Manpreet S Mundi1, Adele Pattinson1, Megan T McMahon2, Jacob Davidson2, Ryan T Hurt1,2,3,4. 1. 1 Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 2. 2 Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. 3 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 4. 4 Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is highly prevalent and associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Studies continue to reveal significant clinical benefits with nutrition support, including improved wound healing, reduction in complications and length of stay, and mortality. Due to these benefits, the prevalence of home parenteral and enteral nutrition (HPEN) continues to increase worldwide. In the United States, given our healthcare insurance landscape, it has been very difficult to ascertain the true prevalence of HPEN. METHODS: Medicare beneficiary data for 2013 were obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Commonly used Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes were used for home enteral nutrition (HEN) and home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Data regarding number of patients and insurance providers were also obtained from 3 of the largest home infusion providers in the United States (Coram CVS, Option Care Enterprises, and BioScrip Inc). Based on the ratio of Medicare to non-Medicare billing, an estimate of HPEN prevalence was obtained. RESULTS: For 2013, there were 6778 Medicare beneficiaries for HPN and 114,287 for HEN. The ratio of Medicare to non-Medicare was 0.271 for HPN and 0.261 for HEN, leading to an estimated prevalence of 25,011 patients receiving HPN (79 per million U.S. inhabitants) and 437,882 patients receiving HEN (1385 per million U.S. inhabitants). There are an estimated 4129 pediatric patients and 20,883 adult patients receiving HPN; for HEN, 189,036 pediatric patients and 248,846 adult patients. CONCLUSION: Compared with results from 1992, the prevalence of HEN has increased dramatically, while the prevalence of HPN has declined.
BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is highly prevalent and associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Studies continue to reveal significant clinical benefits with nutrition support, including improved wound healing, reduction in complications and length of stay, and mortality. Due to these benefits, the prevalence of home parenteral and enteral nutrition (HPEN) continues to increase worldwide. In the United States, given our healthcare insurance landscape, it has been very difficult to ascertain the true prevalence of HPEN. METHODS: Medicare beneficiary data for 2013 were obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Commonly used Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes were used for home enteral nutrition (HEN) and home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Data regarding number of patients and insurance providers were also obtained from 3 of the largest home infusion providers in the United States (Coram CVS, Option Care Enterprises, and BioScrip Inc). Based on the ratio of Medicare to non-Medicare billing, an estimate of HPEN prevalence was obtained. RESULTS: For 2013, there were 6778 Medicare beneficiaries for HPN and 114,287 for HEN. The ratio of Medicare to non-Medicare was 0.271 for HPN and 0.261 for HEN, leading to an estimated prevalence of 25,011 patients receiving HPN (79 per million U.S. inhabitants) and 437,882 patients receiving HEN (1385 per million U.S. inhabitants). There are an estimated 4129 pediatric patients and 20,883 adult patients receiving HPN; for HEN, 189,036 pediatric patients and 248,846 adult patients. CONCLUSION: Compared with results from 1992, the prevalence of HEN has increased dramatically, while the prevalence of HPN has declined.
Entities:
Keywords:
enteral nutrition; health insurance reimbursement; home care agencies; home care services; home nutritional support; long-term care; parenteral nutrition; reimbursement
Authors: Bram P Raphael; Maria Jorina; Mary Gallotto; Glendalis Grullon; Meghan Dalton; Melissa Takvorian-Bené; Christina Tascione; Carolyn Rosa; Jennifer McClelland; Megan Gray; Alexis K Potemkin; Courtney Glavin; Kathleen M Gura; Margaret K Murphy; Kierrah Leger; Judith Mahoney; Jessica Kerr; Al Ozonoff; Christopher P Duggan Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Shawna Wright; Noreen Thompson; Donna Yadrich; Amanda Bruce; Jaime R M Bonar; Ryan Spaulding; Carol E Smith Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Maureen B Huhmann; Shinobu Yamamoto; Joel M Neutel; Sarah S Cohen; Juan B Ochoa Gautier Journal: Nutr Diabetes Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 5.097
Authors: Alexander Kroemer; Leonid Belyayev; Khalid Khan; Katrina Loh; Jiman Kang; Anju Duttargi; Harmeet Dhani; Mohammed Sadat; Oswaldo Aguirre; Yuriy Gusev; Krithika Bhuvaneshwar; Bhaskar Kallakury; Christopher Cosentino; Brenna Houlihan; Jamie Diaz; Sangeetha Moturi; Nada Yazigi; Stuart Kaufman; Sukanya Subramanian; Jason Hawksworth; Raffaelle Girlanda; Simon C Robson; Cal S Matsumoto; Michael Zasloff; Thomas M Fishbein Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Osman Mohamed Elfadil; Dana B Steien; Ramya Narasimhan; Saketh R Velapati; Lisa Epp; Ishani Patel; Jalpan Patel; Ryan T Hurt; Manpreet S Mundi Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Suvajyoti Guha; Alexander Herman; Luke Herbertson; Mark J Antonino; Joshua S Silverstein; Jeffrey Cooper; Matthew R Myers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 3.240