Bernadette Li1, John A Cairns1, James Fotheringham2, Charles R Tomson3, John L Forsythe4, Christopher Watson5, Wendy Metcalfe6, Damian G Fogarty7, Heather Draper8, Gabriel C Oniscu4, Christopher Dudley3, Rachel J Johnson9, Paul Roderick10, Geraldine Leydon10, J Andrew Bradley5, Rommel Ravanan3. 1. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 2. Sheffield Kidney Institute, Sheffield, UK. 3. Richard Bright Renal Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK. 4. Transplant Unit, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. 6. Scottish Renal Registry, Glasgow, UK. 7. Regional Nephrology Unit, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK. 8. School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 9. NHS Blood and Transplant, Bristol, UK. 10. Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a number of countries, reimbursement to hospitals providing renal dialysis services is set according to a fixed tariff. While the cost of maintenance dialysis and transplant surgery are amenable to a system of fixed tariffs, patients with established renal failure commonly present with comorbid conditions that can lead to variations in the need for hospitalization beyond the provision of renal replacement therapy. METHODS: Patient-level cost data for incident renal replacement therapy patients in England were obtained as a result of linkage of the Hospital Episodes Statistics dataset to UK Renal Registry data. Regression models were developed to explore variations in hospital costs in relation to treatment modality, number of years on treatment and factors such as age and comorbidities. The final models were then used to predict annual costs for patients with different sets of characteristics. RESULTS: Excluding the cost of renal replacement therapy itself, inpatient costs generally decreased with number of years on treatment for haemodialysis and transplant patients, whereas costs for patients receiving peritoneal dialysis remained constant. Diabetes was associated with higher mean annual costs for all patients irrespective of treatment modality and hospital setting. Age did not have a consistent effect on costs. CONCLUSIONS: Combining predicted hospital costs with the fixed costs of renal replacement therapy showed that the total cost differential for a patient continuing on dialysis rather than receiving a transplant is considerable following the first year of renal replacement therapy, thus reinforcing the longer-term economic advantage of transplantation over dialysis for the health service.
BACKGROUND: In a number of countries, reimbursement to hospitals providing renal dialysis services is set according to a fixed tariff. While the cost of maintenance dialysis and transplant surgery are amenable to a system of fixed tariffs, patients with established renal failure commonly present with comorbid conditions that can lead to variations in the need for hospitalization beyond the provision of renal replacement therapy. METHODS: Patient-level cost data for incident renal replacement therapy patients in England were obtained as a result of linkage of the Hospital Episodes Statistics dataset to UK Renal Registry data. Regression models were developed to explore variations in hospital costs in relation to treatment modality, number of years on treatment and factors such as age and comorbidities. The final models were then used to predict annual costs for patients with different sets of characteristics. RESULTS: Excluding the cost of renal replacement therapy itself, inpatient costs generally decreased with number of years on treatment for haemodialysis and transplant patients, whereas costs for patients receiving peritoneal dialysis remained constant. Diabetes was associated with higher mean annual costs for all patients irrespective of treatment modality and hospital setting. Age did not have a consistent effect on costs. CONCLUSIONS: Combining predicted hospital costs with the fixed costs of renal replacement therapy showed that the total cost differential for a patient continuing on dialysis rather than receiving a transplant is considerable following the first year of renal replacement therapy, thus reinforcing the longer-term economic advantage of transplantation over dialysis for the health service.
Authors: Sigrid M Mohnen; Manon J M van Oosten; Jeanine Los; Martijn J H Leegte; Kitty J Jager; Marc H Hemmelder; Susan J J Logtenberg; Vianda S Stel; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen; G Ardine de Wit Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bernadette Li; John A Cairns; Rachel J Johnson; Christopher J E Watson; Paul Roderick; Gabriel C Oniscu; Wendy Metcalfe; J Andrew Bradley; Charles R Tomson; Heather Draper; John L Forsythe; Christopher Dudley; Rommel Ravanan Journal: Transplantation Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 5.385
Authors: Manon J M van Oosten; Susan J J Logtenberg; Martijn J H Leegte; Henk J G Bilo; Sigrid M Mohnen; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen; Marc H Hemmelder; G Ardine de Wit; Kitty J Jager; Vianda S Stel Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Sarah Elshahat; Paul Cockwell; Alexander P Maxwell; Matthew Griffin; Timothy O'Brien; Ciaran O'Neill Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240