Search

Importance: There is a need for studies to evaluate the risk factors for COVID-19 and mortality among the entire Medicare long-term dialysis population using Medicare claims data., Objective: To identify risk factors associated with COVID-19 and mortality in Medicare patients undergoing long-term dialysis., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, claims-based cohort study compared mortality trends of patients receiving long-term dialysis in 2020 with previous years (2013-2019) and fit Cox regression models to identify risk factors for contracting COVID-19 and postdiagnosis mortality. The cohort included the national population of Medicare patients receiving long-term dialysis in 2020, derived from clinical and administrative databases. COVID-19 was identified through Medicare claims sources. Data were analyzed on May 17, 2021., Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 main outcomes were COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. Associations of claims-based risk factors with COVID-19 and mortality were investigated prediagnosis and postdiagnosis., Results: Among a total of 498 169 Medicare patients undergoing dialysis (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-74] years; 215 935 [43.1%] women and 283 227 [56.9%] men), 60 090 (12.1%) had COVID-19, among whom 15 612 patients (26.0%) died. COVID-19 rates were significantly higher among Black (21 787 of 165 830 patients [13.1%]) and Hispanic (13 530 of 86 871 patients [15.6%]) patients compared with non-Black patients (38 303 of 332 339 [11.5%]), as well as patients with short (ie, 1-89 days; 7738 of 55 184 patients [14.0%]) and extended (ie, ≥90 days; 10 737 of 30 196 patients [35.6%]) nursing home stays in the prior year. Adjusting for all other risk factors, residing in a nursing home 1 to 89 days in the prior year was associated with a higher hazard for COVID-19 (hazard ratio [HR] vs 0 days, 1.60; 95% CI 1.56-1.65) and for postdiagnosis mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.25-1.37), as was residing in a nursing home for an extended stay (COVID-19: HR, 4.48; 95% CI, 4.37-4.59; mortality: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07-1.16). Black race (HR vs non-Black: HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.23-1.28) and Hispanic ethnicity (HR vs non-Hispanic: HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.64-1.72) were associated with significantly higher hazards of COVID-19. Although home dialysis was associated with lower COVID-19 rates (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.80), it was associated with higher mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.25)., Conclusions and Relevance: These results shed light on COVID-19 risk factors and outcomes among Medicare patients receiving long-term chronic dialysis and could inform policy decisions to mitigate the significant extra burden of COVID-19 and death in this population.

Objective: To examine which factors are driving improvement in the Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) star ratings and to test whether nonclinical facility characteristics are associated with observed longitudinal changes in the star ratings., Data Sources: Data were collected from eligible patients in over 6,000 Medicare-certified dialysis facilities from three annual star rating and individual measure updates, publicly released on DFC in October 2015, October 2016, and April 2018., Study Design: Changes in the star rating and individual quality measures were investigated across three public data releases. Year-to-year changes in the star ratings were linked to facility characteristics, adjusting for baseline differences in quality measure performance., Data Collection: Data from publicly reported quality measures, including standardized mortality, hospitalization, and transfusion ratios, dialysis adequacy, type of vascular access for dialysis, and management of mineral and bone disease, were extracted from annual DFC data releases., Principal Findings: The proportion of four- and five-star facilities increased from 30.0% to 53.4% between October 2015 and April 2018. Quality improvement was driven by the domain of care containing the dialysis adequacy and hypercalcemia measures. Additionally, independently owned facilities and facilities belonging to smaller dialysis organizations had significantly lower odds of year-to-year improvement than facilities belonging to either of the two large dialysis organizations (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.736, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.631-0.856 and OR: 0.797, 95% CI: 0.723-0.879, respectively)., Conclusions: The percentage of four- and five-star facilities has increased markedly over a three-year time period. These changes were driven by improvement in the specific quality measures that may be most directly under the control of the dialysis facility., (© 2020 Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background: To assure and improve the quality and safety of care provided by dialysis facilities, federal oversight has been conducted through periodic survey assessment. However, with the growing number of individuals living with ESRD and dialysis facilities, state survey agencies have faced challenges in time and resources to complete survey activities. Therefore, the survey process ('Basic Survey' used prior to 2013) was redesigned in order to develop a more efficient process ('Core Survey' newly implemented since 2013). The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate and compare dialysis facility survey outcomes between the Core and Basic Survey processes, using a causal inference technique. The survey outcomes included condition-level citations, total citations (condition- and standard-level), and citation rate per survey-hour., Methods: For comparisons of non-randomly assigned survey types, propensity score matching was used. Data were drawn from CMS' Quality Improvement Evaluation System (QIES) database from January 1, 2013 through July 31, 2014. Covariates available included survey type, facility characteristics (state, urban, practices catheter reuse, dialysis modalities offered, number of patients, mortality, hospitalization, infection) and survey-related characteristics (number of surveyors, time since last survey)., Results: Compared to the Basic Survey, the Core Survey identified 10% more total citations (P = 0.001) and identified condition-level citations more frequently, although the latter finding did not reach statistical significance. These findings suggest an increase of 10% in citation rate (i.e. ratio between citations and survey time) with the Core survey process (P = 0.002)., Conclusions: Greater efficiency has implications for attenuating the time-intensive burden of the state survey process, and improving the safety and quality of care provided by dialysis facilities., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

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., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background: Medicare implemented a new prospective payment system (PPS) on January 1, 2011. This PPS covers an expanded bundle of services, including services previously paid on a fee-for-service basis. The objectives of the new PPS include more efficient decisions about treatment service combinations and modality choice., Methods: Primary data for this study are Medicare claims files for all dialysis patients for whom Medicare is the primary payer. We compare use of key injectable medications under the bundled PPS to use when those drugs were separately billable and examine variability across providers. We also compare each patient's dialysis modality before and after the PPS., Results: Use of relatively expensive drugs, including erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, declined substantially after institution of the new PPS, whereas use of iron products, often therapeutic substitutes for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, increased. Less expensive vitamin D products were substituted for more expensive types. Drug spending overall decreased by ∼$25 per session, or about 5 times the mandated reduction in the base payment rate of ∼$5. Use of peritoneal dialysis increased in 2011 after being nearly flat in the years prior to the PPS, with the increase concentrated in patients in their first or second year of dialysis. Home hemodialysis continued to increase as a percentage of total dialysis services, but at a rate similar to the pre-PPS trend., Conclusion: The expanded bundle dialysis PPS provided incentives for the use of lower cost therapies. These incentives seem to have motivated dialysis providers to move toward lower cost methods of care in both their use of drugs and choice of modalities., (Copyright © 2013 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Racial disparities in health care are widespread in the United States. Identifying contributing factors may improve care for underserved minorities. To the extent that differential utilization of services, based on need or biological effect, contributes to outcome disparities, prospective payment systems may require inclusion of race to minimize these adverse effects. This research determines whether costs associated with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) care varied by race and whether this variance affected payments to dialysis facilities., Study Design: We compared the classification of race across Medicare databases and investigated differences in cost of care for long-term dialysis patients by race., Setting & Participants: Medicare ESRD database including 890,776 patient-years in 2004-2006., Predictors: Patient race and ethnicity., Outcomes: Costs associated with ESRD care and estimated payments to dialysis facilities under a prospective payment system., Results: There were inconsistencies in race and ethnicity classification; however, there was significant agreement for classification of black and nonblack race across databases. In predictive models evaluating the cost of outpatient dialysis care for Medicare patients, race is a significant predictor of cost, particularly for cost of separately billed injectable medications used in dialysis. Overall, black patients had 9% higher costs than nonblack patients. In a model that did not adjust for race, other patient characteristics accounted for only 31% of this difference., Limitations: Lack of information about biological causes of the link between race and cost., Conclusions: There is a significant racial difference in the cost of providing dialysis care that is not accounted for by other factors that may be used to adjust payments. This difference has the potential to affect the delivery of care to certain populations. Of note, inclusion of race into a prospective payment system will require better understanding of biological differences in bone and anemia outcomes, as well as effects of inclusion on self-reported race., (Copyright © 2010 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To characterize the influence of dialysis facilities and nephrologists on resource use and patient outcomes in the dialysis population and to illustrate how such information can be used to inform payment system design., Data Sources: Medicare claims for all hemodialysis patients for whom Medicare was the primary payer in 2004, combined with the Medicare Enrollment Database and the CMS Medical Evidence Form (CMS Form 2728), which is completed at onset of renal replacement therapy., Study Design: Resource use (mainly drugs and laboratory tests) per dialysis session and two clinical outcomes (achieving targets for anemia management and dose of dialysis) were modeled at the patient level with random effects for nephrologist and dialysis facility, controlling for patient characteristics., Results: For each measure, both the physician and the facility had significant effects. However, facilities were more influential than physicians, as measured by the standard deviation of the random effects., Conclusions: The success of tools such as P4P and provider profiling relies upon the identification of providers most able to enhance efficiency and quality. This paper demonstrates a method for determining the extent to which variation in health care costs and quality of care can be attributed to physicians and institutional providers. Because variation in quality and cost attributable to facilities is consistently larger than that attributable to physicians, if provider profiling or financial incentives are targeted to only one type of provider, the facility appears to be the appropriate locus.

Medicare is considering an expansion of the bundle of dialysis-related services to be paid on a prospective basis. Exploratory models were developed to assess the potential limitations of case-mix adjustment for such an expansion. A broad set of patient characteristics explained 11.8% of the variation in Medicare allowable charges per dialysis session. Although adding recent hematocrit values or prior health care utilization to the model did increase explanatory power, it could also create adverse incentives. Projected gains or losses relative to prevailing fee-for-service payments, assuming no change in practice patterns, were significant for some individual providers. However, systematic gains or losses for different classes of providers were modest.

The Medicare program reimburses dialysis providers a flat rate for a bundle of services that comprise the basic dialysis treatment. This payment system is being modified to incorporate case-mix adjustment for age and body size, which have been shown to influence dialysis costs. This study simulated the economic impact of the recently issued Medicare rule on case-mix adjustment by estimating the variation in payments across patients, facilities, and broad classes of facilities. Case-mix adjustment results in considerable patient-level variation in payments (dollar 12.99 SD in case-mix adjusted payments). The variation across dialysis facilities is smaller but still economically significant (dollar 3.77 SD). However, there was little evidence that particular classes of facilities (e.g., ownership, chain membership, size) will be substantially advantaged or disadvantaged by case-mix adjustment. There do seem to be modest changes in the regional distribution of payments.

Under the Comprehensive End-stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Care (CEC) Model, dialysis facilities and nephrologists form ESRD Seamless Care Organizations (ESCOs) to deliver high value care. This study compared the characteristics of patients and markets served and unserved by CEC and assessed its generalizability. ESCOs operated in 65 of 384 markets. ESCO markets were larger than non-ESCO markets, had fewer White patients, higher household income, and higher Medicare spending per patient. Patients in ESCOs were similar to eligible nonaligned patients in age and sex but differed in race/ethnicity and were more often treated in an urban area; comorbidity prevalence differed modestly. CEC is available to a meaningful share of the dialysis population and relatively few dialysis patients resided in a market where no provider could meet the participation threshold, so market size may not be the primary barrier for potential new participants in CEC or future kidney care models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]