Literature DB >> 25189926

Rebasing the Medicare payment for dialysis: rationale, challenges, and opportunities.

Diane Wish1, Doug Johnson2, Jay Wish3.   

Abstract

After Medicare's implementation of the bundled payment for dialysis in 2011, there has been a predictable decrease in the use of intravenous drugs included in the bundle. The change in use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, which decreased by 37% between 2007, when its allowance in the bundle was calculated, and 2012, was because of both changes in the Food and Drug Administration labeling for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in 2011 and cost-containment efforts at the facility level. Legislation in 2012 required Medicare to decrease (rebase) the bundled payment for dialysis in 2014 to reflect this decrease in intravenous drug use, which amounted to a cut of 12% or $30 per treatment. Medicare subsequently decided to phase in this decrease in payment over several years to offset the increase in dialysis payment that would otherwise have occurred with inflation. A 3% reduction from the rebasing would offset an approximately 3% increase in the market basket that determines a facility's costs for 2014 and 2015. Legislation in March of 2014 provides that the rebasing will result in a 1.25% decrease in the market basket adjustment in 2016 and 2017 and a 1% decrease in the market basket adjustment in 2018 for an aggregate rebasing of 9.5% spread over 5 years. Adjusting to this payment decrease in inflation-adjusted dollars will be challenging for many dialysis providers in an industry that operates at an average 3%-4% margin. Closure of facilities, decreases in services, and increased consolidation of the industry are possible scenarios. Newer models of reimbursement, such as ESRD seamless care organizations, offer dialysis providers the opportunity to align incentives between themselves, nephrologists, hospitals, and other health care providers, potentially improving outcomes and saving money, which will be shared between Medicare and the participating providers.
Copyright © 2014 by the American Society of Nephrology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ESRD; chronic dialysis; economic effect

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25189926      PMCID: PMC4255403          DOI: 10.2215/CJN.03830414

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol        ISSN: 1555-9041            Impact factor:   8.237


  4 in total

1.  The triple aim: care, health, and cost.

Authors:  Donald M Berwick; Thomas W Nolan; John Whittington
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Effect of the ownership of dialysis facilities on patients' survival and referral for transplantation.

Authors:  P P Garg; K D Frick; M Diener-West; N R Powe
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-11-25       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Comparison of mortality between private for-profit and private not-for-profit hemodialysis centers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  P J Devereaux; Holger J Schünemann; Nikila Ravindran; Mohit Bhandari; Amit X Garg; Peter T-L Choi; Brydon J B Grant; Ted Haines; Christina Lacchetti; Bruce Weaver; John N Lavis; Deborah J Cook; David R S Haslam; Terrence Sullivan; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-11-20       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Medicare program; end-stage renal disease prospective payment system, quality incentive program, and durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2013-12-02
  4 in total
  8 in total

1.  Facility Practice Variation to Help Understand the Effects of Public Policy: Insights from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS).

Authors:  Douglas S Fuller; Bruce M Robinson
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 8.237

2.  Bundled Payment Reform and Dialysis Facility Closures in ESKD.

Authors:  Sayna Norouzi; Bo Zhao; Ahmed Awan; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Vivian Ho; Kevin F Erickson
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 10.121

Review 3.  Palliative Care Disincentives in CKD: Changing Policy to Improve CKD Care.

Authors:  Manjula Kurella Tamura; Ann M O'Hare; Eugene Lin; Laura M Holdsworth; Elizabeth Malcolm; Alvin H Moss
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 8.860

4.  Intravenous Epoetin Alfa-epbx versus Epoetin Alfa for Treatment of Anemia in End-Stage Kidney Disease.

Authors:  Steven Fishbane; Bhupinder Singh; Seema Kumbhat; Wayne A Wisemandle; Nancy E Martin
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 8.237

5.  Research Priorities for Palliative Care for Older Adults with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease.

Authors:  Ann M O'Hare; Mi-Kyung Song; Manjula Kurella Tamura; Alvin H Moss
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.947

6.  Patient Health Outcomes following Dialysis Facility Closures in the United States.

Authors:  Jingbo Niu; Maryam K Saeed; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Kevin F Erickson
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 14.978

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

Authors:  Caroline E Sloan; Abby Hoffman; Matthew L Maciejewski; Cynthia J Coffman; Justin G Trogdon; Virginia Wang
Journal:  JAMA Health Forum       Date:  2021-11-05

8.  Randomized Controlled Trial of Subcutaneous Epoetin Alfa-epbx Versus Epoetin Alfa in End-Stage Kidney Disease.

Authors:  Steven Fishbane; Bruce S Spinowitz; Wayne A Wisemandle; Nancy E Martin
Journal:  Kidney Int Rep       Date:  2019-05-22
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.