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

Recent Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policies have used dialysis facility practice variation to develop public ratings and adjust payments. In the Dialysis Facility Compare star rating system (DFC SRS), facility-relative rates of performance-based clinical measures varied nearly two-fold for mortality (standardized mortality ratio; 10th/90th percentiles: 0.71, 1.34) and hospitalization (standardized hospitalization ratio; 10th/90th percentiles: 0.64, 1.37), and nearly four-fold for transfusion (standardized transfusion ratio; 10th/90th percentiles: 0.43, 1.65). Medicare claims data (from July of 2014) demonstrate that facility variation for the proportions of patients on hemodialysis hospitalized (10th/90th percentiles: 27%, 50%) and transfused (10th/90th percentiles: 3%, 17%) within 6 months that far exceeds relatively modest recent overall longitudinal trends. DFC SRS-rated facility variation is also substantial for fistula (10th/90th percentiles: 50%, 78%) and catheter use >90 days (10th/90th percentiles: 3%, 19%). By contrast, DFC SRS-rated facility distributions for adult hemodialysis Kt/V>1.2 (10th/90th percentiles: 84%, 97%) and total serum calcium >10.2 mg/dl (median, 1%; 75th/90th percentiles: 3%, 5%) are quite narrow and may be of questionable value. Likewise, variation in the US Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study is over two-fold for facility median serum parathyroid hormone (10th/90th percentiles: 290 pg/ml, 629 pg/ml) and ferritin (10th/90th percentiles: 469 ng/ml, 1143 ng/ml) levels, and facility mean treatment time varies by 30 minutes (10th/90th percentiles: 204 minutes, 234 minutes). Rising serum parathyroid hormone and ferritin levels, and generally short dialysis treatment time, represent areas unchecked by existing policy; both overall trends and facility variation in these values may reflect unintended consequences of policy or reimbursement pressures and therefore raise concern. Additionally, outcomes in the transition period from advanced CKD to dialysis remain poor, and policy initiatives and performance accountability in this area remain insufficient. Innovative models of comprehensive care in advanced CKD and the early dialysis period which are more amenable to policy oversight are needed. In summary, facility variation is typically larger than prevailing longitudinal trends, and should not be overlooked. The combination of nationally representative observational databases (e.g., the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study) and ESRD registries can provide policy makers with additional tools to evaluate facility variation, develop policies, and monitor unintended effects.