Virginia Wang1,2,3, Cynthia J Coffman3,4, Linda L Sanders2, Shoou-Yih D Lee5, Richard A Hirth5, Matthew L Maciejewski6,2,3. 1. Departments of Population Health Sciences and virginia.wang@duke.edu. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Health Services Research and Development Center of Innovation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina; and. 4. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics and. 5. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Departments of Population Health Sciences and.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Peritoneal dialysis is a self-administered, home-based treatment for ESKD associated with equivalent mortality, higher quality of life, and lower costs compared with hemodialysis. In 2011, Medicare implemented a comprehensive prospective payment system that makes a single payment for all dialysis, medication, and ancillary services. We examined whether the prospective payment system increased dialysis facility provision of peritoneal dialysis services and whether changes in peritoneal dialysis provision were more common among dialysis facilities that are chain affiliated, located in nonurban areas, and in regions with high dialysis market competition. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a longitudinal retrospective cohort study of n=6433 United States nonfederal dialysis facilities before (2006-2010) and after (2011-2013) the prospective payment system using data from the US Renal Data System, Medicare, and Area Health Resource Files. The outcomes of interest were a dichotomous indicator of peritoneal dialysis service availability and a discrete count variable of dialysis facility peritoneal dialysis program size defined as the annual number of patients on peritoneal dialysis in a facility. We used general estimating equation models to examine changes in peritoneal dialysis service offerings and peritoneal dialysis program size by a pre- versus post-prospective payment system effect and whether changes differed by chain affiliation, urban location, facility size, or market competition, adjusting for 1-year lagged facility-, patient with ESKD-, and region-level demographic characteristics. RESULTS: We found a modest increase in observed facility provision of peritoneal dialysis and peritoneal dialysis program size after the prospective payment system (36% and 5.7 patients in 2006 to 42% and 6.9 patients in 2013, respectively). There was a positive association of the prospective payment system with peritoneal dialysis provision (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.18) and PD program size (incidence rate ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 1.33). Post-prospective payment system change in peritoneal dialysis provision was greater among nonurban (P<0.001), chain-affiliated (P=0.002), and larger-sized facilities (P<0.001), and there were higher rates of peritoneal dialysis program size growth in nonurban facilities (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare's 2011 prospective payment system was associated with more facilities' availability of peritoneal dialysis and modest growth in facility peritoneal dialysis program size. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2018_11_19_CJASNPodcast_18_12_.mp3.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Peritoneal dialysis is a self-administered, home-based treatment for ESKD associated with equivalent mortality, higher quality of life, and lower costs compared with hemodialysis. In 2011, Medicare implemented a comprehensive prospective payment system that makes a single payment for all dialysis, medication, and ancillary services. We examined whether the prospective payment system increased dialysis facility provision of peritoneal dialysis services and whether changes in peritoneal dialysis provision were more common among dialysis facilities that are chain affiliated, located in nonurban areas, and in regions with high dialysis market competition. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a longitudinal retrospective cohort study of n=6433 United States nonfederal dialysis facilities before (2006-2010) and after (2011-2013) the prospective payment system using data from the US Renal Data System, Medicare, and Area Health Resource Files. The outcomes of interest were a dichotomous indicator of peritoneal dialysis service availability and a discrete count variable of dialysis facility peritoneal dialysis program size defined as the annual number of patients on peritoneal dialysis in a facility. We used general estimating equation models to examine changes in peritoneal dialysis service offerings and peritoneal dialysis program size by a pre- versus post-prospective payment system effect and whether changes differed by chain affiliation, urban location, facility size, or market competition, adjusting for 1-year lagged facility-, patient with ESKD-, and region-level demographic characteristics. RESULTS: We found a modest increase in observed facility provision of peritoneal dialysis and peritoneal dialysis program size after the prospective payment system (36% and 5.7 patients in 2006 to 42% and 6.9 patients in 2013, respectively). There was a positive association of the prospective payment system with peritoneal dialysis provision (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.18) and PD program size (incidence rate ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 1.33). Post-prospective payment system change in peritoneal dialysis provision was greater among nonurban (P<0.001), chain-affiliated (P=0.002), and larger-sized facilities (P<0.001), and there were higher rates of peritoneal dialysis program size growth in nonurban facilities (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare's 2011 prospective payment system was associated with more facilities' availability of peritoneal dialysis and modest growth in facility peritoneal dialysis program size. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2018_11_19_CJASNPodcast_18_12_.mp3.
Authors: M Thamer; W Hwang; N E Fink; J H Sadler; S Wills; N W Levin; E B Bass; A S Levey; R Brookmeyer; N R Powe Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Thomas A Golper; Anjali B Saxena; Beth Piraino; Isaac Teitelbaum; John Burkart; Fredric O Finkelstein; Ali Abu-Alfa Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Virginia Wang; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Uptal D Patel; Bryan J Weiner; Thomas C Ricketts; Morris Weinberger Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Robert R Quinn; Janet E Hux; Matthew J Oliver; Peter C Austin; Marcello Tonelli; Andreas Laupacis Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Rajnish Mehrotra; Dulcie Kermah; Linda Fried; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Osman Khawar; Keith Norris; Allen Nissenson Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2007-09-05 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Caroline E Sloan; Abby Hoffman; Matthew L Maciejewski; Cynthia J Coffman; Justin G Trogdon; Virginia Wang Journal: JAMA Health Forum Date: 2021-11-05
Authors: Caroline E Sloan; Cynthia J Coffman; Linda L Sanders; Matthew L Maciejewski; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Richard A Hirth; Virginia Wang Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Jenny I Shen; Kevin F Erickson; Lucia Chen; Sitaram Vangala; Lynn Leng; Anuja Shah; Anjali B Saxena; Jeffrey Perl; Keith C Norris Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 10.614
Authors: Virginia Wang; Cynthia J Coffman; Linda L Sanders; Abby Hoffman; Caroline E Sloan; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Richard A Hirth; Matthew L Maciejewski Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 3.178