasizes prevention, outreach, follow-up, patient engagement, and comprehensive, whole-person health. Primary care Accountable Care Organizations have leveraged technology-enabled workflows, practice transformation, and cutting-edge data and analytics to achieve success. These efforts are increasingly aided by predictive modeling used in the context of patient identification and prioritization algorithms. Value-based kidney care programs can glean salient takeaways from successful value-based primary care methods and models. The kidney care community is experiencing unprecedented transformation as novel payer programs and financial models burgeon. The authors contend these efforts can be accelerated by the adoption of techniques honed in value-based primary care. To optimize value-based kidney care, though, nephrology thought leaders must transcend the archetype of value-based primary care. To do so, the nephrology community must: (1) impel behavioral change among fee-for-service adherents; (2) harness emerging policy, guidelines, and quality measures; (3) adopt innovative tools, technologies, and therapies. In aggregating lessons from value-based primary care-and leveraging novel methodologies and approaches-the kidney care community will be better equipped to achieve the quadruple aim for kidney care.

Setting Up Home Dialysis Programs: Now and in the Future

Home dialysis utilization has been growing in the United States over the past decade but still lags behind similar socioeconomic nations. More than half of dialysis facilities in the United States either are not licensed to offer home dialysis or, despite a license, have no patients dialyzing at home, and many programs have a relatively small census. Multiple stakeholders, including patients, health care providers, and payers, have identified increased home dialysis use as an important goal. To realize these goals, nephrologists and kidney care professionals need a sound understanding of the key considerations in home dialysis center operation. In this review, we outline the core domains required to set up and operate a home dialysis program in the United States now and in the future.