Virginia Wang1,2, Cynthia J Coffman1,3, Karen M Stechuchak1, Theodore S Z Berkowitz1, Paul L Hebert4,5, David Edelman1,6, Ann M O'Hare4,7, Hollis J Weidenbacher1, Matthew L Maciejewski1,8. 1. Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences and Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC. 4. Center for Health Services Research in Older Adults, Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA. 5. Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 8. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Growing demand for VA dialysis exceeds its supply and travel distances prohibit many Veterans from receiving dialysis in a VA facility, leading to increased use of dialysis from non-VA providers. This study compared utilization and hospitalization outcomes among Veterans receiving chronic dialysis in VA and non-VA settings in 2008-2013. DATA SOURCES: VA, Medicare, and national disease registry data. STUDY DESIGN: National cohort of 27,301 Veterans initiating dialysis, observed for a period of 2 years after treatment initiation. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine associations between patient characteristics and dialysis use in VA, non-VA community settings via VA Purchased Care (VA-PC), community settings via Medicare, or Dual settings. Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to compare risk of hospitalization and days spent in the hospital across dialysis settings. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Sixty-seven percent of Veterans obtained community-based dialysis exclusively via Medicare, 11 percent in the community via VA-PC, 4 percent in VA, and 18 percent in Dual settings. Financial and geographic access factors were important predictors of dialysis setting, but days spent in the hospital and risk of hospitalization did not differ meaningfully across settings. CONCLUSIONS: Most Veterans obtained dialysis in the community. Dialysis setting appeared to have little impact on risk of hospitalization among Veterans. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
OBJECTIVE: Growing demand for VA dialysis exceeds its supply and travel distances prohibit many Veterans from receiving dialysis in a VA facility, leading to increased use of dialysis from non-VA providers. This study compared utilization and hospitalization outcomes among Veterans receiving chronic dialysis in VA and non-VA settings in 2008-2013. DATA SOURCES: VA, Medicare, and national disease registry data. STUDY DESIGN: National cohort of 27,301 Veterans initiating dialysis, observed for a period of 2 years after treatment initiation. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine associations between patient characteristics and dialysis use in VA, non-VA community settings via VA Purchased Care (VA-PC), community settings via Medicare, or Dual settings. Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to compare risk of hospitalization and days spent in the hospital across dialysis settings. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Sixty-seven percent of Veterans obtained community-based dialysis exclusively via Medicare, 11 percent in the community via VA-PC, 4 percent in VA, and 18 percent in Dual settings. Financial and geographic access factors were important predictors of dialysis setting, but days spent in the hospital and risk of hospitalization did not differ meaningfully across settings. CONCLUSIONS: Most Veterans obtained dialysis in the community. Dialysis setting appeared to have little impact on risk of hospitalization among Veterans. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: Matthew L Maciejewski; Virginia Wang; James F Burgess; Chris L Bryson; Mark Perkins; Chuan-Fen Liu Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Michael J Fischer; Kevin T Stroupe; James S Kaufman; Ann M O'Hare; Margaret M Browning; Zhiping Huo; Denise M Hynes Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Chuan-Fen Liu; Willard G Manning; James F Burgess; Paul L Hebert; Chris L Bryson; John Fortney; Mark Perkins; Nancy D Sharp; Matthew L Maciejewski Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Denise M Hynes; Kristin Koelling; Kevin Stroupe; Noreen Arnold; Katherine Mallin; Min-Woong Sohn; Frances M Weaver; Larry Manheim; Linda Kok Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Darren W Holowka; Brian P Marx; Margaret A Gates; Heather J Litman; Gayatri Ranganathan; Raymond C Rosen; Terence M Keane Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2014-04-14
Authors: Virginia Wang; Cynthia J Coffman; Karen M Stechuchak; Theodore S Z Berkowitz; Paul L Hebert; David Edelman; Ann M O'Hare; Susan T Crowley; Hollis J Weidenbacher; Matthew L Maciejewski Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Virginia Wang; Shailender Swaminathan; Emily A Corneau; Matthew L Maciejewski; Amal N Trivedi; Ann M O'Hare; Vincent Mor Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 8.237