BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nonmedical factors influencing utilization of home dialysis at the facility level are poorly quantified. Home dialysis is comparably effective and safe but less expensive to society and Medicare than in-center hemodialysis. Elimination of modifiable practice variation unrelated to medical factors could contribute to improvements in patient outcomes and use of scarce resources. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Prevalent dialysis patient data by facility were collected from the 2007 ESRD Network's annual reports. Facility characteristic data were collected from Medicare's Dialysis Facility Compare file. A multivariate regression model was used to evaluate associations between the use of home dialysis and facility characteristics. RESULTS: The utilization of home dialysis was positively associated with facility size, percent patients employed full- or part-time, younger population, and years a facility was Medicare certified. Variables negatively associated include an increased number of hemodialysis patients per hemodialysis station, chain association, rural location, more densely populated zip code, a late dialysis work shift, and greater percent of black patients within a zip code. CONCLUSIONS: Improved understanding of factors affecting the frequency of use of home dialysis may help explain practice variations across the United States that result in an imbalanced use of medical resources within the ESRD population. In turn, this may improve the delivery of healthcare and extend the ability of an increasingly overburdened medical financing system to survive.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nonmedical factors influencing utilization of home dialysis at the facility level are poorly quantified. Home dialysis is comparably effective and safe but less expensive to society and Medicare than in-center hemodialysis. Elimination of modifiable practice variation unrelated to medical factors could contribute to improvements in patient outcomes and use of scarce resources. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Prevalent dialysis patient data by facility were collected from the 2007 ESRD Network's annual reports. Facility characteristic data were collected from Medicare's Dialysis Facility Compare file. A multivariate regression model was used to evaluate associations between the use of home dialysis and facility characteristics. RESULTS: The utilization of home dialysis was positively associated with facility size, percent patients employed full- or part-time, younger population, and years a facility was Medicare certified. Variables negatively associated include an increased number of hemodialysis patients per hemodialysis station, chain association, rural location, more densely populated zip code, a late dialysis work shift, and greater percent of black patients within a zip code. CONCLUSIONS: Improved understanding of factors affecting the frequency of use of home dialysis may help explain practice variations across the United States that result in an imbalanced use of medical resources within the ESRD population. In turn, this may improve the delivery of healthcare and extend the ability of an increasingly overburdened medical financing system to survive.
Authors: M Thamer; W Hwang; N E Fink; J H Sadler; S Wills; N W Levin; E B Bass; A S Levey; R Brookmeyer; N R Powe Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Paul Michael Just; Miguel Carlos Riella; Elizabeth Ann Tschosik; Leslie Lyle Noe; Samir Kumar Bhattacharyya; Frank de Charro Journal: Health Policy Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: A R Nissenson; S S Prichard; I K Cheng; R Gokal; M Kubota; R Maiorca; M C Riella; J Rottembourg; J H Stewart Journal: ASAIO J Date: 1997 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Nancy Neil; Steven Guest; Leslie Wong; Gary Inglese; Samir K Bhattacharyya; Todd Gehr; David R Walker; Thomas Golper Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Rajnish Mehrotra; Osman Khawar; Uyen Duong; Linda Fried; Keith Norris; Allen Nissenson; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2009-04-08 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Kevin McLaughlin; Heather Jones; Carmen VanderStraeten; Cynthia Mills; Marilyn Visser; Ken Taub; Braden Manns Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2008-06-24 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Paul M Just; Frank Th de Charro; Elizabeth A Tschosik; Les L Noe; Samir K Bhattacharyya; Miguel C Riella Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Rajnish Mehrotra; Melissa Soohoo; Matthew B Rivara; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Alfred K Cheung; Onyebuchi A Arah; Allen R Nissenson; Vanessa Ravel; Elani Streja; Sooraj Kuttykrishnan; Ronit Katz; Miklos Z Molnar; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Jenny I Shen; Aya A Mitani; Anjali B Saxena; Benjamin A Goldstein; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Rebecca Kurnik Seshasai; Nandita Mitra; C Michael Chaknos; Jiaqi Li; Christopher Wirtalla; Dan Negoianu; Joel D Glickman; Laura M Dember Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Jenna M Evans; Sarah M Wheeler; Saurabh Sati; Sharon Gradin; Marnie MacKinnon; Peter G Blake Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Anna A Bonenkamp; Tiny Hoekstra; Marc H Hemmelder; Anita van Eck van der Sluijs; Alferso C Abrahams; Frans J van Ittersum; Brigit C van Jaarsveld Journal: Eur J Clin Invest Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 5.722