Kevin F Erickson1, Wolfgang C Winkelmayer2, Glenn M Chertow3, Jay Bhattacharya4. 1. Section of Nephrology, Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. Electronic address: kevin.erickson@bcm.edu. 2. Section of Nephrology, Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 3. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA. 4. Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2004, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services changed reimbursement for physicians and advanced practitioners caring for patients receiving hemodialysis from a capitated to a tiered fee-for-service system, encouraging increased face-to-face visits. This early version of a pay-for-performance initiative targeted a care process: more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis. Although more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis are associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations, it is unknown whether encouraging more frequent visits through reimbursement policy also yielded these benefits. STUDY DESIGN: We used a retrospective cohort interrupted time-series study design to examine whether the 2004 nephrologist reimbursement reform led to reduced hospitalizations and rehospitalizations. We also used published data to estimate a range of annual economic costs associated with more frequent visits. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries in the United States receiving hemodialysis in the 2 years prior to and following reimbursement reform. PREDICTOR: The 2 years following nephrologist reimbursement reform. OUTCOMES: Odds of hospitalization and 30-day hospital readmission for all causes and fluid overload; US dollars. RESULTS: We found no significant change in all-cause hospitalization or rehospitalization and slight reductions in fluid overload hospitalization and rehospitalization following reimbursement reform; the estimated economic cost associated with additional visits ranged from $13 to $87 million per year, depending on who (physicians or advanced practitioners) spent additional time visiting patients and how much additional effort was involved. LIMITATIONS: Due to limited information about how much additional time providers spent seeing patients after reimbursement reform, we could only examine a range of potential economic costs associated with the reform. CONCLUSIONS: A Medicare reimbursement policy designed to encourage more frequent visits during outpatient hemodialysis may have been costly. The policy was associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations for fluid overload, but had no effect on all-cause hospitalizations or rehospitalizations.
BACKGROUND: In 2004, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services changed reimbursement for physicians and advanced practitioners caring for patients receiving hemodialysis from a capitated to a tiered fee-for-service system, encouraging increased face-to-face visits. This early version of a pay-for-performance initiative targeted a care process: more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis. Although more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis are associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations, it is unknown whether encouraging more frequent visits through reimbursement policy also yielded these benefits. STUDY DESIGN: We used a retrospective cohort interrupted time-series study design to examine whether the 2004 nephrologist reimbursement reform led to reduced hospitalizations and rehospitalizations. We also used published data to estimate a range of annual economic costs associated with more frequent visits. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries in the United States receiving hemodialysis in the 2 years prior to and following reimbursement reform. PREDICTOR: The 2 years following nephrologist reimbursement reform. OUTCOMES: Odds of hospitalization and 30-day hospital readmission for all causes and fluid overload; US dollars. RESULTS: We found no significant change in all-cause hospitalization or rehospitalization and slight reductions in fluid overload hospitalization and rehospitalization following reimbursement reform; the estimated economic cost associated with additional visits ranged from $13 to $87 million per year, depending on who (physicians or advanced practitioners) spent additional time visiting patients and how much additional effort was involved. LIMITATIONS: Due to limited information about how much additional time providers spent seeing patients after reimbursement reform, we could only examine a range of potential economic costs associated with the reform. CONCLUSIONS: A Medicare reimbursement policy designed to encourage more frequent visits during outpatient hemodialysis may have been costly. The policy was associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations for fluid overload, but had no effect on all-cause hospitalizations or rehospitalizations.
Authors: Allan J Collins; Robert N Foley; Blanche Chavers; David Gilbertson; Charles Herzog; Kirsten Johansen; Bertram Kasiske; Nancy Kutner; Jiannong Liu; Wendy St Peter; Haifeng Guo; Sally Gustafson; Brooke Heubner; Kenneth Lamb; Shuling Li; Suying Li; Yi Peng; Yang Qiu; Tricia Roberts; Melissa Skeans; Jon Snyder; Craig Solid; Bryn Thompson; Changchun Wang; Eric Weinhandl; David Zaun; Cheryl Arko; Shu-Cheng Chen; Frank Daniels; James Ebben; Eric Frazier; Christopher Hanzlik; Roger Johnson; Daniel Sheets; Xinyue Wang; Beth Forrest; Edward Constantini; Susan Everson; Paul Eggers; Lawrence Agodoa Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Kevin F Erickson; Kelvin B Tan; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Glenn M Chertow; Jay Bhattacharya Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Kevin F Erickson; Matthew Mell; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Glenn M Chertow; Jay Bhattacharya Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Evelyn K Mentari; Peter B DeOreo; Andrew S O'Connor; Thomas E Love; Edmond S Ricanati; Ashwini R Sehgal Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Takehiko Kawaguchi; Angelo Karaboyas; Bruce M Robinson; Yun Li; Shunichi Fukuhara; Brian A Bieber; Hugh C Rayner; Vittorio E Andreucci; Ronald L Pisoni; Friedrich K Port; Hal Morgenstern; Tadao Akizawa; Rajiv Saran Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Kevin T Harley; Elani Streja; Connie M Rhee; Miklos Z Molnar; Csaba P Kovesdy; Alpesh N Amin; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Seth W Glickman; Fang-Shu Ou; Elizabeth R DeLong; Matthew T Roe; Barbara L Lytle; Jyotsna Mulgund; John S Rumsfeld; W Brian Gibler; E Magnus Ohman; Kevin A Schulman; Eric D Peterson Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-06-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Aaron J Trachtenberg; Amity E Quinn; Zhihai Ma; Scott Klarenbach; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Marcello Tonelli; Peter Faris; Robert Weaver; Flora Au; Jianguo Zhang; Braden Manns Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-02-18
Authors: Brian M Brady; Bo Zhao; Bich N Dang; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Glenn M Chertow; Kevin F Erickson Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 10.614
Authors: Ladan Golestaneh; Michal Melamed; Ryung S Kim; Jennifer St Clair Russell; Michele Heisler; Lisandra Villalba; Taylor Perry; Kerri L Cavanaugh Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Amber O Molnar; Louise Moist; Scott Klarenbach; Jean-Philippe Lafrance; S Joseph Kim; Karthik Tennankore; Jeffrey Perl; Joanne Kappel; Michael Terner; Jagbir Gill; Manish M Sood Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2018-06-01