Search

The standardized readmission ratio is a new quality measure for dialysis facilities that will affect public reporting and payment beginning in 2017. Like all quality measures affecting public reporting and payment, the standardized readmission ratio was vetted by a process that included a technical expert panel convened by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and, then, the National Quality Forum. Unlike previous measures, standardized readmission ratio followed a tortuous path that exposed problems in the development and endorsement process. Although it is acknowledged that processes in the dialysis facility can be improved to decrease readmissions, multiple objections to the implementation of the standardized readmission ratio measure existed. This review discusses the standardized readmission ratio measure and issues related to quality metric development that are important for the nephrology community to consider., (Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Established by Federal law in 1978, the ESRD Networks are regional nonprofit organizations that contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to provide quality oversight services to chronic dialysis facilities. The governing bodies and medical review boards of each network are populated by volunteer professionals and patients. The medical review boards drive the quality agenda for each network, addressing specific local barriers to improvement. The network contract deliverables are defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in a scope of work document (SOW) that is generally revised with each 3-year contracting cycle. The current SOW has not been revised since the implementation of the new Conditions for Coverage for dialysis facilities in 2008 or the implementation of a bundled payment system and quality incentive program for dialysis providers in 2011. The future success of the ESRD Network Program will depend upon adequate funding, data accessibility to drive rapid-cycle quality improvement efforts, and partnerships with other stakeholder groups to address the continuum of care of patients with CKD. The Forum of ESRD Networks has developed a strategic plan that aligns the priorities of the networks with the National Quality Strategy. The integration of these objectives into the next SOW will augment the relevance of the network program to the ESRD stakeholder community as the networks move from a task-oriented approach to a system-improvement approach to quality oversight.

Although the general framework for health care delivery is vastly different in Canada and the United States, the framework for dialysis delivery is less divergent. However, the 2 systems have evolved very differently. Examined during the past 20 years, it is apparent that the dialysis system in the United States has undergone profound change, whereas the system in Canada is relatively stagnant. Most of the change in the United States has been positive, and this evolutionary change is expected to continue. In Canada, a system that historically has worked reasonably well is now showing severe signs of suboptimal performance that would be expected to get worse if no effort is made to improve it. This article, written from the perspective of 2 academic clinicians, tries to describe similarities and differences, identify strengths and weaknesses, and serve as a catalyst for discussions about improving both systems. Just as no dialysis treatment modality is perfect, the same can be said for dialysis delivery systems. Empirical methods to objectively evaluate the impact of change must be included in the design and implementation of new initiatives in the United States and Canada.

The management of anemia in the United States during the past 2 decades and since the introduction of erythropoietin (EPO) has continuously evolved, shaped by the interplay of reimbursement, evidence, clinical performance measurement, and, most recently, risk management. A fee-for-service reimbursement system has driven average EPO doses higher than anywhere else in the world, despite opportunities to decrease such dosing through more effective iron management and subcutaneous administration. Calls by Congress for Medicare to constrain ESA costs and FDA relabeling of erythropoietic-stimulating agents (ESAs), in the wake of The Correction of Hemoglobin and Outcomes in Renal Insufficiency and The Cardiovascular risk Reduction by Early Anemia Treatment with Epoetin Beta trials, have in 2007 led to the first decrease in mean hemoglobin levels in US hemodialysis patients since EPO was introduced in 1989. The implementation of a case-mixed adjusted bundled payment system for ESRD services in 2011 will turn ESAs from a profit center to a cost center for dialysis providers. This is likely to have profound implications regarding anemia management directed at curtailing ESA dosing, including subcutaneous administration, more aggressive iron therapy, and decreased target hemoglobin levels. Medicare has developed a third generation of clinical performance measures (CPMs) for ESRD providers (facilities and physicians) to ensure that quality is maintained in the new fiscal environment. Unlike the previous generations, these new CPMs emphasize an upper limit of hemoglobin as well as a lower one. Payment for performance based on these CPMs will likely be a key driver of future practice patterns for anemia management.

Stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is characterized by a glomerular filtration rate of 30 to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (reference range, 90-200 mL/min/1.73m2 for a 20-year-old, with a decrease of 4 mL/min per decade), affects approximately 8 million people in the United States. Anemia is common in patients with stage 3 CKD and, if not corrected, contributes to a poor quality of life. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), introduced almost 2 decades ago, have replaced transfusions as first-line therapy for anemia. This review summarizes the current understanding of the role of ESAs in the primary care of patients with anemia of CKD and discusses pharmacological and pharmacoeconomic issues raised by recent data. Relevant studies in the English language were identified by searching the MEDLINE database (1987-2006). Two ESAs are currently available in the United States, epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa. More frequent dosing with epoetin alfa is recommended by the labeled administration guidelines because it has a shorter half-life than darbepoetin alfa. Clinical experience also supports extended dosing intervals for both these ESAs. Use of ESAs in the management of anemia of CKD is associated with improved quality of life, increased survival, and decreased progression of renal failure. Some evidence suggests that ESAs have a cardioprotective effect. However, correction of anemia to hemoglobin levels greater than 12 g/dL (to convert to g/L, multiply by 10) appears to increase the risk of adverse cardiac outcomes and progression of kidney disease in some patients. The prescription of ESAs in the primary care setting requires an understanding of the accepted use of these agents, the associated pharmacoeconomic challenges, and the potential risks. This review considers the need to balance effective ESA dosing intervals against the potential risks of treatment.

The increasing prevalence of multiple comorbidities among anemic patients with chronic kidney disease has made the use of serum ferritin and transferrin saturation more challenging in diagnosing iron deficiency. Because serum ferritin is an acute-phase reactant and because the inflammatory state may inhibit the mobilization of iron from reticuloendothelial stores, the scenario of patients with serum ferritin >800 ng/ml, suggesting iron overload, and transferrin saturation <20%, suggesting iron deficiency, has become more common. This article revisits the basis for the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative recommendations regarding the use of serum ferritin and transferrin saturation in guiding iron therapy, then explores some of the newer alternative markers for iron status that may be useful when serum ferritin and transferrin saturation are insufficient. These newer tests include reticulocyte hemoglobin content, percentage of hypochromic red cells, and soluble transferrin receptor, all of which have shown some promise in limited studies. Finally, the role of hepcidin, a hepatic polypeptide, in the pathophysiology of iron mobilization is reviewed briefly.

With the widespread use of recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), management of iron deficiency is an ongoing issue for the renal team. Effective iron replacement and maintenance play a vital role in efficient use of EPO. For hemodialysis patients, intravenous (i.v.) iron has proven convenient and, as an ancillary drug outside of the composite rate, generates profits for dialysis facilities. Improvements in the vehicle with which i.v. iron is administered have led to a reduction in severe or fatal reactions common with iron dextran products. Oral iron has had a spotty track record as an effective therapy for dialysis patients. Compliance has been hindered by patient discomfort when taking oral iron. Patients on peritoneal dialysis and those with chronic kidney disease remain good candidates for oral iron because of convenience, and oral formulas could prove more effective even in the hemodialysis patient population if they were better tolerated and better absorbed, and if using them would not place an economic burden on the patient and/or an economic hardship on the facility. In a capitated/bundled payment environment, oral iron may become a blessing rather than a curse for facilities that need to find more economic ways of providing services. Heme-iron, now undergoing clinical studies, may be a reliable replacement for i.v. iron in that scenario.