The COVID-19 Pandemic Converges With Kidney Policy Transformation: Implications for CKD Population Health

Evaluation of Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Initiation of Kidney Failure Treatment During the First 4 Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance

Persons with kidney failure require treatment (ie, dialysis or transplantation) for survival. The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic-related disruptions in care have disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minority and socially disadvantaged populations, raising the importance of understanding disparities in treatment initiation for kidney failure during the pandemic.

Objective

To examine changes in the number and demographic characteristics of patients initiating treatment for incident kidney failure following the COVID-19 pandemic by race and ethnicity, county-level COVID-19 mortality rate, and neighborhood-level social disadvantage.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional time-trend study used data from US patients who developed kidney failure between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2020. Data were analyzed between January and July 2021.

Exposures

COVID-19 pandemic.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Number of patients initiating treatment for incident kidney failure and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at treatment initiation.

Results

The study population included 127 149 patients with incident kidney failure between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2020 (mean [SD] age, 62.8 [15.3] years; 53 021 [41.7%] female, 32 932 [25.9%] non-Hispanic Black, and 19 835 [15.6%] Hispanic/Latino patients). Compared with the pre-COVID-19 period, in the first 4 months of the pandemic (ie, March 1 through June 30, 2020), there were significant decreases in the proportion of patients with incident kidney failure receiving preemptive transplantation (1805 [2.1%] pre-COVID-19 vs 551 [1.4%] during COVID-19; P < .001) and initiating hemodialysis treatment with an arteriovenous fistula (2430 [15.8%] pre-COVID-19 vs 914 [13.4%] during COVID-19; P < .001). The mean (SD) eGFR at initiation declined from 9.6 (5.0) mL/min/1.73 m2 to 9.5 (4.9) mL/min/1.73 m2 during the pandemic (P < .001). In stratified analyses by race/ethnicity, these declines were exclusively observed among non-Hispanic Black patients (mean [SD] eGFR: 8.4 [4.6] mL/min/1.73 m2 pre-COVID-19 vs 8.1 [4.5] mL/min/1.73 m2 during COVID-19; P < .001). There were significant declines in eGFR at initiation for patients residing in counties in the highest quintile of COVID-19 mortality rates (9.5 [5.0] mL/min/1.73 m2 pre-COVID-19 vs 9.2 [5.0] mL/min/1.73 m2 during COVID-19; P < .001), but not for patients residing in other counties. The number of patients initiating treatment for incident kidney failure was approximately 30% lower than projected in April 2020.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of US adults, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a substantially lower number of patients initiating treatment for incident kidney failure and treatment initiation at lower levels of kidney function during the first 4 months, particularly for Black patients and people living in counties with high COVID-19 mortality rates.

Nephrologist Performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the largest quality payment program administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Little is known about predictors of nephrologist performance in MIPS.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Nephrologists participating in MIPS in performance year 2018.

PREDICTORS

Nephrologist characteristics: (1) participation type (individual, group, or MIPS alternative payment model [APM]), (2) practice size, (3) practice setting (rural, Health Professional Shortage Area [HPSA], or hospital based), and (4) geography (Census Division).

OUTCOMES

MIPS Final, Quality, Promoting Interoperability, Improvement Activities, and Cost scores. Using published consensus ratings, we also examined the validity of MIPS Quality measures selected by nephrologists.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted linear regression models assessing the associations between nephrologist characteristics and MIPS Final scores.

RESULTS

Among 6,117 nephrologists participating in MIPS in 2018, the median MIPS Final score was 100 (interquartile range, 94-100). In multivariable-adjusted analyses, MIPS APM participation was associated with a 12.5-point (95% CI, 10.6-14.4) higher score compared with individual participation. Nephrologists in large (355-4,294 members) and medium (15-354 members) practices scored higher than those in small practices (1-14 members). In analyses adjusted for practice size, practice setting, and geography, among individual and group participants, HPSA nephrologists scored 1.9 (95% CI, -3.6 to -0.1) points lower than non-HPSA nephrologists, and hospital-based nephrologists scored 6.0 (95% CI, -8.3 to -3.7) points lower than non-hospital-based nephrologists. The most frequently reported quality measures by individual and group participants had medium to high validity and were relevant to nephrology care, whereas MIPS APM measures had little relevance to nephrology.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of adjustment for patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

MIPS APM participation, larger practice size, non-HPSA setting, and non-hospital-based setting were associated with higher MIPS scores among nephrologists. Our results inform strategies to improve MIPS program design and generate meaningful distinctions between practices that will drive improvements in care.