Search

Background and Objectives: Peritoneal dialysis is a self-administered, home-based treatment for ESKD associated with equivalent mortality, higher quality of life, and lower costs compared with hemodialysis. In 2011, Medicare implemented a comprehensive prospective payment system that makes a single payment for all dialysis, medication, and ancillary services. We examined whether the prospective payment system increased dialysis facility provision of peritoneal dialysis services and whether changes in peritoneal dialysis provision were more common among dialysis facilities that are chain affiliated, located in nonurban areas, and in regions with high dialysis market competition., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: We conducted a longitudinal retrospective cohort study of n =6433 United States nonfederal dialysis facilities before (2006-2010) and after (2011-2013) the prospective payment system using data from the US Renal Data System, Medicare, and Area Health Resource Files. The outcomes of interest were a dichotomous indicator of peritoneal dialysis service availability and a discrete count variable of dialysis facility peritoneal dialysis program size defined as the annual number of patients on peritoneal dialysis in a facility. We used general estimating equation models to examine changes in peritoneal dialysis service offerings and peritoneal dialysis program size by a pre- versus post-prospective payment system effect and whether changes differed by chain affiliation, urban location, facility size, or market competition, adjusting for 1-year lagged facility-, patient with ESKD-, and region-level demographic characteristics., Results: We found a modest increase in observed facility provision of peritoneal dialysis and peritoneal dialysis program size after the prospective payment system (36% and 5.7 patients in 2006 to 42% and 6.9 patients in 2013, respectively). There was a positive association of the prospective payment system with peritoneal dialysis provision (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.18) and PD program size (incidence rate ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 1.33). Post-prospective payment system change in peritoneal dialysis provision was greater among nonurban ( P <0.001), chain-affiliated ( P =0.002), and larger-sized facilities ( P <0.001), and there were higher rates of peritoneal dialysis program size growth in nonurban facilities ( P <0.001)., Conclusions: Medicare's 2011 prospective payment system was associated with more facilities' availability of peritoneal dialysis and modest growth in facility peritoneal dialysis program size., Podcast: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2018&#95;11&#95;19&#95;CJASNPodcast&#95;18&#95;12&#95;.mp3., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Variability in transplant rates between different dialysis units has been noted, yet little is known about facility-level factors associated with low standardized transplant ratios (STRs) across the United States End-stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Network regions. We analyzed Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Dialysis Facility Report data from 2007 to 2010 to examine facility-level factors associated with low STRs using multivariable mixed models. Among 4098 dialysis facilities treating 305 698 patients, there was wide variability in facility-level STRs across the 18 ESRD Networks. Four-year average STRs ranged from 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.73) in Network 6 (Southeastern Kidney Council) to 1.61 (95% CI: 1.47-1.76) in Network 1 (New England). Factors significantly associated with a lower STR (p < 0.0001) included for-profit status, facilities with higher percentage black patients, patients with no health insurance and patients with diabetes. A greater number of facility staff, more transplant centers per 10 000 ESRD patients and a higher percentage of patients who were employed or utilized peritoneal dialysis were associated with higher STRs. The lowest performing dialysis facilities were in the Southeastern United States. Understanding the modifiable facility-level factors associated with low transplant rates may inform interventions to improve access to transplantation., (© Copyright 2014 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Medicare uses a quality incentive program (QIP) criteria to evaluate care in dialysis facilities and apply monetary penalties on underperforming facilities. Smaller dialysis facilities are likely to be rural and operate on lower profit margin; therefore, such facilities are likely to underperform and face Medicare penalties. The variation in QIP scores by facility size is not yet known. We investigated the association between freestanding dialysis facility size and QIP scores.Methods: Our cross-sectional analysis compared QIP scores across levels of facility size for 5,193 freestanding dialysis facilities that received QIP scores in 2015. We used Medicare facility data including Dialysis Facility Compare, Performance Scores, Facility-Level Impact, and Area Health Resource and United States Renal Data System files for the payment year 2015. We measured the facility size using the number of dialysis stations per dialysis facility. QIP scores were used to determine the quality of care. A generalized linear model was estimated at an alpha level of 0.05.Results: Facilities operating more than 10 dialysis stations scored higher than those operating fewer. Further, facilities in the South and Northeast, not offering peritoneal dialysis, affiliated with chains (except chain 3) and spending more hours per dialysis achieved higher QIP scores. Facilities reporting a higher proportion of Hispanic patients and of patients with access to pre-end-stage renal disease (ESRD) nephrologist care achieved higher QIP scores. Conversely, facilities with a higher Black patient population and higher patient travel distances scored lower.Conclusions: The current study provides important finding about the performance of the dialysis facilities with ≤10 dialysis stations. Quality improvement strategies are needed, especially for the dialysis facilities with ≤10 stations, to prevent penalties and eventual closure of such facilities due to financial insolvency. Failure to address these issues will increase further disparities in ESRD care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We examined the association of dialysis facility characteristics with payment reductions and change in clinical performance measures during the first year of the United States Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) End Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Plan (ESRD QIP) to determine its potential impact on quality and disparities in dialysis care.Methods: We linked the 2012 ESRD QIP Facility Performance File to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey by zip code and dichotomized the QIP total performance scores-derived from percent of patients with urea reduction rate > 65, hemoglobin < 10 g/dL, and hemoglobin > 12 g/dL-as 'any' versus 'no' payment reduction. We characterized associations between payment reduction and dialysis facility characteristics and neighborhood demographics, and examined changes in facility outcomes between 2007 and 2010.Results: In multivariable analysis, facilities with any payment reduction were more likely to have longer operation (OR 1.03 per year), a medium or large number of stations (OR 1.31 and OR 1.42, respectively), and a larger proportion of African Americans (OR 1.25, highest versus lowest quartile), all p < 0.05. Most improvement in clinical performance was due to reduced overtreatment of anemia, a decline in the percentage of patients with hemoglobin ≥ 12 g/dL; for-profits and facilities in African American neighborhoods had the greatest reduction.Conclusions: In the first year of CMS pay-for-performance, most clinical improvement was due to reduced overtreatment of anemia. Facilities in African American neighborhoods were more likely to receive a payment reduction, despite their large decline in anemia overtreatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently released a five star rating system as part of ‘Dialysis Facility Compare’ to help patients identify and choose high performing clinics in the US. Eight dialysis-related measures determine ratings. Little is known about the association between surrounding community sociodemographic characteristics and star ratings. Using data from the U.S. Census and over 6000 dialysis clinics across the country, we examined the association between dialysis clinic star ratings and characteristics of the local population: 1) proportion of population below the federal poverty level (FPL); 2) proportion of black individuals; and 3) proportion of Hispanic individuals, by correlation and regression analyses. Secondary analyses with Quality Incentive Program (QIP) scores and population characteristics were also performed. We observed a negligible correlation between star ratings and the proportion of local individuals below FPL; Spearman coefficient, R = -0.09 (p<0.0001), and a stronger correlation between star ratings and the proportion of black individuals; R = -0.21 (p<0.0001). Ordered logistic regression analyses yielded adjusted odds ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [0.80–1.30], p = 0.12) and 0.55 ([0.48–0.63], p<0.0001) for high vs. low level of proportion below FPL and proportion of black individuals, respectively. In contrast, a near-zero correlation was observed between star ratings and the proportion of Hispanic individuals. Correlations varied substantially by country region, clinic profit status and clinic size. Analyses using clinic QIP scores provided similar results. Sociodemographic characteristics of the surrounding community, factors typically outside of providers’ direct control, have varying levels of association with clinic dialysis star ratings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We show that healthcare providers face a tradeoff between increasing the number of patients they treat and improving their quality of care. To measure the magnitude of this quality-quantity tradeoff, we estimate a model of dialysis provision that explicitly incorporates a centre's unobservable and endogenous choice of treatment quality while allowing for unobserved differences in productivity across centres. We find that a centre that reduces its quality standards such that its expected rate of septic infections increases by 1 percentage point can increase its patient load by 1.6%, holding productivity, capital and labour fixed; this corresponds to an elasticity of quantity with respect to quality of -0.2. Notably, our approach provides estimates of productivity that control for differences in quality, whereas traditional methods would misattribute lower-quality care to greater productivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To examine the structure, processes, and outcomes of American dialysis facilities that predominantly treat racial-ethnic minority patients. Data Sources/Study Setting Secondary analysis of data from all patients who initiated dialysis during 2005-2008 in the United States. Study Design In this retrospective cohort study, we examined the associations of the racial-ethnic composition of the dialysis facility with facility-level survival and achievement of performance targets for anemia and dialysis adequacy. Data Collection/Extraction Methods We obtained dialysis facility- and patient-level data from the national data registry of patients with end-stage renal disease. We linked these data with clinical performance measures from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Principal Findings Overall, minority-serving facilities were markedly larger, more often community based, and less likely to offer home dialysis than facilities serving predominantly white patients. A significantly higher proportion of minority-serving dialysis facilities exhibited worse than expected survival as compared with facilities serving predominantly white patients ( p < .001 for each). However, clinical performance measures for anemia and dialysis adequacy were similar across minority-serving status. Conclusions While minority-serving facilities generally met dialysis performance targets mandated by Medicare, they exhibited worse than expected patient survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine the association between dialysis facility chain affiliation and patient mortality. Medicare dialysis population. Data from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) were used to identify 3,601 free-standing dialysis facilities and 34,914 Medicare patients' incidence to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in 2004. Mixed-effect regression models were used to estimate patient mortality by dialysis facility chain and profit status during the 2-year follow-up. USRDS data were matched with facility, cost, and census data. Of the five largest dialysis chains, the lowest mortality risk was observed among patients dialyzed at nonprofit (NP) Chain 5 facilities. Compared with Chain 5, hazard ratios were 19 percent higher (95 percent CI 1.06-1.34) and 24 percent higher (95 percent CI 1.10-1.40) for patients dialyzed at for-profit (FP) Chain 1 and Chain 2 facilities, respectively. In addition, patients at FP facilities had a 13 percent higher risk of mortality than those in NP facilities (95 percent CI 1.06-1.22). Large chain affiliation is an independent risk factor for ESRD mortality in the United States. Given the movement toward further consolidation of large FP chains, reasons behind the increase in mortality require scrutiny. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To determine the predictors of chain acquisition among independent dialysis providers. Data Sources. Retrospective facility-level data combined from CMS Cost Reports, Medical Evidence Forms, Annual Facility Surveys, and claims for 1996–2003. Study Design. Independent dialysis facilities' probability of acquisition by a dialysis chain (overall and by chain size) was estimated using a discrete time hazard rate model, controlling for financial and clinical performance, practice patterns, market factors, and other facility characteristics. Data Collection. The sample includes all U.S. freestanding dialysis facilities that report not being chain affiliated for at least 1 year between 1997 and 2003. Principal Findings. Above-average costs and better quality outcomes are significant determinants of dialysis chain acquisition. Facilities in larger markets were more likely to be acquired by a chain. Furthermore, small dialysis chains have different acquisition strategies than large chains. Conclusions. Dialysis chains appear to employ a mix of turn-around and cream-skimming strategies. Poor financial health is a predictor of chain acquisition as in other health care sectors, but the increased likelihood of chain acquisition among higher quality facilities is unique to the dialysis industry. Significant differences among predictors of acquisition by small and large chains reinforce the importance of using a richer classification for chain status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the Final Conditions for Coverage (CfCs) for End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Facilities published by the Department of Health and Human Services Support Program Support Center, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on April 15, 2008 in the U.S. It notes that CfCs for ESRD facilities encourage the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and the American Nephrology Nurses Association (ANNA) to establish a task force that will develop resources and guidelines to assist facilities in complying the comprehensive, multi-disciplinary patient assessment (CMPA). Meanwhile, information on the criteria for CMPA and how to complete the patient's assessment is presented.