High-dose hemodialysis versus conventional in-center hemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspective

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of renal replacement therapies, and consequences for decision-making in the end-stage renal disease treatment pathway

OBJECTIVES

Comparative economic assessments of renal replacement therapies (RRT) are common and often used to inform national policy in the management of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This study aimed to assess existing cost-effectiveness analyses of dialysis modalities and consider whether the methods applied and results obtained reflect the complexities of the real-world treatment pathway experienced by ESRD patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify cost-effectiveness studies of dialysis modalities from 2005 onward by searching Embase, MEDLINE, EBM reviews, and EconLit. Economic evaluations were included if they compared distinct dialysis modalities (e.g. in-centre haemodialysis [ICHD], home haemodialysis [HHD] and peritoneal dialysis [PD]).

RESULTS

In total, 19 cost-effectiveness studies were identified. There was considerable heterogeneity in perspectives, time horizon, discounting, utility values, sources of clinical and economic data, and extent of clinical and economic elements included. The vast majority of studies included an incident dialysis patient population. All studies concluded that home dialysis treatment options were cost-effective interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar findings across studies, there are a number of uncertainties about which dialysis modalities represent the most cost-effective options for patients at different points in the care pathway. Most studies included an incident patient cohort; however, in clinical practice, patients may switch between different treatment modalities over time according to their clinical need and personal circumstances. Promoting health policies through financial incentives in renal care should reflect the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive approach that considers different RRTs along the patient pathway; however, no such evidence is currently available.

Nephrologists' Perspectives of the Potential Utilization of Home Hemodialysis in Saudi Arabia

Home hemodialysis (HD) is an attractive renal replacement modality that has been shown to provide several benefits to the patient and health-care system. However, home HD programs have not been well-established in Saudi Arabia. We aimed to explore the perspectives of adult nephrology consultants in Saudi Arabia about the potential utilization of home HD via a survey-based cross-sectional study. The survey was distributed via email to all adult nephrology consultants practicing in Saudi Arabia and registered in the Saudi Society of Nephrology and Transplantation. Out of 236 invited consultants, 151 (64%) participated in the study. Half of the participants defined home HD as a trained patient who can independently perform his/her HD sessions at home. Eighty-one (54%) consultants have never managed a patient on home HD during their nephrology training period. More than 70% of participants believed that home HD provides advantages over in-center HD, and that its utilization in Saudi Arabia would be feasible. Although 40% of participants worked in centers with no accredited nephrology training program, most of the remaining participants believed that the local training program did not provide enough teaching about home HD to trainees. Patients' refusal, the nephrologists' lack of motivation and experience, a lack of administrative support, and the lack of infrastructure and nursing support were identified by most participants as the major barriers to the utilization of home HD in Saudi Arabia. Addressing these barriers would be the first step to facilitate initiatives aiming to establish home HD programs in this country.

Three years evaluation of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis absorption costing: perspective of the service provider compared to funds transfers from the public and private healthcare systems

Introduction:

72% of renal replacement therapy (RRT) clinics in Brazil are private. However, regarding payment for dialysis therapy, 80% of the patients are covered by the Unified Health System (SUS) and 20% by private healthcare (PH).

Objectives:

To evaluate costs for peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) from the perspective of the service provider and compare with fund transfers from SUS and private healthcare.

Methods:

The absorption costing method was applied in a private clinic. Study horizon: January 2013 - December 2016. Analyzed variables: personnel, medical supplies, tax expenses, permanent assets, and labor benefits. The input-output matrix method was used for analysis.

Results:

A total of 27,666 HD sessions were performed in 2013, 26,601 in 2014, 27,829 in 2015, and 28,525 in 2016. There were 264 patients on PD in 2013, 348 in 2014, 372 in 2015, and 300 in 2016. The mean monthly cost of the service provider was R$ 981.10 for a HD session for patients with hepatitis B; R$ 238.30 for hepatitis C; R$197.99 for seronegative patients; and R$ 3,260.93 for PD. Comparing to fund transfers from SUS, absorption costing yielded a difference of -269.7% for hepatitis B, +10.2% for hepatitis C, -2.0% for seronegative patients, and -29.8% for PD. For PH fund transfers, absorption costing for hepatitis B yielded a difference of -50.2%, +64.24% for hepatitis C, +56.27% for seronegative patients, and +48.26 for PD.

Conclusion:

The comparison of costs of dialysis therapy from the perspective of the service provider with fund transfers from SUS indicated that there are cost constraints in HD and PD.

Survival on four compared with three times per week haemodialysis in high ultrafiltration patients: an observational study

Background

The harm caused by the long interdialytic interval in three-times-per-week haemodialysis regimens (3×WHD) may relate to fluid accumulation and associated high ultrafiltration rate (UFR). Four-times-per-week haemodialysis (4×WHD) may offer a solution, but its impact on mortality, hospitalization and vascular access complications is unknown.

Methods

From the AROii cohort of incident in-centre haemodialysis patients, 3×WHD patients with a UFR >10 mL/kg/h were identified. The hazard for the outcomes of mortality, hospitalization and vascular access complications in those who switched to 4×WHD compared with staying on 3×WHD was estimated using a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model. Adjustment included baseline patient and treatment characteristics with inverse probability weighting used to adjust for time-varying UFR and cardiovascular comorbidities.

Results

From 10 637 European 3×WHD patients, 3842 (36%) exceeded a UFR >10 mL/kg/h. Of these, 288 (7.5%) started 4×WHD and at baseline were more comorbid. Event rates while receiving 4×WHD compared with 3×WHD were 12.6 compared with 10.8 per 100 patient years for mortality, 0.96 compared with 0.65 per year for hospitalization and 14.7 compared with 8.0 per 100 patient years for vascular access complications. Compared with 3×WHD, the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality on 4×WHD was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–1.42]. Following adjustment for baseline demographics, time-varying treatment probability and censoring risks, this HR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.50–1.05; P = 0.095). Despite these adjustments on 4×WHD, the HR for hospitalization remained elevated and vascular access complications were similar to 3×WHD.

Conclusions

This observational study was not able to demonstrate a mortality benefit in patients switched to 4×WHD. To demonstrate the true benefits of 4×WHD requires a large, well-designed clinical trial. Our data may help in the design of such a study.

Lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line dialysis modalities for patients with end-stage renal disease under peritoneal dialysis first policy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of first-line dialysis modalities for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients under the "Peritoneal Dialysis First" policy.

METHODS

Lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses from both healthcare provider and societal perspectives were performed using Markov modelling by simulating at age 60. Empirical data on costs and health utility scores collected from our studies were combined with published data on health state transitions and survival data to estimate the lifetime cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness of three competing dialysis modalities: peritoneal dialysis (PD), hospital-based haemodialysis (HD) and nocturnal home HD.

RESULTS

For cost-effectiveness analysis over a lifetime horizon from the perspective of healthcare provider, hospital-based HD group (lifetime cost USD$142,389; 6.58 QALYs) was dominated by the PD group (USD$76,915; 7.13 QALYs). Home-based HD had the highest effectiveness (8.37 QALYs) but with higher cost (USD$97,917) than the PD group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was USD$16,934 per QALY gained for home-based HD over PD. From the societal perspective, the results were similar and the ICER was USD$1195 per QALY gained for home-based HD over PD. Both ICERs fell within the acceptable thresholds. Changes in model parameters via sensitivity analyses had a minimal impact on ICER values.

CONCLUSIONS

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of dialysis modalities and service delivery models for ESRD patients under "Peritoneal Dialysis First" policy. For both healthcare provider and societal perspectives, PD as first-line dialysis modality was cost-saving relative to hospital-based HD, supporting the existing PD First or favoured policy. When compared with PD, Nocturnal home Home-based HD was considered a cost-effective first-line dialysis modality for ESRD patients.

Economic Modelling of Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Literature Review to Inform Conceptual Model Design

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a progressive condition that leads to irreversible damage to the kidneys and is associated with an increased incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality. As novel interventions become available, estimates of economic and clinical outcomes are needed to guide payer reimbursement decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to systematically review published economic models that simulated long-term outcomes of kidney disease to inform cost-effectiveness evaluations of CKD treatments.

METHODS

The review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane library and EconLit) and health technology assessment agency websites. Relevant information on each model was extracted. Transition and mortality rates were also extracted to assess the choice of model parameterisation on disease progression by simulating patient's time with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and time to ESRD/death. The incorporation of cardiovascular disease in a population with CKD was qualitatively assessed across identified models.

RESULTS

The search identified 101 models that met the criteria for inclusion. Models were classified into CKD models (n = 13), diabetes models with nephropathy (n = 48), ESRD-only models (n = 33) and cardiovascular models with CKD components (n = 7). Typically, published models utilised frameworks based on either (estimated or measured) glomerular filtration rate (GFR) or albuminuria, in line with clinical guideline recommendations for the diagnosis and monitoring of CKD. Generally, two core structures were identified, either a microsimulation model involving albuminuria or a Markov model utilising CKD stages and a linear GFR decline (although further variations on these model structures were also identified). Analysis of parameter variability in CKD disease progression suggested that mean time to ESRD/death was relatively consistent across model types (CKD models 28.2 years; diabetes models with nephropathy 24.6 years). When evaluating time with ESRD, CKD models predicted extended ESRD survival over diabetes models with nephropathy (mean time with ESRD 8.0 vs. 3.8 years).

DISCUSSION

This review provides an overview of how CKD is typically modelled. While common frameworks were identified, model structure varied, and no single model type was used for the modelling of patients with CKD. In addition, many of the current methods did not explicitly consider patient heterogeneity or underlying disease aetiology, except for diabetes. However, the variability of individual patients' GFR and albuminuria trajectories perhaps provides rationale for a model structure designed around the prediction of individual patients' GFR trajectories. Frameworks of future CKD models should be informed and justified based on clinical rationale and availability of data to ensure validity of model results. In addition, further clinical and observational research is warranted to provide a better understanding of prognostic factors and data sources to improve economic modelling accuracy in CKD.

Paying for Frequent Dialysis

In late 2017, the 7 regional contractors responsible for paying dialysis claims in Medicare proposed new payment rules that would restrict payment for hemodialysis treatments in excess of 3 weekly to exceptional acute-care circumstances. Frequent hemodialysis is performed more frequently than the traditional thrice-weekly pattern, and many stakeholders-patients, providers, dialysis machine manufacturers, and others-have expressed concern that these payment rules will inhibit the growth of this treatment modality's use among US dialysis patients. In this Perspective, we explain the role of these contractors in the context of Medicare's in-center hemodialysis-centric dialysis payment system and assess how well this system accommodates the higher treatment frequencies of both peritoneal dialysis and frequent hemodialysis. Then, given the available evidence concerning the relative effectiveness of these modalities versus thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis and trends in their use, we discuss options for modifying Medicare's payment system to support frequent dialysis.

Cost Effectiveness of Dialysis Modalities: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The economic burden of providing maintenance dialysis to those with end-stage kidney disease continues to increase. Home dialysis, including both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, is commonly assumed to be more cost effective than facility dialysis, with some countries adopting a home-first policy in an attempt to reduce costs. However, the cost effectiveness of this approach is uncertain. The aim of this study is to review all published cost-effectiveness analyses comparing all alternative dialysis modalities for people with end-stage kidney disease.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment Database from the Centre of Reviews and Dissemination, The Cochrane Library and Econlit from January 2000 to December 2017. Published economic evaluations were included if they provided comparative information on the costs and health outcomes of alternative dialysis modalities.

RESULTS

The review identified 16 economic evaluations comparing dialysis modalities from both high- and low-income countries. The majority (69%) were undertaken solely from the perspective of the payer or service provider, 14 (88%) included a cost-utility analysis and eight (50%) were modelled evaluations. The studies addressed costs and health outcomes of multiple dialysis modalities, with many reporting average cost effectiveness rather than incremental cost effectiveness. Almost all evaluations suggest home dialysis to be less costly and to offer comparable or better health outcomes than in-centre haemodialysis. However, the quality-of-life benefit for each modality was poorly defined and inconsistent in terms of magnitude and direction of differences between modalities and across studies. Other issues include exclusion of competing modalities and use of arbitrary assumptions with regard to the mix of modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability to identify the mix of dialysis modalities that provides best outcomes for patients and health budgets is uncertain particularly given the lack of societal perspectives and inconsistencies between published studies.

The future for diagnostic tests of acute kidney injury in critical care: evidence synthesis, care pathway analysis and research prioritisation

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is highly prevalent in hospital inpatient populations, leading to significant mortality and morbidity, reduced quality of life and high short- and long-term health-care costs for the NHS. New diagnostic tests may offer an earlier diagnosis or improved care, but evidence of benefit to patients and of value to the NHS is required before national adoption.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the potential for AKI in vitro diagnostic tests to enhance the NHS care of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and identify an efficient supporting research strategy.

DATA SOURCES

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, The Cochrane Library databases, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MEDLINE, metaRegister of Current Controlled Trials, PubMed and Web of Science databases from their inception dates until September 2014 (review 1), November 2015 (review 2) and July 2015 (economic model). Details of databases used for each review and coverage dates are listed in the main report.

REVIEW METHODS

The AKI-Diagnostics project included horizon scanning, systematic reviewing, meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity, appraisal of analytical validity, care pathway analysis, model-based lifetime economic evaluation from a UK NHS perspective and value of information (VOI) analysis.

RESULTS

The horizon-scanning search identified 152 potential tests and biomarkers. Three tests, Nephrocheck^® (Astute Medical, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA), NGAL and cystatin C, were subjected to detailed review. The meta-analysis was limited by variable reporting standards, study quality and heterogeneity, but sensitivity was between 0.54 and 0.92 and specificity was between 0.49 and 0.95 depending on the test. A bespoke critical appraisal framework demonstrated that analytical validity was also poorly reported in many instances. In the economic model the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from £11,476 to £19,324 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with a probability of cost-effectiveness between 48% and 54% when tests were compared with current standard care.

LIMITATIONS

The major limitation in the evidence on tests was the heterogeneity between studies in the definitions of AKI and the timing of testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic tests for AKI in the ICU offer the potential to improve patient care and add value to the NHS, but cost-effectiveness remains highly uncertain. Further research should focus on the mechanisms by which a new test might change current care processes in the ICU and the subsequent cost and QALY implications. The VOI analysis suggested that further observational research to better define the prevalence of AKI developing in the ICU would be worthwhile. A formal randomised controlled trial of biomarker use linked to a standardised AKI care pathway is necessary to provide definitive evidence on whether or not adoption of tests by the NHS would be of value.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The systematic review within this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013919.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Self-cannulation of the vascular access in home hemodialysis: Overcoming patient-level barriers

Patients with end-stage kidney disease who are considering home hemodialysis (HHD) face the challenge of learning to self-cannulate their arteriovenous access. Current practice discourages the use of tunneled central venous catheters, with recent indications that self-cannulating patients have superior outcomes. Patient-level barriers do not appear to preclude a successful HHD program and should not be viewed as insurmountable by healthcare staff or patients. The healthcare team must address patient fears while instructing the patient to perform self-cannulation safely. Identification and understanding of the barriers perceived by the patient will allow the patient and healthcare team work collaboratively, toward the goal of independence with self-cannulation both during initial training and follow-up care. The aim of this review was to provide a practical resource to aid in the identification and resolution of these patient-level barriers, with the overall goal of improving the patient experience and medical outcomes in home hemodialysis programs.

Estimating Health-State Utility Values in Kidney Transplant Recipients and Waiting-List Patients Using the EQ-5D-5L

OBJECTIVES

To report health-state utility values measured using the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) in a large sample of patients with end-stage renal disease and to explore how these values vary in relation to patient characteristics and treatment factors.

METHODS

As part of the prospective observational study entitled "Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures," we captured information on patient characteristics and treatment factors in a cohort of incident kidney transplant recipients and a cohort of prevalent patients on the transplant waiting list in the United Kingdom. We assessed patients' health status using the EQ-5D-5L and conducted multivariable regression analyses of index scores.

RESULTS

EQ-5D-5L responses were available for 512 transplant recipients and 1704 waiting-list patients. Mean index scores were higher in transplant recipients at 6 months after transplant surgery (0.83) compared with patients on the waiting list (0.77). In combined regression analyses, a primary renal diagnosis of diabetes was associated with the largest decrement in utility scores. When separate regression models were fitted to each cohort, female gender and Asian ethnicity were associated with lower utility scores among waiting-list patients but not among transplant recipients. Among waiting-list patients, longer time spent on dialysis was also associated with poorer utility scores. When comorbidities were included, the presence of mental illness resulted in a utility decrement of 0.12 in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides new insights into variations in health-state utility values from a single source that can be used to inform cost-effectiveness evaluations in patients with end-stage renal disease.

Home hemodialysis: a comprehensive review of patient-centered and economic considerations

Internationally, the number of patients requiring treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) continues to increase, placing substantial burden on health systems and patients. Home hemodialysis (HD) has fluctuated in its popularity, and the rates of home HD vary considerably between and within countries although there is evidence suggesting a number of clinical, survival, economic, and quality of life (QoL) advantages associated with this treatment. International guidelines encourage shared decision making between patients and clinicians for the type of dialysis, with an emphasis on a treatment that aligned to the patients’ lifestyle. This is a comprehensive literature review of patient-centered and economic impacts of home HD with the studies published between January 2000 and July 2016. Data from the primary studies representing both efficiency and equity of home HD were presented as a narrative synthesis under the following topics: advantages to patients, barriers to patients, economic factors influencing patients, cost-effectiveness of home HD, and inequities in home HD delivery. There were a number of advantages for patients on home HD including improved survival and QoL and flexibility and potential for employment, compared to hospital HD. Similarly, there were several barriers to patients preferring or maintaining home HD, and the strategies to overcome these barriers were frequently reported. Good evidence reported that indigenous, low-income, and other socially disadvantaged individuals had reduced access to home HD compared to other forms of dialysis and that this situation compounds already-poor health outcomes on renal replacement therapy. Government policies that minimize barriers to home HD include reimbursement for dialysis-related out-of-pocket costs and employment-retention interventions for home HD patients and their family members. This review argues that home HD is a cost-effective treatment, and increasing the proportion of patients on this form of dialysis compared to hospital HD will result in a more equitable distribution of good health outcomes for individuals with ESKD.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of High Dose Hemodialysis in Comparison to Conventional In-Center Hemodialysis in the Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

In the Netherlands, the current standard of care for treating patients with end-stage renal disease is three sessions of in-center hemodialysis (conventional ICHD). However, the literature indicates that high dose hemodialysis (high dose HD) may provide better health outcome such as survival and quality of life. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of high dose HD, both in-center and at home, in comparison to conventional ICHD from a Dutch payer's perspective over a 5 year period. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of conventional HD at home in comparison to conventional ICHD will be analysed.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed assuming 28-day treatment cycles and was populated with data from Dutch and international renal registries, official tariffs and medical literature. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Using publicly available tariffs from the Dutch Healthcare Authority (Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit) of 2015, doing high dose ICHD instead of conventional ICHD shows an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €275,747 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. In contrast, the ICER of high dose HD at home in comparison to conventional ICHD is €3248 per gained QALY. The final analysis shows that conventional HD at home is less costly per patient (-€3063) than conventional ICHD and results in health benefit improvement (+0.249 QALYs), and is therefore regarded as cost saving.

CONCLUSION

Treating dialysis patients with conventional HD at home shows to be cost saving in comparison to conventional ICHD. However, the magnitude of clinical benefit of high dose HD at home is over two times greater than the clinical benefit of conventional HD at home. According to our analysis, from a payer's perspective, high dose HD should be offered as a home therapy to obtain its clinical benefits in a cost-effective manner. Future research should consider our findings alongside societal factors, such as patient preference, monitoring cost for the home patient, productivity loss and capacity.

FUNDING

Baxter BV, The Netherlands.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High-Efficiency Hemodiafiltration Versus Low-Flux Hemodialysis Based on the Canadian Arm of the CONTRAST Study

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of high-efficiency on-line hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) compared with low-flux hemodialysis (LF-HD) for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) based on the Canadian (Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal) arm of a parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT), the CONvective TRAnsport STudy.

METHODS

An economic evaluation was conducted for the period of the RCT (74 months). In addition, a Markov state transition model was constructed to simulate costs and health benefits over lifetime. The primary outcome was costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The analysis had the perspective of the Quebec public healthcare system.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were randomly allocated to OL-HDF (n = 67) and LF-HD (n = 63). The cost-utility ratio of OL-HDF versus LF-HD was Can$53,270 per QALY gained over lifetime. This ratio was fairly robust in the sensitivity analysis. The cost-utility ratio was lower than that of LF-HD compared with no treatment (immediate death), which was Can$93,008 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

High-efficiency OL-HDF can be considered a cost-effective treatment for ESRD in a Canadian setting. Further research is needed to assess cost effectiveness in other settings and healthcare systems.