The cost of starting and maintaining a large home hemodialysis program

Main Barriers to the Introduction of a Home Haemodialysis Programme in Poland: A Review of the Challenges for Implementation and Criteria for a Successful Programme

Introduction: Home dialysis in Poland is restricted to the peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality, with the majority of dialysis patients treated using in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD). Home haemodialysis (HHD) is an additional home therapy to PD and provides an attractive alternative to ICHD that combines dialysis with social distancing; eliminates transportation needs; and offers clinical, economic, and quality of life benefits. However, HHD is not currently provided in Poland. This review was performed to provide an overview of the main barriers to the introduction of a HHD programme in Poland. Main findings: The main high-level barrier to introducing HHD in Poland is the absence of specific health legislation required for clinician prescribing of HHD. Other barriers to overcome include clear definition of reimbursement, patient training and education (including infrastructure and experienced personnel), organisation of logistics, and management of complications. Partnering with a large care network for HHD represents an alternative option to payers for the provision of a new HHD service. This may reduce some of the barriers which need to be overcome when compared with the creation of a new HHD service and its supporting network due to the pre-existing infrastructure, processes, and staff of a large care network. Conclusions: Provision of HHD is not solely about the provision of home treatment, but also the organisation and definition of a range of support services that are required to deliver the service. HHD should be viewed as an additional, complementary option to existing dialysis modalities which enables choice of modality best suited to a patient’s needs.

Costs of Assisted Home Dialysis: A Single-Payer Canadian Model From Manitoba

Rationale & Objective

The prevalence of kidney failure is increasing globally. Most of these patients will require life-sustaining dialysis at a substantial cost to the health care system. Assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) and assisted home hemodialysis (HD) are potential alternatives to in-center HD and have demonstrated equivalent outcomes with respect to mortality and morbidity. We aim to describe the costs associated with assisted continuous cycling PD (CCPD) and assisted home HD.

Study Design

Cost minimization model.

Setting & Population

Adult incident maintenance dialysis patients in Manitoba, Canada.

Intervention

Full- and partial-assist home HD and CCPD. Full-assist modalities were defined as nurse-assisted dialysis setup and takedown performed by a health care aide, whereas partial-assist modalities only included nurse-assisted setup. Additionally, full-assist home HD was evaluated under a complete care scenario with the inclusion of a health care aide remaining with the patient throughout the duration of treatment.

Outcomes

Annual per-patient maintenance and training costs related to assisted and self-care home HD and CCPD, presented in 2019 Canadian dollars.

Model, Perspective, & Time Frame

This model took the perspective of the Canadian public health payer using a 1-year time frame.

Results

Annual total per-patient maintenance (and training) costs by modality were the following: full-assist CCPD, $75.717 (initial training costs, $301); partial-assist CCPD, $67,765 ($4,385); full-assist home HD, $47,862 ($301); partial-assist home HD, $44,650 ($14,813); and full-assist home HD (complete care), $64,659 ($301).

Limitations

This model did not account for costs taken from the societal perspective or costs related to PD failure and modality switching. Additionally, this analysis reflects only costs experienced by a single center.

Conclusions

Assisted home-based dialysis modalities are viable treatment options for patients from a cost perspective. Future studies to consider graduation rates to full self-care from assisted dialysis and the cost implications of respite care are needed.

Expanding Utilization of Home Dialysis: An Action Agenda From the First International Home Dialysis Roundtable

In a groundbreaking meeting, leading global kidney disease organizations came together in the fall of 2020 as an International Home Dialysis Roundtable (IHDR) to address strategies to increase access to and uptake of home dialysis, both peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis. This challenge has become urgent in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, during which patients with advanced kidney disease, who are more susceptible to viral infections and severe complications, must be able to safely physically distance at home. To boost access to home dialysis on a global scale, IHDR members committed to collaborate, through the COVID-19 public health emergency and beyond, to promote uptake of home dialysis on a broad scale. Their commitments included increasing the reach and influence of key stakeholders with policy makers, building a cooperative of advocates and champions for home dialysis, working together to increase patient engagement and empowerment, and sharing intelligence about policy, education, and other programs so that such efforts can be operationalized globally. In the spirit of international cooperation, IHDR members agreed to document, amplify, and replicate established efforts shown to improve access to home dialysis and support new policies that facilitate access through procedures, innovation, and reimbursement.

Do remote dialysis services really cost more? An economic analysis of hospital and dialysis modality costs associated with dialysis services in urban, rural and remote settings

Background

Rates of end-stage kidney disease in Australia are highest in the Northern Territory (NT), with the burden of disease heaviest in remote areas. However, the high cost of delivering dialysis services in remote areas has resulted in centralisation, requiring many people to relocate for treatment. Patients argue that treatment closer to home improves health outcomes and reduces downstream healthcare use. Existing dialysis cost studies have not compared total health care costs associated with treatment in different locations.

Objective

To estimate and compare, from a payer perspective, the observed health service costs (all cause hospital admissions, emergency department presentations and maintenance dialysis) associated with different dialysis models in urban, rural and remote locations.

Methods

Using cost weights attributed to diagnostic codes in the NT Department of Health’s hospital admission data set (2008–2014), we calculated the mean (SD) total annual health service costs by dialysis model for 995 dialysis patients. Generalized linear modeling with bootstrapping tested the marginal cost differences between different explanatory variables to estimate ‘best casemix’/‘worst casemix’ cost scenarios.

Results

The mean annual patient hospital expenditure was highest for urban models at $97 928 (SD $21 261) and $43 440 (SD $5 048) and lowest for remote at $19 584 (SD $4 394). When combined with the observed maintenance dialysis costs, expenditure was the highest for urban models at $148 510 (SD $19 774). The incremental cost increase of dialysing in an urban area, compared with a rural area, for a relocated person from a remote area, was $5 648 more and increased further for those from remote and very remote areas to $10 785 and $15 118 respectively.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that dialysis treatment in urban areas for relocated people has health and cost implications that maybe greater than the cost of remote service delivery. The study emphasises the importance of considering all health service costs and cost consequences of service delivery models.

Key points for decision makers

Relocation for dialysis treatment has serious health and economic consequences. Relocated people have low dialysis attendance and high hospital costs in urban areas. While remote dialysis service models are more expensive than urban models, the comparative cost differences are significantly reduced when all health service costs are included. The delivery of equitable and accessible dialysis service models requires a holistic approach that incorporates the needs of the patient; hence dialysis cost studies must consider the full range of cost impacts beyond the dialysis treatments alone.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06612-z.

Most people requiring ongoing treatment for end-stage kidney disease in the Northern Territory (NT) identify as Aboriginal with the majority residing in areas classified as remote or very remote. Unlike other jurisdictions in Australia, haemodialysis in a satellite unit is the most common form of treatment. However, there is a geographic mismatch between demand and service provision, with services centralised in urban areas. Patients and communities have long advocated for services at or closer to home, maintaining that the consequences of relocation and dislocation have far reaching health, psychosocial and economic ramifications. We analysed retrospective hospital data for 995 maintenance dialysis patients, stratified by the model of care they received in urban, rural and remote locations. Using cost weights attributed to diagnosis codes, we costed hospital admissions, emergency department presentations and maintenance dialysis attendances, to provide a mean total health service cost/patient/year for each model of care. We found that urban services were associated with low observed maintenance dialysis and high hospital costs, but the inverse was true for remote and very remote models. Remote models had high maintenance dialysis costs (due to expense of remote service delivery and good dialysis attendance) but low hospital usage and costs. When adjusted for other variables such as age, dialysis vintage and comorbidities, lower total hospital costs were associated with rural and remote service provision. In an environment of escalating demand and constrained budgets, this study underlines the need for policy decisions to consider the full cost consequences of different dialysis service models.

Integrating Risk-Based Care for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease in the Community: Study Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial

Background:

A risk-based model of care for managing patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) using the Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) has been successfully integrated into nephrology care pathways in several jurisdictions. However, as most patients with CKD can be managed in primary care, the next pertinent steps would be to integrate the KFRE into primary care pathways.

Objective:

Using a risk-based approach for guiding CKD care in the primary care setting, the objective of the study is to develop, implement, and evaluate tools that can be used by patients and providers.

Design:

This study is a multicenter cluster randomized control trial.

Setting:

Thirty-two primary care clinics belonging to the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) across Manitoba and Alberta.

Patients:

All patients at least 18 years old or older with CKD categories G3-G5 attending the participating clinics; we estimate each clinic will have an average of 185 patients with CKD.

Methods:

Thirty-two primary care clinics will be randomized to receive either an active knowledge translation intervention or no intervention. The intervention involves the addition of the KFRE and decision aids to clinics’ Data Presentation Tool (DPT), as well as patient-facing visual aids, a medical detailing visit, and sentinel feedback reports. Control clinics will only be exposed to current guidelines for CKD management, without active dissemination.

Measurements:

Data from the CPCSSN repository will be used to assess whether a risk-based care approach affected management of CKD. Primary outcomes are as follows: the proportion of patients with measured urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and the proportion of patients being appropriately treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blockers. Secondary outcomes are as follows: the optimal management of diabetes (hemoglobin A1C <8.5%, and the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in CKD G3 patients), hypertension (office blood pressure <130/80 for patients with diabetes, 140/90 for those without), and cardiovascular risk (statin prescription); prescriptions of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). In addition, in a substudy, we will measure CKD-specific health literacy and trust in physician care via surveys administered in the clinic post-visit. At the provider level, we will measure satisfaction with the risk prediction tools. Lastly, at the health system level, outcomes include cost of CKD care, and appropriate referrals for patients at high risk of kidney failure based on provincial guidelines. Primary and secondary outcomes will be measured at the patient level and enumerated at the clinic level 1 year after the intervention implementation, except for decline in eGFR, which will be measured 2 years postintervention.

Limitations:

Limitations include scalability of the proposal in other health care systems.

Conclusions:

If successful, this intervention has the potential to improve the management of patients with CKD within Canadian primary care settings, leading to health and economic benefits, and influencing practice guidelines.

Trial Registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03365063

Cost of Dialysis Therapy by Modality in Manitoba

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The prevalence of ESKD is increasing worldwide. Treating ESKD is disproportionately costly in comparison with its prevalence, mostly due to the direct cost of dialysis therapy. Here, we aim to provide a contemporary cost description of dialysis modalities, including facility-based hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and home hemodialysis, provided with conventional dialysis machines and the NxStage System One.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We constructed a cost-minimization model from the perspective of the Canadian single-payer health care system including all costs related to dialysis care. The labor component of costs consisted of a breakdown of activity-based per patient direct labor requirements. Other costs were taken from statements of operations for the kidney program at Seven Oaks General Hospital (Winnipeg, Canada). All costs are reported in Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

Annual maintenance expenses were estimated as $64,214 for in-center facility hemodialysis, $43,816 for home hemodialysis with the NxStage System One, $39,236 for home hemodialysis with conventional dialysis machines, and $38,658 for peritoneal dialysis. Training costs for in-center facility hemodialysis, home hemodialysis with the NxStage System One, home hemodialysis with conventional dialysis machines, and peritoneal dialysis are estimated as $0, $16,143, $24,379, and $7157, respectively. The threshold point to achieve cost neutrality was determined to be 9.7 months from in-center hemodialysis to home hemodialysis with the NxStage System One, 12.6 months from in-center hemodialysis to home hemodialysis with conventional dialysis machines, and 3.2 months from in-center hemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Home modalities have lower maintenance costs, and beyond a short time horizon, they are most cost efficient when considering their incremental training expenses.

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2018_07_18_CJASNPodcast_18_8_F.mp3.

Attitudes of nephrologists towards assisted home dialysis in Germany

BACKGROUND

Assisted home dialysis (AHD) is an option to combine the benefits of home dialysis therapy with the needs of dialysis patients who are unable to perform self-treatment at home. While this method is growing in many countries worldwide, no data so far are reported for Germany.

METHODS

A survey was designed to identify the barriers to the implementation of AHD with the focus on attitudes and beliefs concerning AHD. The survey was sent to all 2060 members of the Germany Society of Nephrology.

RESULTS

The response rate was 14% of nephrologists (n = 286), representing 24% of all German centres. AHD was regarded as a highly meaningful option (>90% of all responding nephrologists). Fifty-five percent of the centres practice AHD (preferred peritoneal dialysis). The number of treated patients on AHD was small (77% of the centres treat no more than 10 patients). The nephrologists in centres that performed AHD were of older age and the number of dialysis patients treated in these centres was greater. AHD was offered in 57% of centres at chronic kidney disease Stage 4. Inadequate conventional dialysis and patient's request were reasons for choosing AHD. Barriers for offering AHD were lack of reimbursement, shortage of staff, lack of expertise and lack of team motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

In the view of German nephrologists, AHD is a meaningful method to provide home dialysis care. Inadequate funding and a lack of qualified staff were identified as severe barriers to implementation of AHD. To overcome these barriers and to achieve a higher penetration of AHD, dedicated actions have to be considered. Further studies are needed to prove the AHD concept with regard to outcome effects and cost efficacy.

Prevalence-Based Targets Underestimate Home Dialysis Program Activity and Requirements for Growth

BACKGROUND

Many renal programs have targets to increase home dialysis prevalence. Data from a large Canadian home dialysis program were analyzed to determine if home dialysis prevalence accurately reflects program activity and whether prevalence-based assessments adequately reflect the work required for program growth.

METHODS

Data from home dialysis programs in British Columbia, Canada, were analyzed from 2005 to 2015. Prevalence data were compared to dialysis activity data including intakes and exits to describe program turnover. Using current attrition rates, recruitment rates needed to increase home dialysis prevalence proportions were identified.

RESULTS

We analyzed 7,746 patient-years of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 1,362 patient-years of home hemodialysis (HHD). The proportion of patients on home dialysis increased by 3.34% over the ten years examined, while the number of prevalent home dialysis patients increased 2.65% per year and the number of patients receiving home dialysis at any time in the year increased 4.04% per year. For every 1 patient net home dialysis growth, 13.6 new patients were recruited. Patient turnover included higher rates of transplantation in home dialysis than facility-based HD. Overall, the proportion dialyzing at home increased from 29.3 to 32.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high patient turnover in home dialysis such that program prevalence is an incomplete marker of total program activity. This turnover includes high rates of transplantation, which is a desirable interaction that affects home dialysis prevalence. The shortcomings of this commonly used metric are important for renal programs to consider, and better understanding of the activities that support home dialysis and the complex trajectories that home dialysis patients follow is needed.

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.

Estimating patient-borne water and electricity costs in home hemodialysis: a simulation

BACKGROUND

Home hemodialysis is associated with lower costs to the health care system compared with conventional facility-based hemodialysis because of lower staffing and overhead costs, and by transferring the treatment cost of utilities (water and power) to the patient. The purpose of this study was to determine the utility costs of home hemodialysis and create a formula such that patients and renal programs can estimate the annual patient-borne costs involved with this type of treatment.

METHODS

Seven common combinations of treatment duration and dialysate flows were replicated 5 times using various combinations of home hemodialysis and reverse osmosis machines. Real-time utility (electricity and water) consumption was monitored during these simulations. A generic formula was developed to allow patients and programs to calculate a more precise estimate of utility costs based on individual combinations of dialysis intensity, frequency and utility costs unique to any patient.

RESULTS

Using typical 2014 utility costs for Edmonton, the most expensive prescription was for nocturnal home hemodialysis (8 h at 300 mL/min, 6 d/wk), which resulted in a utility cost of $1269 per year; the least expensive prescription was for conventional home hemodialysis (4 h at 500 mL/min, 3 d/wk), which cost $420 per year. Water consumption makes up most of this expense, with electricity accounting for only 12% of the cost.

INTERPRETATION

We show that a substantial cost burden is transferred to the patient on home hemodialysis, which would otherwise be borne by the renal program.

Knowledge Translation Interventions to Improve the Timing of Dialysis Initiation: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial

Background:

Early initiation of chronic dialysis (starting dialysis with higher vs lower kidney function) has risen rapidly in the past 2 decades in Canada and internationally, despite absence of established health benefits and higher costs. In 2014, a Canadian guideline on the timing of dialysis initiation, recommending an intent-to-defer approach, was published.

Objective:

The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a knowledge translation intervention to promote the intent-to-defer approach in clinical practice.

Design:

This study is a multicenter, 2-arm parallel, cluster randomized trial.

Setting:

The study involves 55 advanced chronic kidney disease clinics across Canada.

Patients:

Patients older than 18 years who are managed by nephrologists for more than 3 months, and initiate dialysis in the follow-up period are included in the study.

Measurements:

Outcomes will be measured at the patient-level and enumerated within a cluster. Data on characteristics of each dialysis start will be determined by linkages with the Canadian Organ Replacement Register. Primary outcomes include the proportion of patients who start dialysis early with an estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 10.5 mL/min/1.73 m² and start dialysis in hospital as inpatients or in an emergency room setting. Secondary outcomes include the rate of change in early dialysis starts; rates of hospitalizations, deaths, and cost of predialysis care (wherever available); quarterly proportion of new starts; and acceptability of the knowledge translation materials.

Methods:

We randomized 55 multidisciplinary chronic disease clinics (clusters) in Canada to receive either an active knowledge translation intervention or no intervention for the uptake of the guideline on the timing of dialysis initiation. The active knowledge translation intervention consists of audit and feedback as well as patient- and provider-directed educational tools delivered at a comprehensive in-person medical detailing visit. Control clinics are only exposed to guideline release without active dissemination. We hypothesize that the clinics randomized to the intervention group will have a lower proportion of early dialysis starts.

Limitations:

Limitations include passive dissemination of the guideline through publication, and lead-time and survivor bias, which favors delayed dialysis initiation.

Conclusions:

If successful, this active knowledge translation intervention will reduce early dialysis starts, lead to health and economic benefits, and provide a successful framework for evaluating and disseminating future guidelines.

Trial Registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02183987

Funding and planning: what you need to know for starting or expanding a home hemodialysis program

Planning and funding a home hemodialysis (HD) program requires a well-organized effort and close collaboration between clinicians and administrators. This resource provides guidance on the processes that are involved, including a thorough situational analysis of the dialysis landscape, emphasizing the opportunity for a home HD program; careful consideration of the clinical and operational characteristics of a proposed home HD program at your institution; the development of a compelling business case, highlighting the clinical and organizational benefits of a home HD program; and careful construction and evaluation of a request for proposal.

International practice patterns and factors associated with non-conventional hemodialysis utilization

Background

The purpose of our study was to determine characteristics that influence the utilization of non-conventional hemodialysis (NCHD) therapies and its subtypes (nocturnal (NHD), short daily (SDHD), long conventional (LCHD) and conventional hemodialysis (CHD) as well as provider attitudes regarding the evidence for NCHD use.

Methods

An international cohort of subscribers of a nephrology education website http://www.nephrologynow.com was invited to participate in an online survey. Non-conventional hemodialysis was defined as any forms of hemodialysis delivered > 3 treatments per week and/or > 4 hours per session. NHD and SDHD included both home and in-centre. Respondents were categorized as CHD if their centre only offered conventional thrice weekly hemodialysis. Variables associated with NCHD and its subtypes were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. The survey assessed multiple domains regarding NCHD including reasons for initiating and discontinuing, for not offering and attitudes regarding evidence.

Results

544 surveys were completed leading to a 15.6% response rate. The final cohort was limited to 311 physicians. Dialysis modalities utilized among the respondents were as follows: NCHD194 (62.4%), NHD 83 (26.7%), SDHD 107 (34.4%), LCHD 81 (26%) and CHD 117 (37.6%). The geographic regions of participants were as follows: 11.9% Canada, 26.7% USA, 21.5% Europe, 6.1% Australia/New Zealand, 10% Africa/Middle East, 10.9% Asia and 12.9% South America. Variables associated with NCHD utilization included NCHD training (OR 2.47 CI 1.25-4.16), government physician reimbursement (OR 2.66, CI 1.11-6.40), practicing at an academic centre (OR 2.28 CI 1.25-4.16), higher national health care expenditure and number of ESRD patients per centre. Hemodialysis providers with patients on NCHD were significantly more likely to agree with the statements that NCHD improves quality of life, improves nutritional status, reduces EPO requirements and is cost effective. The most common reasons to initiate NCHD were driven by patient preference and the desire to improve volume control and global health outcomes.

Conclusion

Physician attitudes toward the evidence for NCHD differ significantly between NCHD providers and conventional HD providers. Interventions and health policy targeting these areas along with increased physician education and training in NCHD modalities may be effective in increasing its utilization.

Home hemodialysis in Australia and New Zealand: how and why it has been successful

After early strong support, home hemodialysis (HHD) has all but disappeared as a viable modality in most western countries--except in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), where a mean 12.9% of all HD (June 2010) is home-based. The reasons for this unique difference are neither demographic nor geographic; rather, they result from a strong belief held by ANZ nephrologists, nurses, and funding agencies in the clinical outcome and economic benefits of HHD. This "hemodialysis is best at home" approach has permitted ANZ programs to take full advantage of a renewed interest in extended hour and higher frequency dialysis. This article explores the reasons for the success of HHD in this region.

An economic assessment model for in-center, conventional home, and more frequent home hemodialysis

More intensive and/or frequent hemodialysis may provide clinical benefits to patients with end-stage renal disease; however, these dialysis treatments are more convenient to the patients if provided in their homes. Here we created a standardized model, based on a systematic review of available costing literature, to determine the economic viability of providing hemodialysis in the home that arrays costs and common approaches for assessing direct medical and nonmedical costs. Our model was based on data from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The first year start-up costs for all hemodialysis modalities were higher than in subsequent years with modeled costs for conventional home hemodialysis lower than in-center hemodialysis in subsequent years. Modeled costs for frequent home hemodialysis was higher than both in-center and conventional home hemodialysis in the United Kingdom, but lower than in-center hemodialysis and higher than conventional home hemodialysis in Australia and Canada in subsequent years. The higher costs of frequent compared to conventional home hemodialysis were because of higher consumable usage due to dialysis frequency. Thus, our findings reinforce the conclusions of previous studies showing that home-based conventional and more frequent hemodialysis may provide clinical benefit at reasonable costs.

Update on Dialysis Economics in the UK

The burgeoning population of patients requiring renal replacement therapy contributes a disproportionate strain on National Health Service resources. Although renal transplantation is the preferred treatment modality for patients with established renal failure, achieving both clinical and financial advantages, limitations to organ donation and clinical comorbidities will leave a significant proportion of patients with established renal failure requiring expensive dialysis therapy in the form of either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. An understanding of dialysis economics is essential for both healthcare providers and clinical leaders to establish clinically efficient and cost-effective treatment modalities that maximize service provision. In light of changes to the provision of healthcare funds in the form of “Payment by Results,” it is imperative for UK renal units to adopt clinically effective and financially accountable dialysis programs. This article explores the role of dialysis economics and implications for UK renal replacement therapy programs.