Medicare's New Prospective Payment System on Facility Provision of Peritoneal Dialysis

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.

Policy and Payment Decisions on Peritoneal Dialysis in the United States: A Review

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) accounts for a sizable proportion of Medicare spending. Peritoneal dialysis remains an underutilized treatment modality for ESKD despite its quality of life and cost-saving benefits. Medicare policy on reimbursements and patient eligibility for dialysis coverage has been amended numerous times since its inception in 1972. Over the last two decades, Medicare policy on ESKD reimbursements has evolved from a primarily fee-for-service model to a prospective payment system, and within the past few years, it has begun including more experimental payment structures. While prior work has explored the evolution of Medicare's ESKD policy as a whole, we specifically outline the impact of Medicare policy changes on peritoneal dialysis reimbursement rates, uptake by physicians and dialysis facilities, and accessibility to patients. This narrative review offers historical insights, an overview of modern ESKD policy, actionable strategies, and policy opportunities to increase the accessibility of this treatment modality.

Payment systems for dialysis and their effects: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

End stage renal disease (ESRD) is a major health concern and a large drain on healthcare resources. A wide range of payment methods are used for management of ESRD. The main aim of this study is to identify current payment methods for dialysis and their effects.

METHOD

In this scoping review Pubmed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched from 2000 until 2021 using appropriate search strategies. Retrieved articles were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria. Data about the study characteristics and study results were extracted by a pre-structured data extraction form; and were analyzed by a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine articles were included, the majority of them were published after 2011 (66%); all of them were from high and upper middle-income countries, especially USA (64% of papers). Fee for services, global budget, capitation (bundled) payments, and pay for performance (P4P) were the main reimbursement methods for dialysis centers; and FFS, salary, and capitation were the main methods to reimburse the nephrologists. Countries have usually used a combination of methods depending on their situations; and their methods have been further developed over time specially from the retrospective payment systems (RPS) towards the prospective payment systems (PPS) and pay for performance methods. The main effects of the RPS were undertreatment of unpaid and inexpensive services, and over treatment of payable services. The main effects of the PPS were cost saving, shifting the service cost outside the bundle, change in quality of care, risk of provider, and modality choice.

CONCLUSION

This study provides useful insights about the current payment systems for dialysis and the effects of each payment system; that might be helpful for improving the quality and efficiency of healthcare.

Market Consolidation and Innovation in US Dialysis

While patients with end-stage kidney disease have benefited from innovations in clinical therapeutics and care delivery, these changes have been primarily incremental and have not fundamentally transformed care delivery. Dialysis markets are highly concentrated, which may impede innovation. Unique features of the dialysis industry that have contributed to consolidation can help to explain links between consolidation and innovation. We discuss these unique features and then provide a framework for considering the effects of consolidation on innovation in dialysis that focuses on the following economic considerations: (1) industry characteristics, composition, and stage of consolidation, (2) innovation characteristics and relative profitability, (3) the role of government regulation, and (4) innovation from smaller providers and new entrants. We present examples of how these considerations have influenced the adoption of alternative dialysis technologies such as peritoneal dialysis and erythropoietin-stimulating agents, and we discuss how consolidated markets can both help and hinder recent policy initiatives to transform dialysis care delivery. Only by considering these important drivers of consolidation, future efforts can be successful in transforming end-stage kidney disease care.

Trends in Dialysis Industry Consolidation After Medicare Payment Reform, 2006-2016

Question

Findings

Meaning

Importance

Objective

Design, Setting, and Participants

Exposures

Main Outcomes and Measures

Results

Conclusions and Relevance

Comparing Mortality of Peritoneal and Hemodialysis Patients in an Era of Medicare Payment Reform

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have shown peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients to have lower or equivalent mortality to patients who receive in-center hemodialysis (HD). Medicare's 2011 bundled dialysis prospective payment system encouraged expansion of home-based PD with unclear impacts on patient outcomes. This paper revisits the comparative risk of mortality between HD and PD among patients with incident end-stage kidney disease initiating dialysis in 2006-2013.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing 2-year all-cause mortality among patients with incident end-stage kidney disease initiating dialysis via HD and PD in 2006-2013, using data from the US Renal Data System and Medicare. Analysis was conducted using Cox proportional hazards models fit with inverse probability of treatment weighting that adjusted for measured patient demographic and clinical characteristics and dialysis market characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 449,652 patients starting dialysis between 2006 and 2013, the rate of PD use in the first 90 days increased from 9.3% of incident patients in 2006 to 14.2% in 2013. Crude 2-year mortality was 27.6% for patients dialyzing via HD and 16.7% for patients on PD. In adjusted models, there was no evidence of mortality differences between PD and HD before and after bundled payment (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.04; P=0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall mortality for HD and PD use was similar and mortality differences between modalities did not change before versus after the 2011 Medicare dialysis bundled payment, suggesting that increased use of home-based PD did not adversely impact patient outcomes.

Fragmentation of care as a barrier to optimal ESKD management

Caring for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in the United States is challenging, due in part to the complex epidemiology of the disease's progression as well as the ways in which care is delivered. As CKD progresses toward ESKD, the number of comorbidities increases and care involves multiple healthcare providers from multiple subspecialties. This occurs in the context of a fragmented US healthcare delivery system that is traditionally siloed by provider specialty, organization, as well as systems of payment and administration. This article describes the role of care fragmentation in the delivery of optimal ESKD care and identifies research gaps in the evidence across the continuum of care. We then consider the impact of care fragmentation on ESKD care from the patient and health system perspectives and explore opportunities for system-level interventions aimed at improving care for patients with ESKD.

How To Build a Successful Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Program

In-center hemodialysis (HD) remains the predominant dialysis therapy in patients with ESKD. Many patients with ESKD present in late stage, requiring urgent dialysis initiation, and the majority start HD with central venous catheters (CVCs), which are associated with poor outcomes and high cost of care. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters can be safely placed in such patients with late-presenting ESKD, obviating the need for CVCs. PD can begin almost immediately in the recumbent position, using low fill volumes. Such PD initiations, commencing within 2 weeks of the catheter placement, are termed urgent-start PD (USPD). Most patients with an intact peritoneal cavity and stable home situation are eligible for USPD. Although there is a small risk of PD catheter-related mechanical complications, most can be managed conservatively. Moreover, overall outcomes of USPD are comparable to those with planned PD initiations, in contrast to the high rate of catheter-related infections and bacteremia associated with urgent-start HD. The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has further exposed the vulnerability of patients with ESKD getting in-center HD. PD can mitigate the risk of infection by reducing environmental exposure to the virus. Thus, USPD is a safe and cost-effective option for unplanned dialysis initiation in patients with late-presenting ESKD. To develop a successful USPD program, a strong infrastructure with clear pathways is essential. Coordination of care between nephrologists, surgeons or interventionalists, and hospital and PD center staff is imperative so that patient education, home visits, PD catheter placements, and urgent PD initiations are accomplished expeditiously. Implementation of urgent-start PD will help to increase PD use, reduce cost, and improve patient outcomes, and will be a step forward in fostering the goal set by the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative.

The current and future landscape of dialysis

The development of dialysis by early pioneers such as Willem Kolff and Belding Scribner set in motion several dramatic changes in the epidemiology, economics and ethical frameworks for the treatment of kidney failure. However, despite a rapid expansion in the provision of dialysis — particularly haemodialysis and most notably in high-income countries (HICs) — the rate of true patient-centred innovation has slowed. Current trends are particularly concerning from a global perspective: current costs are not sustainable, even for HICs, and globally, most people who develop kidney failure forego treatment, resulting in millions of deaths every year. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop new approaches and dialysis modalities that are cost-effective, accessible and offer improved patient outcomes. Nephrology researchers are increasingly engaging with patients to determine their priorities for meaningful outcomes that should be used to measure progress. The overarching message from this engagement is that while patients value longevity, reducing symptom burden and achieving maximal functional and social rehabilitation are prioritized more highly. In response, patients, payors, regulators and health-care systems are increasingly demanding improved value, which can only come about through true patient-centred innovation that supports high-quality, high-value care. Substantial efforts are now underway to support requisite transformative changes. These efforts need to be catalysed, promoted and fostered through international collaboration and harmonization.

Dialysis is a life-saving therapy; however, costs of dialysis are high, access is inequitable and outcomes are inadequate. This Review describes the current landscape of dialysis therapy from an epidemiological, economic, ethical and patient-centred framework, and describes initiatives that are aimed at stimulating innovations in the field to one that supports high-quality, high-value care.

The global dialysis population is growing rapidly, especially in low-income and middle-income countries; however, worldwide, a substantial number of people lack access to kidney replacement therapy, and millions of people die of kidney failure each year, often without supportive care.

The costs of dialysis care are high and will likely continue to rise as a result of increased life expectancy and improved therapies for causes of kidney failure such as diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease.

Patients on dialysis continue to bear a high burden of disease, shortened life expectancy and report a high symptom burden and a low health-related quality of life.

Patient-focused research has identified fatigue, insomnia, cramps, depression, anxiety and frustration as key symptoms contributing to unsatisfactory outcomes for patients on dialysis.

Initiatives to transform dialysis outcomes for patients require both top-down efforts (that is, efforts that promote incentives based on systems level policy, regulations, macroeconomic and organizational changes) and bottom-up efforts (that is, patient-led and patient-centred advocacy efforts as well as efforts led by individual teams of innovators).

Patients, payors, regulators and health-care systems increasingly demand improved value in dialysis care, which can only come about through true patient-centred innovation that supports high-quality, high-value care.

Trends in Peritoneal Dialysis Use in the United States after Medicare Payment Reform

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) for ESKD is associated with similar mortality, higher quality of life, and lower costs compared with hemodialysis (HD), but has historically been underused. We assessed the effect of the 2011 Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for dialysis on PD initiation, modality switches, and stable PD use.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using US Renal Data System and Medicare data, we identified all United States patients with ESKD initiating dialysis before (2006-2010) and after (2011-2013) PPS implementation, and observed their modality for up to 2 years after dialysis initiation. Using logistic regression models, we examined the associations between PPS and early PD experience (any PD 1-90 days after initiation), late PD use (any PD 91-730 days after initiation), and modality switches (PD-to-HD or HD-to-PD 91-730 days after initiation). We adjusted for patient, dialysis facility, and regional characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 619,126 patients with incident ESKD received dialysis at Medicare-certified facilities, 2006-2013. Observed early PD experience increased from 9.4% before PPS to 12.6% after PPS. Observed late PD use increased from 12.1% to 16.1%. In adjusted analyses, PPS was associated with increased early PD experience (odds ratio [OR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.47 to 1.55; P<0.001) and late PD use (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.45 to 1.50; P<0.001). In subgroup analyses, late PD use increased in part due to an increase in HD-to-PD switches among those without early PD experience (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.52 to 1.66; P<0.001) and a decrease in PD-to-HD switches among those with early PD experience (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98; P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

More patients started, stayed on, and switched to PD after dialysis payment reform. This occurred without a substantial increase in transfers to HD.

Expanded Prospective Payment System and Use of and Outcomes with Home Dialysis by Race and Ethnicity in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether the recent growth in home dialysis use was proportional among all racial/ethnic groups and also whether there were changes in racial/ethnic differences in home dialysis outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This observational cohort study of US Renal Data System patients initiating dialysis from 2005 to 2013 used logistic regression to estimate racial/ethnic differences in home dialysis initiation over time, and used competing risk models to assess temporal changes in racial/ethnic differences in home dialysis outcomes, specifically: (1) transfer to in-center hemodialysis (HD), (2) mortality, and (3) transplantation.

RESULTS

Of the 523,526 patients initiating dialysis from 2005 to 2013, 55% were white, 28% black, 13% Hispanic, and 4% Asian. In the earliest era (2005-2007), 8.0% of white patients initiated dialysis with home modalities, as did a similar proportion of Asians (9.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.86 to 1.05), whereas lower proportions of black [5.2%; aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.76] and Hispanic (5.7%; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93) patients did so. Over time, home dialysis use increased in all groups and racial/ethnic differences decreased (2011-2013: 10.6% of whites, 8.3% of blacks [aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.85], 9.6% of Hispanics [aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.00], 14.2% of Asians [aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.12]). Compared with white patients, the risk of transferring to in-center HD was higher in blacks, similar in Hispanics, and lower in Asians; these differences remained stable over time. The mortality rate was lower for minority patients than for white patients; this difference increased over time. Transplantation rates were lower for blacks and similar for Hispanics and Asians; over time, the difference in transplantation rates between blacks and Hispanics versus whites increased.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2005 to 2013, as home dialysis use increased, racial/ethnic differences in initiating home dialysis narrowed, without worsening rates of death or transfer to in-center HD in minority patients, as compared with white patients.