Matthew Nickel1, Wes Rideout1, Nikhil Shah1, Frances Reintjes1, Justin Z Chen1, Robert Burrell1, Robert P Pauly1. 1. Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering (Nickel, Burrell), University of Alberta; Northern Alberta Renal Program (Rideout, Reintjes, Pauly), Alberta Health Services; Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine (Shah, Pauly), University of Alberta; Department of Medicine (Chen), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home hemodialysis is associated with lower costs to the health care system compared with conventional facility-based hemodialysis because of lower staffing and overhead costs, and by transferring the treatment cost of utilities (water and power) to the patient. The purpose of this study was to determine the utility costs of home hemodialysis and create a formula such that patients and renal programs can estimate the annual patient-borne costs involved with this type of treatment. METHODS: Seven common combinations of treatment duration and dialysate flows were replicated 5 times using various combinations of home hemodialysis and reverse osmosis machines. Real-time utility (electricity and water) consumption was monitored during these simulations. A generic formula was developed to allow patients and programs to calculate a more precise estimate of utility costs based on individual combinations of dialysis intensity, frequency and utility costs unique to any patient. RESULTS: Using typical 2014 utility costs for Edmonton, the most expensive prescription was for nocturnal home hemodialysis (8 h at 300 mL/min, 6 d/wk), which resulted in a utility cost of $1269 per year; the least expensive prescription was for conventional home hemodialysis (4 h at 500 mL/min, 3 d/wk), which cost $420 per year. Water consumption makes up most of this expense, with electricity accounting for only 12% of the cost. INTERPRETATION: We show that a substantial cost burden is transferred to the patient on home hemodialysis, which would otherwise be borne by the renal program.
BACKGROUND: Home hemodialysis is associated with lower costs to the health care system compared with conventional facility-based hemodialysis because of lower staffing and overhead costs, and by transferring the treatment cost of utilities (water and power) to the patient. The purpose of this study was to determine the utility costs of home hemodialysis and create a formula such that patients and renal programs can estimate the annual patient-borne costs involved with this type of treatment. METHODS: Seven common combinations of treatment duration and dialysate flows were replicated 5 times using various combinations of home hemodialysis and reverse osmosis machines. Real-time utility (electricity and water) consumption was monitored during these simulations. A generic formula was developed to allow patients and programs to calculate a more precise estimate of utility costs based on individual combinations of dialysis intensity, frequency and utility costs unique to any patient. RESULTS: Using typical 2014 utility costs for Edmonton, the most expensive prescription was for nocturnal home hemodialysis (8 h at 300 mL/min, 6 d/wk), which resulted in a utility cost of $1269 per year; the least expensive prescription was for conventional home hemodialysis (4 h at 500 mL/min, 3 d/wk), which cost $420 per year. Water consumption makes up most of this expense, with electricity accounting for only 12% of the cost. INTERPRETATION: We show that a substantial cost burden is transferred to the patient on home hemodialysis, which would otherwise be borne by the renal program.
Authors: Eric D Weinhandl; Jiannong Liu; David T Gilbertson; Thomas J Arneson; Allan J Collins Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Rita S Suri; Gihad E Nesrallah; Rahul Mainra; Amit X Garg; Robert M Lindsay; Tom Greene; John T Daugirdas Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2005-11-16 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Gihad E Nesrallah; Robert M Lindsay; Meaghan S Cuerden; Amit X Garg; Friedrich Port; Peter C Austin; Louise M Moist; Andreas Pierratos; Christopher T Chan; Deborah Zimmerman; Robert S Lockridge; Cécile Couchoud; Charles Chazot; Norma Ofsthun; Adeera Levin; Michael Copland; Mark Courtney; Andrew Steele; Philip A McFarlane; Denis F Geary; Robert P Pauly; Paul Komenda; Rita S Suri Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Paul Komenda; Michael Copland; Jay Makwana; Ogdjenka Djurdjev; Manish M Sood; Adeera Levin Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Andrew Kroeker; William F Clark; A Paul Heidenheim; Louise Kuenzig; Rosemary Leitch; Michael Meyette; Norman Muirhead; Heather Ryan; Randy Welch; Sharon White; Robert M Lindsay Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Scott Klarenbach; Marcello Tonelli; Robert Pauly; Michael Walsh; Bruce Culleton; Helen So; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Braden Manns Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Ryan J Bamforth; Alain Beaudry; Thomas W Ferguson; Claudio Rigatto; Navdeep Tangri; Clara Bohm; Paul Komenda Journal: Kidney Med Date: 2021-07-07
Authors: Rianne W de Jong; Vianda S Stel; Axel Rahmel; Mark Murphy; Raymond C Vanholder; Ziad A Massy; Kitty J Jager Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 5.992